Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Ps, Bengaluru ... vs M.Ramachandra on 8 November, 2024
1 Spl.C.No.55/2020
KABC010024822020
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-48)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024
PRESENT
Sri Satish J.Bali, B.Com., LL.M.,
XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge
for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48)
SPL.CC.NO.55/2020
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka
Karnataka lokayuktha PS,
Bengaluru Rural District
(By Sri SSN, Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. M. Ramachandra
S/o. Late. Muddaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
Former Excise Sub-Inspector,
City Market Range,
Bengaluru,
R/at. Flat No.1, Lake View
Apartment, No.37/6, 1st Floor,
Padmanabhanagar,
Tata Silk Farm,
Opposite Yadiyur Lake,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
(By Sri RNN, Advocate)
2 Spl.C.No.55/2020
1.Date of Commission of Offence : 01/07/1977 to
08/07/2009
2. Date of Report of Offence : 07/07/2009
3. Arrest of Accused : Accused is on bail
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. D.T.Srinivas
5. Date of recording of Evidence : 17/03/2015
6. Date of closing Evidence : 25/01/2023
7. Offences complained of : Sec.13(1)(e) R/w
Sec.13(2) of the
Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
8. Opinion of the Judge : As per the final order
(Satish J. Bali)
XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru (CCH-48)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore has filed this charge- sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3 Spl.C.No.55/2020
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The accused was appointed as a Guard on 1/7/1977 in the Department of Karnataka State Excise and continued in the same designation till 8/5/2001 and from 9/5/2001, he was promoted as an Excise Inspector till 8/7/2009. It is the specific case of the prosecution that during the above said check period, i,e 01/07/1977 to 08/07/2009 the accused amassed wealth of Rs.2,12,65,501/- as against his known source of income of Rs.1,04,93,017/- for which the accused did not satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources for the properties acquired by him which is disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of 171%.
It is also the case of the prosecution that the raid was conducted on 8/7/2009 at Flat No.1, G.R.Lake View situated in sy.no. 36/1, Tata Silk Farm, near Yediyuru Lake, Basavanagudi and also at sy.no. 153 of Hatna village, Bellur hobli, 4 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Nagamangala taluk, Mandya District in the farm house and also at the office where the accused was discharging his duties i.e., Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, 3 rd floor, Market, J.C.Road, Bengaluru on 9/7/2009. The Investigating Officer after collecting the source report and as accused did not satisfactorily answered as regards his income, after holding detailed investigation, prima-facie found materials to initiate proceedings against the accused and after conclusion of investigation, filed final report for the aforesaid offenses.
It is pertinent to note that the accused meanwhile in an departmental enquiry bearing No.ECE/BNG/3/DSC/1/2008 dated 9/8/2010 was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement as charges for impersonation were proved against him in the Accounts Higher Exam of the Department vide Ex P5. At the time of filing charge-sheet as the accused was not a public servant, sanction for 5 Spl.C.No.55/2020 prosecution was not obtained and charge-sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences.
3. After hearing both the sides, my predecessor in office has framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was read over to the accused in Kannada, the language known to him and having understood the same,accused did not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried. Hence the case was set down for trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 53 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.53 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P559, and closed its side.
5. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution read over to the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.PC., and accused denied the same, and chosen to lead evidence. On behalf of the 6 Spl.C.No.55/2020 accused,three witness DW.1 to DW.3 were examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 got marked.
6. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for the accused. The learned Special Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for the accused have filed written arguments and also the chart showing the calculation of disproportionate assets of the accused.
7. The learned counsel for the accused has pressed into service the following decisions in support of his contentions.
1. 1981 (3) SCC 199 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidlwar.
2. 1992 (4) SCC Page 45 - M. Krishnareddy Vs. State by Dy.S.P. Hyderabad.
3. 2011 (4) SCC 402 - Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim.
4. 1973 SCC Online Orissa 136 -
Hemanth Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa.
5. 2015 (14) SCC 505 - Kedarilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
7 Spl.C.No.55/2020
6. 2006 (1) SCC 420 - DSP Chennai Vs. Inbasagaran.
7. 1977 (1) SCC 816 - Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
8. 1994 SCC Online ORI 300 - Janaki Ballabh Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa.
9. 1963 SCC Online SC 48 - Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
8. The following points arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused being a public servant as Excise Guard and Excise Inspector during the check period from 1/7/1997 to 8/7/2009 amassed and possessed wealth to the extent of Rs.2,83,94,452-00 including his expenditures and assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income of Rs.1,04,93,017- 00 which is disproportionate to the extent of 171% and thereby the accused has committed criminal 8 Spl.C.No.55/2020 misconduct and also offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What Order ?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative; Point No.2: As per final order; for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: The accused has filed the Chart showing the disputed and admitted assets, income and expenditure on 15/4/2024 and on 16/10/2024. The following are the assets which are not disputed by the accused.
Sl. Description of Properties Value
No. (Rs)
1. The property bearing katha No.179, 2,57,784-00
Site No.1 situated at
Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri Hobli measuring 65+16/2 X 40 feet.
2. The property bearing V.P. katha 2,42,944-00 No.179, site n o.1 situated at Halage vaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli measuring 60+53/2 X 40 feet
3. Bank balance in account bearing 4,283-00 9 Spl.C.No.55/2020 No.11896 of Shamrao Vittal Co-
operative Bank standing in the name of accused.
4. Bank balance in the name of accused 922-00 at account No.11820 Indian Bank, Chamarajpet Branch
5. Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration 6,25,429-00 No. KA 05 MG 1567 purchased by the accused during the year 2009
6. Vijay Scooter purchased by the 3,000-00 accused in the year 2001
7. Kisan Vikas Patra purchased by the 7,29,000-00 accused as shown in sl.no. 1 to 88 of item no. VIII of statement -B.
8. Family Bond taken by the accused in 10,000-00 the name of his daughter Kavita
9. LIC Policy taken by the accused in his 6,79,989-00 name at Kunigal Branch and in the name of Kamalamma and Roshani
10. LIC policy bearing No. 614521133 2,08,470-00 taken at N.R.Square in the name of the accused.
11. Policy taken at ICICI Prudential Life 80,914-00 bearing No. 00080610
12. Policy taken by the accused in the 78,948-00 name of his second wife Smt.Kamalamma.
DISPUTED PROPERTIES:
HOUSE PROPERTY NO 880 OF VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU
11. The Investigating Officer in the charge- sheet has shown the property bearing No. 880 10 Spl.C.No.55/2020
situated at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru amounting to Rs.1,43,393/- as asset of the accused on the ground that in the year 1987-88 the first floor of the building and second floor of the outhouse was constructed and the said properties were shown as joint family properties in which the share of the accused is 1/3rd and the accused in his income tax returns has declared the total value of the building as Rs.4,30,180/- and has shown 1/3rd of the same as his share amounting to Rs.1,43,393/-. The Investigating Officer has taken 1/3rd of the share of the accused as he declared the same in his income tax returns.
12. The learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments submitted that the accused has not invested any amount in the above said property which is his ancestral property and prosecution has not produced any document as to the said property belonging to the accused and on 11 Spl.C.No.55/2020 imaginary basis, the IO has shown its valuation as Rs.1,43,393/-.
13. In this connection the prosecution has got marked certified copy of the Sale Deed pertaining to the above said property at Ex.P64 and Encumbrance Certificate at Ex.P65 which reveals that the father of the accused by name late Muddaiah has purchased open site bearing No.880 measuring 30 X 51 feet situated at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru from Venkat and his sons by name Ramaiah and Mariyappa for valuable consideration of Rs.4,000/- on 10/7/1969.
14. The prosecution has also got marked Encumbrance Certificates of said property as per Ex.P65, Ex.P66, mortgage deed as per Ex.P69 and also release deed as per Ex.P70. The perusal of Ex.P69 reveals that during lifetime of father of the accused, he himself, accused and one of his brother M.Nagaraj jointly executed the registered mortgage deed in favour of Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru and availed loan of 12 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Rs.15,000/- in order to construct the house in the said property. Ex.P70 reveals that after repayment of the said loan, the above said mortgage was released.
15. The prosecution has got examined the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Bengaluru as PW.10 who has valued and issued valuation report of the said building as per Ex.P72. In the cross- examination, PW.10 has deposed to the effect that the building in the said site was constructed at different levels and in Ex.P72, it has been shown which floor was constructed in a particular year. He further deposed that on the basis of guidelines value available at the office of Sub Registrar of the relevant year, he has prepared Ex.P72. In the cross examination a suggestion was put to PW.10 that if said construction was carried out under the super vision of the owner himself by purchasing materials on wholesale basis, there are every chance of reduction in the cost of the construction. The perusal of Ex.P72 valuation report reveals that the 13 Spl.C.No.55/2020 ground floor in site no.880 of Vijayanagar was constructed in the year 1978-79 and the same was valued at Rs 4,39,557/-. The construction of the first floor of the out house was undertook in the year 1987-88 and the same was valued at Rs.1,14,475/-. Further, the said valuation report reveals that the second floor of main building was constructed during 1987-88 and the cost of the construction was shown as Rs.3,41,601. Further, it also reveals that the backside of second floor was constructed during 1987-88 and the same was valued at Rs.88,579/-. The total cost of the building was valued at Rs.9,84,212/-. The perusal of the valuation report also reveals that a depreciation was deducted considering the year of construction at different levels. After deducting the said depreciation in respect of all the floors and also outhouse PW.10 has valued entire building at Rs.9,84,212/-. Though a suggestion was put to PW.10 that if construction is undertaken under the supervision of the owner 14 Spl.C.No.55/2020 himself by purchasing materials on wholesale basis, the cost of construction will be reduced, but to substantiate the same, the accused has not produced any material nor led any contra evidence. PW.10 has deposed that he has not taken into account the valuation of building which was constructed in the year 1978-79.
16. The accused by examining DW.3 who is his brother tried to prove before the court that the said construction was made by his mother by availing loan from the Bank. But, in the cross-examination, DW.2 has specifically admitted that there are no documents to that effect. Moreover, the accused has not produced any documents to show that by availing loan his mother constructed the building over the above said property. In the absence of any contra materials, the valuation submitted by the PW.10 is to be accepted as he has valued the said property by taking into guideline value prevailed during the year of construction and also by deducting the depreciation. In the cross- examination, the Investigating Officer PW.52 at page no.88 has stated that PW.10 has valued the building 15 Spl.C.No.55/2020 by considering the cost of construction as on the date of construction. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 and PW.52 makes it very clear that proper valuation was made of the building situated in site no.880 of Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
17. The Investigating Officer in his final report and in the schedule has taken the total value of the building which was constructed during 1987-88 as Rs.4,30,180/- and based upon the income tax returns submitted by the accused during the investigation in which he has shown 1/3rd share in the rent has valued the entire building at Rs.1,43,393/- by taking 1/3rd share of the accused.
18. It is pertinent to note that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the Death Certificate of father of the accused Muddaiah and same is got marked as per Ex.P516 which reveals that he died on 10/11/1981. As per the valuation report submitted by PW.10, the first and second floor of main building and first floor of 16 Spl.C.No.55/2020 outhouse were constructed during the year 1987-88. Hence, it makes very clear that after the death of father of the accused, the above said constructions were took place. Now the question which arises before the court is to ascertain the value of the said building in order to calculate its value.
19. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer has taken into account the cost of construction of second floor backside and also second floor of the main building which comes to Rs.4,30,180/- [Rs.3,41,601 + Rs.88,579/-], but it is to be noted that the Investigating Officer has not taken into account the cost of construction of first floor which was undertaken during 1987-88 to the tune of Rs.1,14,475/-. If same is added, it comes to Rs.5,44,655/-.
20. The Investigating Officer in Statement-B at sl.no.1 has valued the said property at Rs.1,43,393/- on the ground that the accused has declared 1/3rd rental income of the said property. In 17 Spl.C.No.55/2020 this regard, the prosecution has got marked documents at Ex.P46 to Ex.P52 which are annual property returns (APR) submitted by the accused from the year 2001-2002 to 2008-2009 covering the check period. Further, the prosecution has also got marked Ex.P64 to Ex.P66 which are sale deed and encumbrance certificate pertaining to the said property which reveals that on 10/7/1969 the father of the accused deceased Muddaiah purchased the said property for valuable consideration of Rs.4,000/-. Since the accused himself has declared the above said property as a property belonging to joint family vide the above said annual property returns from the year 2001-02 to 2008-09, the prosecution has proved that the said property is an asset of the accused. In the above said annual property returns, the accused has valued the said property as Rs.15,00,000/- but same cannot be accepted as a gospel truth in the absence of any records. In this regard, the evidence of PW.10 and 18 Spl.C.No.55/2020 PW.55 Investigating Officer is vital. PW.10 who is Assistant Executive Engineer - PWD, Bengaluru by considering the specified value of the concerned authority has valued the said property at Rs.9,84,212/- as per Ex.P72. The Investigating Officer has not considered the first floor front portion which was constructed in the year 1987-88 the value of which is arrived at Rs.1,14,475/-. If the valuation of first floor front portion, second floor backside and first floor of building is taken into account, it comes to Rs.5,44,655/- (i.e., Rs.1,14,475/- + Rs.3,41,601/- + Rs.88,579/-). As per annual property returns discussed supra, the accused himself has declared that his one of the brother is having half share in the said property. Hence, if same is considered, it comes to Rs.2,72,327.50 towards the share of the accused. The accused in an answer to question no 235 during the course of his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he has constructed the said building and same has been shown as joint family in 19 Spl.C.No.55/2020 his Annual property returns. The Investigating Officer by relying upon the income tax returns of the accused, has valued the said property as Rs.1,43,393/-. But, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter between State of Karnataka v. Selvi J.Jayalalitha and others reported in (2017) 6 SCC 263, wherein it is held as under:
"54. "The income tax returns are not binding on a criminal court and at best, only are relevant and always subject to its independent appraisal on merits".
21. In view of above said dictum of law, the income tax returns have no evidenciary value in the matter of disproportionate asset case. Hence, by valuing the said property as Rs.1,43,393/-based om income Tax returns, the Investigating Officer has committed an error. Hence, by the above said discussion, this court has come to conclusion that the value of the above said asset i.e., property bearing No.880 situated in 4th Main, Vijayanagar, 20 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Bengaluru is arrived at Rs.2,72,327.50 and considered as an asset of the accused. PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO. 337 SITUATED AT JAYASURYA NAGAR, I PHASE, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU MEASURING 40+49/2X30.
22. As per the Investigating Officer PW.52, the above said property belonging to the accused. On the other hand, it is the contention of the accused that the daughter of the accused by name Yurekha was enrolled as a member of Lokaseva Gruha Sahakara Niyamitha Ltd., Udyana Nilaya, Bengaluru in the year 2004 and paid the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- periodically from her account out of income of Kwality Wines. Hence, it is the exclusive property of daughter of the accused.
23. In this regard the prosecution has got marked the Sale Deed of the said property as per Ex.P115, Encumbrance Certificate as per Ex.P116. The said documents reveals that the daughter of the accused has purchased the above said property on 21 Spl.C.No.55/2020 14/12/2010 for valuable consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The prosecution in order to prove the said documents has got examined Secretary of the above said housing society as PW.27. He deposed that in response to the letter dated 12/7/2012 marked at Ex.P2 to Ex.P5, he replied it on 20/7/2012 as per Ex.P26 and has furnished details of payment for purchase of the above said property by Smt. Yurekha as per Ex.P227, her membership application as per Ex.P228 and application for allotment of the site as per Ex.P229. In the cross- examination, this witness has admitted that Smt.Yurekha has paid membership fee of Rs.1,105/- and has paid the amount as shown in Ex.P227 by way of cheques totaling to Rs.6,00,000/-. The perusal of Ex.P228 which is membership application of Yurekha reveals that on 19/7/2004, she applied for membership of the housing society and as per Ex.P229, she applied for allotment of the site measuring 30 X 40 feet. Ex.P230 the allotment 22 Spl.C.No.55/2020 letter reveals that a site measuring 1397.25 square meters bearing No. 337 was allotted to Smt.Yurekha. Further Ex.P227 reveals that by way of cheques mentioned therein, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid and excess amount of Rs.41,000/- was returned to Yurekha.
24. As the accused has disputed that the above said property does not belonged to him and contended that it is purchased by his daughter Yurekha out of income from Kwality Wines business, it is necessary to discuss the evidence on the said aspect. The prosecution through Joint Director of Excise as PW.24 has got marked Ex.P182 to Ex.P203 with regard to the above said liquor business. PW.24 has got marked the order of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru dated 28/6/2001 transferring the liquor license CL-2 in the name of Yurekha from one S.P.Gopal who was examined as PW.25. The said document reveals that on 28/6/2001, said license was transferred in the 23 Spl.C.No.55/2020 name of Yurekha. The said license is marked as Ex.P189. Ex.P190 is a proceeding of Excise Commissioner, Bengaluru sanctioning permission to transfer the license in the name of Yurekha. Ex.P191 is affidavit sworn in by Yurekha as to her date of birth in which she declared her date of birth as 20/5/1982 based on entry in the note book maintained by her parents at the time of her birth. Ex.P192 to Ex.P203 are proceedings of Excise Commissioner, Bengaluru as to transfer of license in the name of Yurekha. PW.52 in his evidence deposed that the said license was obtained by Yurekha when she was minor and a license fee and also the capital investment was sponsored by the accused out of his ill-gotten money. The prosecution has got marked income tax returns of Yurekha and profit and loss account of Kwality Wines as per Ex.P162 and Ex.P163. In the said documents, the date of birth of the Yurekha is mentioned as 1/1/1984. Same is reflected in PAN card of Yurekha 24 Spl.C.No.55/2020 and also in the account opening form of Shamrao Vittal co-operative bank Ltd., Bengaluru. From the said admitted records, it can be safely come to the conclusion that Yurekha was born on 1/1/1984 and not on 20/5/1982 as declared by her in Ex.P191. Therefore, by wrong declaration as to date of birth of the daughter of the accused obtained CL-2 license in her name when she was minor. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote Rule 4-B (1) of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign liquors) Rules 1968.
"[4-B. Disqualification. - (1) A person shall be disqualified from submitting an application for obtaining or renewal of licence under these rules if he. -
(i) xxxx;
(ii) xxxx
(iii) xxxx
(iv) is a minor or an undischarged
insolvent or is of unsound mind;
(v) xxxx"25 Spl.C.No.55/2020
25. In view of above said rules, the daughter of accused is disqualified from obtaining license as she was minor at that time.
26. It is pertinent to note that, the prosecution has got marked the statement of account of Yurekha opened with Shamrao Vittal Co- operative Bank Ltd., which could be seen from Ex.P213 to Ex.P215. The accused has also opened account with Indian Bank when she was minor with SB Account No.1249 which could be seen from Ex.P253 and Ex.P254. On perusal of the above said documents, it is quite clear that the accused was operating the said account.
27. When Ex.P215 the statement of account of Bengaluru Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., pertaining to the daughter of the accused Yurekha is carefully perused, it is quite clear that the payments mentioned in Ex.P227 are made through the said account in respect of above said property. The entries in the said statement of account dated 26 Spl.C.No.55/2020 21/7/2004, 27/10/2004 are pertaining to the said account. Further the statement of account of Yurekha held with Indian Bank marked as Ex.P256 and Ex.P257 bearing SB account No. 12494 which was subsequently changed as account No. 465879864 reveals that on 10/6/2005, 21/12/2005, 24/8/2006 and 22/12/2006, a sum of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- was transferred to the above said Lokaseva Housing Society. Apart from it, in the income tax returns, balance sheet and profit and loss account of Kwality Wines which are marked as Ex.P162 and Ex.P163 which are for the year 2007- 08, 2009-10 reveals that said property has been shown in the balance sheet of the firm. Hence, when the said documents are read together it is quite clear that the said property was purchased by daughter of the accused Yurekha out of the income from Kwality Wines.27 Spl.C.No.55/2020
28. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has invested a capital in the name of his daughter in order to start Kwality Wines. In this regard, the accused has got examined one Mr. Venkatesh M.C. s/o Chikka Venkataiah as DW.2 who deposed that, one Chikkamma was the mother in-law of the accused who had a daughter by name Sharada who is none other than wife of the accused. She had two daughters by name Yurekha and Kavitha. Smt. Sharada died in an accident. After the death of Sharada, Yurekha and Kavitha started to reside with their grand mother Smt. Chikkamma as there were nobody to look after them. When Chikkamma intended to secure future of Yurekha, DW.2 proposed Chikkamma to purchased Kwality Wines which was for sale. He further deposed that, the said Wine shop was purchased for a sum of Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2 lakh and in connection with the said transaction, he affixed the signature on the general power of attorney. It is not in dispute that the first 28 Spl.C.No.55/2020 wife of the accused Sharada died in an accident in the year 2001 and in the year 2002 itself, the accused married Smt.H.R.Kamalamma, out of the said wedlock, a daughter by name Roshini was born. It is also not in dispute that Yurekha and Kavitha are born out of the wedlock between the accused and his first wife Smt. Sharadamma. In the cross- examination, DW.2 has stated that the above said Kwality Wines belonged to one Mr.Gopal who has been introduced to Smt. Chikkamma and the transaction took place in his presence. He deposed that at that time Chikkamma had paid Rs.2 lakh to Rs.3 lakhs as sale consideration to purchase the said liquor business to Mr. Gopal but he failed to state the quantum of rent Chikkamma used to get from her building. He denied a suggestion that said Chikkamma was not having any independent source of income in order to sponsor for purchase of Kwality Wines shop.29 Spl.C.No.55/2020
29. PW.52 in his cross-examination has not specifically admitted that after the death of Sharadamma, Yurekha and her sister resided with Smt. Chikkamma. The accused has not produced any document to show that Yurekha used to reside with Chikkamma after the death of her mother Sharadamma. Under such circumstances, it is burden on the accused to prove that Smt. Chikkamma had an independent source of income to finance for purchase of wine shop for Yurekha. The prosecution has got marked the statement of account of Chikkamma as per Ex.P260 held with Canara Bank. The said account bearing No. 1966101006418 standing jointly in the name of Chikkamma and Roopa. Admittedly the liquor license was transferred in the name of Yurekha on 28/6/2001. Hence, it is burden on the accused to prove that Chikkamma had possessed sufficient funds or source of income to purchase liquor business. The above said statement of account 30 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P260 reveals that the Chikkamma had no sufficient amount so as to purchase the above said liquor license. Only nominal sum of Rs.4,500/- was used to be credited to the said account. Therefore, from perusal of Ex.P260, it is quite clear that Chikkamma did not possess sufficient means so as to sponsor for purchase of liquor business. The accused in an answer to the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has got marked income tax returns, statement of income of Chikkamma from 31/3/1986 to 2011-12. On perusal of the said documents, thought it has been mentioned that Chikkamma was receiving rent from house property situated at Lakshmipuram and Gavipuram. But, except these self-serving statements, no documents such as title deed of the above said properties nor rental Agreements were produced by the accused. More over, the documents produced under Section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C., have no evidentiary value as the veracity or otherwise of the same are not tested in 31 Spl.C.No.55/2020 the cross-examination by the prosecution. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Criminal Appeal No. 211/2023 dated 3/3/2023 between Premchand Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete materials, it cannot be believed that Smt. Chikkamma has sponsored for the purchase of liquor license in the name of Yurekha. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any materials, it has to be come to the conclusion that accused has invested for purchase of liquor license in the name of his daughter Yurekha.
30. It is also pertinent to note that the accused at the time of purchasing the above said liquor license was holding the post of Excise Sub Inspector at Bengaluru. Hence, this circumstance makes it very clear that by taking undue advantage of his official capacity, he got purchased the liquor license in the name of his daughter Yurekha. The IO has shown a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as amount paid 32 Spl.C.No.55/2020 by the accused in order to purchase Kwality Wines and advance of Rs.50,000/- towards the said wine shop. In total a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was considered as the movable asset of the accused. The above said discussion makes it very clear that it is the accused who has invested his ill-gotten money in order to obtain license in the name of his daughter Yurekha. Therefore, the above said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be considered as asset of the accused. On the other hand, the property purchased by Yurekha bearing site No. 337 situated at Jayasuryanagar, I Phase, Yelahanka was out of the income of Kwality Wines purchased by Yurekha, as such it is treated as her exclusive property and not the asset of the accused. Hence, its value of Rs.6,00,000/- is deducted from the asset of the accused.
AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.19 OF KUTTAWADI VILLAGE, Belikere HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.33 Spl.C.No.55/2020
31. As per the prosecution, the accused has purchased the above said property in the name of her daughter Yurekha. On the other hand, it is contended that the said property was purchased by Yurekha out of income from Kwality Wines business, as such it is her exclusive property.
32. In this regard, the prosecution has got marked the Sale Deed of the said property as per Ex.P87, encumbrance certificate, as per Ex.P88 and record of rights as per Ex.P233 and Ex.P234. The perusal of the Sale Deed Ex.P87 reveals that this property was purchased by Yurekha on 12/11/2007 for valuable consideration of Rs.39,000/-. The evidence on record makes it very clear that except the income from Kwality Wines, the daughter of the accused has no other source of income. The prosecution has got marked the statements of accounts, balance sheet, income statement of Kwality Wines as per Ex.P162 and Ex.P163. The accused has also produced the said statement of 34 Spl.C.No.55/2020 account, balance sheet of Kwality Wines, in an answer to the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., In the above said documents, the purchase of the above said property by Yurekha is not shown and declared. If really, said property was purchased out of the income from Kwality Wines, same should have been reflected in the balance sheet of the firm as it was done in the case of site bearing no. 337 of Jayasuryanagar I Phase Yelahanka, Bengaluru. But, same is not the case. Even when the statement of accounts of Yurekha are carefully perused held with Indian Bank and Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank also does not reveal the passing of consideration to purchase the above said property from her accounts. Under such circumstances, only conclusion can be drawn is that the said property was purchased out of the ill-gotten money of the accused in the name of his daughter Yurekha. Therefore, the said property is considered as an asset of the accused.35 Spl.C.No.55/2020
AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO. 153 MEASURING 7.02 ACRES AND FARM HOUSE SITUATED THEREIN OF HATNA VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK IN THE NAME OF SRI MAYANNA GOWDA:
33. As per the case of the prosecution, during search on 8/7/2009 at the house of the accused, two note books were found in which the expenses for construction of building during the year 2007 was maintained. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the said note books, the reference was made to above said agricultural land and also farm house and it is mentioned that for the above said properties, the accused has invested the money.
34. In this connection, the prosecution has examined PW.13 who is the then Tahasildar of Nagamangala taluk, and he has deposed that as per the request of Lokayukta, he has furnished mutation register, record of rights as per Ex.P91 to Ex.P96 pertaining to the above said agricultural land and 36 Spl.C.No.55/2020 also genealogical tree of Mayanna Gowda as per Ex.P 99 and Ex.P103 and also genealogical tree of one Mr.Gaviyappa as per Ex.P102. In the cross-
examination, PW.13 has conceded that he has no knowledge as to how Mayanna Gowda is related to the accused.
35. The prosecution has also examined one of the witness to the sale deed of sy.no.153 marked as Ex.P106 to prove that the sale consideration mentioned therein was paid by the accused. The perusal of Ex.P106 reveals that the above said property agricultural land was purchased by Mayanna Gowda s/o Late Patel Hanume Gowda from H.Anjinappa and his sons for valuable consideration of Rs.2,12,000/- on 4/8/2004. PW.14 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and inspite of cross-examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from his mouth. On the other hand, in the cross-examination of accused, he has admitted that the consideration shown in Ex.P106 is paid by 37 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Mayanna Gowda. The prosecution has also examined the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Nagamangala Division as PW.15 in order to prove the valuation of the farm house situated in above said survey number. He has visited the said farm house and after valuation, he has furnished the valuation reports as per Ex.P110, estimation as per Ex.P.112. He has valued the said farm house at Rs.95,68,581/-. In the cross-examination, the valuation made by the PW.15 is not at all denied. But, PW.15 clearly stated that he has no knowledge as to whether Mayanna Gowda is relative of the accused. The prosecution has also examined the Sub Registrar of Belluru, Nagamangala taluk as PW.17 who has deposed that he has furnished deposit of title deeds as per Ex.P.119 and Ex.P.120. In the cross-examination, this witness has also clearly admitted that he has no knowledge as to whether Mayanna Gowda is relative of accused. Ex.P.119 reveals that it was executed by children of Mayanna 38 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Gowda in order to avail loan. The prosecution has also examined then Manager of PLD Bank, Nagamangala as PW.27 who has deposed that as per the request of Lokayukta police, he has furnished loan application form, mortgage deed, encumbrance certificate, advice cards, mutation proceedings, record of rights, statement of loan account, loan application as per Ex.P122 to Ex.P149. He has also got marked the loan account extract as per Ex.P152, Ex.P153, Ex.P155, Ex.P156 and certificate as per Ex.P154. The perusal of the above said documents especially Ex.P124 reveals that it is in respect of availment of loan for purpose of purchasing the tractor. He has admitted that persons name therein are children of Mayanna Gowda who have signed to mortgage deed. This witness has clearly admitted he has no knowledge whether Mayanna Gowda is relative of the accused. The prosecution has also got examined the then Manager of Canara Bank, Belluru Branch as PW.20 who has furnished the statement 39 Spl.C.No.55/2020 of account of Mayanna Gowda as per Ex.P160. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he has no knowledge whether Mayanna Gowda is relative of the accused. Further, the prosecution has also got examined the then ARTO of Nagamangala as PW.22 through whom the vehicle particulars standing in the name of Mayanna Gowda were got marked as per Ex.P164 to Ex.P184. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that the said vehicle is not registered in the name of Mayanna Gowda and it was registered in the name of his son B.H.Rajanna. Further, this witness also failed to state that whether Mayanna Gowda is relative of the accused. The Investigating Officer PW.52 though has deposed that the above said agricultural land and farm house is purchased by the accused in the name of Mayanna Gowda but in the cross-examination,he has clearly admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that sy.no. 153 belonged to the accused and also there are no documents to show that accused 40 Spl.C.No.55/2020 has invested the amount for the purchase and development of the said property. He also admitted that the Investigating Officer has not found any incriminating materials in regard to sy.no. 153 as against accused. The said evidence is found at Page No.85 of his cross-examination.
36. Though an effort was made by the prosecution to prove that sy.no.153 was purchased by the accused in the name of Mayanna Gowda and has constructed farm house by investing his money but none of the witnesses have deposed how Mayanna Gowda is related to the accused. Though as per statement of account of Mayanna Gowda, he is drawing pension of meager amount as retired teacher but heavy burden is casted upon the prosecution to prove that accused has purchased the said property in the name of Mayanna Gowda by investing his ill-gotten money. Unless the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the burden to prove contrary will not shift upon the accused. 41 Spl.C.No.55/2020 The above said oral as well as documentary evidence makes it very clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to connect Mayanna Gowda with the accused and also that the accused has purchased sy.no. 153 in the name of Mayanna Gowda and constructed farmhouse in it. Hence, in the absence of any concrete materials, it cannot be said that said agricultural land as well as the farm house constructed therein belongs to accused. Hence, the above said two properties are excluded from the asset of the accused.
MOVABLE ASSETS:
37. The Investigating Officer in the vehicles at sl.no.1 had shown motorcycle Honda Deo bearing No. KA01 EC 3699 valuing Rs.38,842/- as an asset of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused during the arguments submitted that the said vehicle does not belonged to the accused and same is belonging to one Mr. Girish. The seizure mahazar which is marked at Ex.P1 reveals that during the 42 Spl.C.No.55/2020 raid of the house, the above said vehicle was found in the premises of the accused. In order to show that this vehicle belongs to the accused, the prosecution has examined the then ARTO, Koramangala as PW.32 who has deposed that as per Ex.P283, a requisition was received from the Lokayukta seeking for information, and accordingly he has replied to the same letter as per Ex.P284. The 'B' Register Extract pertaining to the said vehicle is got marked as Ex.P285 and the tax paid receipts, Form No. 20, Form No.21 and temporary registration certificate and invoice are marked as Ex.P287 to Ex.P290. This witness has clearly stated that as per the above said documents, the said vehicle stands in the name of the accused. There is no cross-examination by the accused on the above said evidence of PW.32. The perusal of Ex.P283 to Ex.P290, makes it very clear that the said vehicle stands in the name of accused as could be seen from 'B' Register Extract at Ex.P285 and the tax paid receipts at Ex.P286 and Ex.P287. 43 Spl.C.No.55/2020 The Form No.20 - Ex.P288 also stands in the name of accused. The sale certificate at Ex.P289 and temporary certificate of registration, invoice as per Ex.P89 to Ex.P91 pertaining to the said vehicle stands in the name of accused. Though the learned counsel for the accused has contended that in the course of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., certain documents were furnished under Section 233 (2) of Cr.P.C., on 27/2/2024 in which at document no. 41 and 42, one Mr. K.G. Girish has stated that the said vehicle belongs to him, but to contradict Ex.P285, Ex.P289 to Ex.P291, absolutely there are no documents. The valuation arrived at by the Investigating Officer at Rs.38,840/- is excluding registration charges and road tax paid over the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.60/- + Rs.2,991/-. and the same is considered as an asset of the accused. LEASE DEPOSIT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO1, LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU;
44 Spl.C.No.55/2020
38. The prosecution has shown the lease deposit paid towards leasing of house no.1, G.R. Lake View Apartment, Tata Silk Farm, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru amounting to Rs.32,00,000/- as belonging to the accused. On the other hand, the accused has contended that the said amount was paid by his daughter Yurekha out of income from Kwality Wines, as such same cannot be considered as an asset of the accused.
39. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW.31 who is General Power of Attorney holder of owner of said property. He has deposed before the court that, as per request of Lokayukta police, he has replied to a letter as per Ex.P277 in which it is stated that the daughter of the accused is lessee of the above said property through whom the unregistered lease agreement is marked as Ex.P278, and also the xerox copies of cheques through which the lease amount was paid as Ex.P281 and Ex.P282. 45 Spl.C.No.55/2020 The perusal of Ex.P278, the lease agreement reveals that it was entered into between the daughter of the accused Yurekha and Mrs.B.Vimalarthi and Mrs. B. Sumathi Shekar. The said lease agreement was entered into for a period of 3 years with lease amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. Though as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, any lease agreement for a period exceeding 11 months is to be by way of registered document, but Ex.P.281 and Ex.P.282 the xerox copies of cheques makes it very clear that the lease amount was paid by daughter of the accused Smt. Yurekha. The statement of account of Yurekha Ex.P215 with Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, Chamarajpet reveals that the above said lease amount of Rs.32,00,000/- was paid by Yurekha through her account bearing No.17000 on 11/02/2007 and 20/12/2007. It is also pertinent to note that the above said lease agreement came into existence much prior to the raid conducted by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no 46 Spl.C.No.55/2020 possibility of creating the said lease agreement. More over, the entries in the statement of account of Yurekha makes it very clear that said amount was paid by her.
40. It is pertinent to note that, the accused has filed the calculation chart on 15/4/2024 in which it is stated that the above said lease amount of Rs.32,00,000/- is declared during the year 2009- 10 of Kwality Wines represented by Yurekha and out of the said amount, Rs.6,00,000/- was received by Kavitha and Rs.4,00,000/- was received by the accused as per his income tax returns.in the profit and loss account of the Kwality wines at Exp162 also the said amount is shown as loan availed from the accused. Therefore the said sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is to be shown as asset of the accused. In view of this admission, out of Rs.32,00,000/- of lease amount, Rs.4,00,000/- as it belongs to the accused is considered as an asset of the accused and taken into his account.
47 Spl.C.No.55/2020
BANK BALANCE:
41. As per the prosecution, the accused has opened account bearing No.11896 in his name, account no.17000 in the name of his daughter Yurekha and account bearing No. 20932 in the name of his another daughter Kavitha,at shamrao vittal co-
op bank Bengaluru and as during the check period, the above said accounts were holding balance of Rs.4,283/-, Rs.1347 and Rs.1338 respectively.
42. The prosecution in order to prove the above said accounts and balance has got examined PW.26 the Manager of Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank who has got marked the account opening form, statement of accounts standing in the name of accused, in the name of his daughter Yurekha and Kavitha as per Ex.P205 to Ex.P221. These records reveals that accused has opened SB Account bearing No. 4896 in his name and accounts bearing No.17000 and 20932 in the names of his daughters by name Yurekha and Kavitha. Though PW.26 was 48 Spl.C.No.55/2020 cross-examined, but it is not disputed that the said accounts were opened by the accused in his name and also in the names of his above said daughters. With the help of Ex.P205 to Ex.P221 and occular evidence of PW.26, the prosecution has proved that during the check period, accused, his daughters by name Yurekha and Kavitha were holding these accounts and having balance of Rs.4283/-, Rs.1,347/- and Rs.1338/-respectively. It is pertinent to note that, the account bearing No.17000 was opened when daughter of the accused by name Yurekha was minor. The said account was opened on 19/12/2001. Therefore, the total balance standing in the above said accounts amounting to Rs.6,968/- considered as asset of the accused. CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE
43. The Investigating Officer has considered the current account balalnce bearing No. 3150 of Syndicate Bank in the name of Yurekha amounting to Rs. 8,17,792/- as an asset of the accused. In this 49 Spl.C.No.55/2020 regard, the account opening form, statements of accounts were marked by the consent of the accused as per Ex.P262 to Ex.P269. The said accounts reveals that daughter of accused by name Yurekha opened a current account bearing No. 3150 at Syndicate Bank, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru on 12/4/2005 in the name of Kwality Wines and as on 8/7/2009, the said account was having balance of Rs.8,17,792/-. It is pertinent to note that the license of Kwality Wines was obtained during the minority of the daughter of the accused but as on the date of balance, the daughter of accused Yurekha was major not dependent on the accused and the statement of account Ex.P269 reveals that the said account pertains to the Kwality Wines. Therefore, she not being dependent on the accused, the said account balance has to be considered as exclusively belongs to the daughter of the accused, as such the balance available in the above said current account is to be excluded from the asset of the accused. 50 Spl.C.No.55/2020 BANK BALANCE AND FIXED DEPOSIT IN THE NAME OF SMT KAMALAMMA W/O ACCUSED
44. The Investigating Officer has considered the balance of Rs.22,160/- in account bearing No. 3069 standing in the name of Smt.Kamalamma wife of the accused, FD account bearing No. 1491, 1646 held at Andhra Bank, Rajajinagar Branch amounting to Rs.25,506/- and Rs.22,636/-respectively as an asset of the accused.
45. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution got examined PW.29 the Assistant General Manager of Andhra Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru through whom the documents at Ex.P235 to Ex.P247 were marked which are account opening form, election ID card, statement of account, Account opening application and statement of account. These documents reveals that after the marriage with the accused, Smt. Kamalamma opened the above said SB account and also kept fixed deposit . It is not in dispute that the marriage 51 Spl.C.No.55/2020 of Kamalamma with accused took place on 15/8/2001 and above said accounts were opened during the year 2006-07. It is not the defense of the accused that Smt.Kamalamma had an independent source of income. Hence, in the absence of any contra materials and evidence, it has to be come to the conclusion that the above said Bank balance and FD amounts which are kept in the name of Smt. Kamalamma by the accused. Therefore, the total of the above said SB account balance and FD amount amounting to Rs.70,302/- is considered as an asset of the accused.
46. It is also the case of the prosecution that the wife of accused Kamalamma holding account at Corporation Bank, Chamarajpet Branch, Bengaluru bearing No.01012789 and term deposit No. 60278. During the check period, the balance in the said account and deposit was Rs.29,185/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. In this regard, with the consent of the accused, the account opening form, 52 Spl.C.No.55/2020 statement of account of Corporation Bank, Chamarajpet Branch were marked as Ex.P270 to Ex.P275 which makes it very clear that after the marriage with the accused, Smt. Kamalamma opened the above said Account as well as FD account. Hence, in the absence of any contra materials, the total of the above said amount which comes to Rs.54,185/- is to be considered as an asset of the accused.
47. It is not disputed by the accused that he opened an account bearing No.11820 at Indian Bank, Chamarajpet Branch having balance during the check period of Rs.922/-. As such said amount of Rs.922/- is considered as an asset of the accused.
48. Further, it is also the case of the prosecution that the accused has opened an account bearing No.766017 with Post Office, Basavanagudi having balance of Rs.6,483/- and also opened an account bearing No. 768976, 768975 in the name of his daughter by name Yurekha and Kavitha having 53 Spl.C.No.55/2020 balance of Rs.18,069/- and Rs.11,856/-. The accused has not disputed the above said bank balance with the Post Office, Basavanagudi. Therefore, the total of Rs.6,483/- + Rs.18,069/- + Rs.11,856/- which comes to Rs.36,408/- is considered as an asset of the accused.
49. The Investigating Officer has considered a sum of Rs.1,547/- available in the SB account No.12494 in the name of Yurekha as an asset of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution has examined the Manager of Indian Bank as PW.30 through whom the statement of account and account opening form were got marked as per Ex.P249 to Ex.P257. As on 31/1/2009, there was balance of Rs.1,547/- in the name of daughter of the accused Yurekha. It is pertinent to note that the accused during minority of his daughter Yurekha, opened account bearing No.12494 in her name representing her as a minor guardian which could be seen from account opening form at Ex.P253. Hence, 54 Spl.C.No.55/2020 said balance of Rs.1,547/- is considered as an asset of the accused.
Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA51-P-1256:
50. The prosecution has contended that the above said vehicle was purchased by the accused in the name of his daughter, as such, it has to be taken into account of the asset of the accused. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is that, the said vehicle was purchased out of income from Kwality Wines by the daughter of the accused Yurekha, as such same cannot be considered as an asset of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution has got examined PW.38 the then ARTO of Electronic City, Bengaluru through whom it has got marked temporary registration certificate as Ex.P342, reply to the letter dated 6/6/2012 written by Lokayukta as per Ex.P340 and also another letter as per Ex.P340 and also another letter as per Ex.P341. The prosecution has also got marked the tax paid receipts in respect of the said vehicle as per Ex.P347 55 Spl.C.No.55/2020 and Ex.P348. The above said documents and evidence of PW.38 reveals that the said vehicle was purchased by daughter of the accused Yurekha on 7/2/2008. The prosecution has also got marked income tax returns and balance sheet, profit and loss account of Kwality Wines business as per Ex.P162 and Ex.P163 in which the above said vehicle was shown as an asset belonging to the daughter of the accused having purchased out of income of Kwality Wines. Therefore, in view of the above said evidence on record, the Santro Car bearing Registration No. KA 51-P- 1256 amounting to Rs.5,09,490/- cannot be considered as an asset of the accused so also Expenses pertaining to it.
GOLD, SILVER AND HOUSE HOLD ARTICLES
51. The Investigating Officer in the final report and charge-sheet has considered the gold weighing 445 grams amounting to Rs.3,86,342/- and silver weighing 9 KG 860 grams which was found during house search amounting to Rs.1,08,000/- as an 56 Spl.C.No.55/2020 asset of the accused. The prosecution in order to prove this fact has produced the house search mahazar dated 8/7/2009 as per Ex.P1. In the said document, there is a reference to the effect that item no.1 to 33 gold jewels weighing 1145 grams found in the house of the accused during house search . The Investigating Officer had assessed the value of the gold ornaments with the assistance of goldsmith and value was fixed at Rs.12,57,000/-.
52. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused in his APR for the year 2001-02 has shown that the father of his first wife Sharada had gifted 400 grams of gold valuing Rs.2,40,000/-, and during the year 2002-03 in the APR, it has been shown 200 grams of gold jewels was purchased by his first wife Smt.Sharada and remaining 240 grams of gold was gifted to him during second marriage with Smt.Kamalamma by her relatives and remaining 160 grams of gold was gifted to Smt.Kamalamma by her father during marriage. In 57 Spl.C.No.55/2020 respect of remaining 200 grams as the accused has declared the same in his APR as purchased by his first wife Smt.Sharada and same was not considered as an asset of the accused. In respect of remaining 245 grams of gold amounting to Rs.3,86,262/- is considered as an asset of the accused. The Investigating Officer has considered the above said aspect and has given deduction of the declared gold in the final report to the extent of 1000 grams. He has only considered the remaining gold found during house search i.e., 245 grams as an asset of the accused acquired during check period.
53. PW.1 Mr. Chandrashekaraiah s/o M.C.Siddalingaiah, FDA has spoken as to the search conducted in the house of the accused. The prosecution has also got examined the gold appraiser as PW.2 of Sai Gold Palace who has spoken as to valuation of the gold as well as silver found during the search of the accused. In the cross- examination, PW.2 has deposed that he has valued 58 Spl.C.No.55/2020 the gold and silver articles based upon the prevailing rate at the time of its purchase. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the above said gold and silver articles were received by the accused as a gift during his marriage with Kamalamma and Sharada and also during the course of marriage of his daughter Yurekha and they are customary gifts of which Court can take cognizance. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P550, the details of the marriage furnished by PW.52 reveals that the marriage of the daughter of the accused Yurekha was performed on 31/8/2008. The raid was conducted in the house of the accused on 8/7/2009. It has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.52 that the daughter of the accused was present in the house of the accused as on the date of the raid. As stated supra, her marriage was performed on 31/8/2008. Hence, her presence in the matrimonial house is not unnatural. If we consider the date of marriage, the raid was conducted nearly after one year of 59 Spl.C.No.55/2020 marriage. The accused has not disputed that the above said gold and silver articles were found in his house at the time of raid. The learned counsel for the accused has contended that the above said gold and silver articles are pertaining to the daughter of accused Smt. Yurekha but it cannot be believed that after the marriage, she did not went to house of her husband. Moreover, the source of silver and gold articles is well with in the knowledge of the accused, and burden to prove the same lies on him as per Section 106 of Evidence Act. The accused has not produced any evidence such as photographs taken during the time of marriage or has not examined any person particularly his Daughter Yurekha to prove that above said gold and silver articles were outcome of gift. It is also pertinent to note that he has not disputed the ownership and list of the properties found during the house search. Hence, it is for him to produce the documents to prove the date of purchase and its exact market value. On careful 60 Spl.C.No.55/2020 scrutiny of Ex.P2 mahazar and value assessed by the investigating agency with the assistance of panch witness regarding all the articles, there are no reasons to arrive to the conclusion that the price quoted by the Investigating Officer is exorbitant. It is also pertinent to mention that, date of purchase, credit invoice, name of the maker, nature of the product and actual price of the articles found in the house are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. Hence,it is for him to produce all necessary documents relating to those articles. In the absence, the investigating agency and panchas can only by guess work assess the approximate value of the household articles.The accused has declared 500 gms of silver in his APR. Therefore, this court is of the definite opinion that Investigating Officer has properly considered the reasonable value of the gold and silver found in the house of the accused and also other household articles. Accordingly, value of the gold weighing 445 grams of Rs.3,86,242/-, silver 61 Spl.C.No.55/2020 weighing 9.860-500GMS valuing Rs.1,02,523,/- and household articles found in G.R.Lake View Apartment amounting to Rs.13,63,250/- are considered as an asset of the accused.
54. The Investigating Officer has valued the household articles found in the farm house situated in sy.no. 153 of Hatna village of Nagamangala taluk amounting to Rs.5,97,000/-as an Asset of the Accused . This court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the above said property belongs to the accused in any manner. Hence, the household articles found in the above said farm house amounting to Rs.5,97,000/- cannot be considered as an asset of the accused and same is excluded.
55. The accused has not disputed the investment of Kisan Vikas Patra as shown in sl.no. 1 to 88 amounting to Rs.7,29,000/-. Hence, same is considered as an asset of the accused. 62 Spl.C.No.55/2020
56. The accused has also not disputed the investment in IFCI Family Bond for Rs.10,000/-. As such, same is considered as an asset of the accused. INVESTMENT IN LIC POLICIES
57. So far as the investment in LIC policies is concerned, the prosecution has got marked the letter issued by the Manager of LIC of India, J.C.Road, Bengaluru and policy particulars as per Ex.P67 to Ex.P68. It has also got marked documents at Ex.P69 to Ex.P91 which reveals that the said policies were purchased in the name of accused, his wife Kamalamma and daughters by name R.Kavita and Yurekha and also his first wife Smt.Sharada. Among the above said policies, the accused has disputed the policy at sl.no.5 bearing No. 722839963 standing in the name of his daughter Yurekha amounting to Rs.58,610/-. The another policy at sl.no.8 bearing No. 611895888 amounting to Rs.1,00,100/- also stands in the name of Yurekha. The said policies were purchased on 26/8/2004 and 15/7/1993 63 Spl.C.No.55/2020 respectively. Though the said policies are standing in the name of Yurekha but same were not reflected in accounts pertaining to the Kwality Wines. Hence, the said two policies have to be considered as an asset of the accused. The remaining policies are purchased by the accused in the name of his another daughter Kavitha and his wife Kamalamma. As such, in the absence of any contra evidence, it has to be come to the conclusion that the said policies also purchased by the accused in their names. The total value of the above said policies comes to Rs.11,40,839/-, and the same is considered as an asset of the accused.
58. The prosecution has also shown the policy bearing No.00080610 amounting to Rs.80914/- and policy bearing No.00070571 amounting to Rs.71,392/- of ICICI Prudential as an asset of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P493 a letter issued by official of ICICI Prudential which reveals that the first policy bearing No.00080610 stands in the name of accused having 64 Spl.C.No.55/2020 purchased on 19/1/2002 and second policy bearing No.00070571 was purchased in the name of his daughter R. Yurekha on 30/1/2002. So far as this policy is concerned, It is pertinent to note that on 1/1/2002, the daughter of the accused Yurekha attained majority and said policy was taken on 30/1/2002. It is also pertinent to note that amount of the above said policy on two occasions was paid by way of cheque bearing No. 062817 and 064859 through ICICI Bank, M.G. Road and remaining premiums were made by way of cash. The accused has not produced any documents to show that the above said payments made by way of cheque are out of Kwality Wines business. Under such circumstances, the above said policies have to be taken as an asset of the accused amounting to Rs.1,52,306/-.
59. The prosecution has also contended that policy bearing No. 234634541 amounting to Rs.33,882/- and policy bearing No. 234634608 65 Spl.C.No.55/2020 amounting to Rs.45,076/- as an asset of the accused. Ex.P404 and Ex.P405 the letter issued by Max Newyork Life Insurance dated 12/7/2012 reveals that the said policies were purchased in the name of Smt.Kamalamma H.R on 4/9/2003 after her marriage with accused. Absolutely she has no independent source of income. Hence, the above said policies and amount is to be considered as an asset of the accused totalling to Rs.78,958/-.
60. The prosecution has also contended that telephone deposit of Rs.500/- supplied to Flat No.1, G.R.Lake View Apartment as an asset of the accused and same has not been disputed. Hence, it is considered as an asset of the accused.
61. Therefore, the total assets pertaining to the accused are as under:
Sl. Description of Properties Value No. (Rs) Immovable Properties:
1. House No. 880 situated in 4th Main, 2,72,327-50 Vijayanagar, Bengaluru 66 Spl.C.No.55/2020
2. Site No.1, V.P. Katha No.179, 1,85,000-00 measuring 65+60/2 X40 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri Hobli.
3. Site No.1, V.P.Katha No.179 1,85,000-00 measuring 65+53/2 X40 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli
4. Agricultural land bearing sy.no.19 of 39,000-00 Kuttawadi village, Belikere hobli, Hunsur taluk, Mysore District. Movable Assets:
1. Capital investment in Kwality Wines 4,50,000-00 business
2. Advance paid towards Kwality Wines. 50,000-00
3. Lease deposit paid by the accused in 4,00,000-00 respect of house no.1, G.R.Lake View Apartment, Tata Silk Farm, Kanakpura Road, Bengalauru
4. Lease amount paid by the accused in 3,00,000-00 respect of house No.120/2, 5th Main, Chamarajpet.
Bank Balance:
1. Balance in account no. 11896 of 4,283-00 Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank in the name of accused.
2. Balance in account No.17000 of 1,347-00 Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank in the name of daughter of accused Yurekha
3. Balance in account No.20932 of 1,338-00 Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank in the name of daughter of the accused Kavitha.
4. Balance in account No.3069 of 22,160-00 Andhra Bank, Rajajinagar in the name 67 Spl.C.No.55/2020 of wife of the accused Smt.Kamalamma.
5. FD Account No. 1491 of Andhra Bank, 25,506-00 Rajajinagar Branch in the name of wife of the accused Smt.Kamalamma
6. FD account No. 1646 of Andhra Bank, 22,636-00 Rajajinagar Branch in the name of wife of accused Smt. Kamalamma
7. Balance in account No.01012789 of 29,185-00 Corporation Bank, Chamarajpet Branch in the name of wife of the accused Kamalamma
8. Term Deposit No. 60278 at 25,000-00 Corporation bank, Chamarajpet Branch in the name of wife of the accused Smt. Kamalamma
9. Balance in account No. 11820 of 922-00 Indian Bank, Chamarajpet Branch in the name of accused
10. Balance in account No. 12494 of 1,547-00 Indian Bank, Chamarajpet Branch in the name of daughter of the accused Smt. Yurekha
11. Balance in SB Account no. 766017 at 6,483-00 Post Office, Basavanagudi in the name of accused.
12. Balance in account No. 768976 in 18,069-00 Post office, Basavanagudi in the name of daughter of the accused Yurekha.
13. Balance in account No. 768975 of 11,856-00 Post Office, Basavanagudi in the name of daughter of the accused Smt. Kavitha.
Vehicles:
1. Honda Deo bearing Registration No.KA 38,842-00 01 EC 3699 in the name of accused.68 Spl.C.No.55/2020
2. Maruti Swift Car bearing Regn.No.KA 5,18,976-00 05- MG-1567 in the name of accused.
3. Vijaya Scooter in the name of accused. 3,000-00 Cash:
1. At the residence of the accused during 8,000-00 the search Gold and Silver:
1. Gold 445 grams 3,86,242-00
2. Silver 9 KG 360 Grams 1,02,523-00 Household Articles:
1. G.R. Lake View Apartment 13,63,250-00 Investments on Policies and Bonds:
1. Kisan Vikas Patra at sl.no.1 to 88. 7,29,000-00
2. Investment on IFCI Family bond No. 10,000-00 05376137 Investment on LIC Policies 1. Policy No: 611040258 0
2. 614778236 1,30,599-00
3. 614249440 93,702-00
4. 614249435 4,55,688-00
5. 722839963 58,610-00
6. 722840422 50,210-00
7. 360237308 43,460-00
8. 611895888 1,00,100-00
9. 614522133 2,08,470-00 11. 610309744 0 12. 048607381 0 Investment on ICICI prudential policies.
1. Policy No. 00080610 80,914-00
2. Policy No. 00070571 71,392-00 69 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Investment on Max New York Life Insurance.
1. Policy No. 234634541 33,882-00
2. Policy No. 234634608 45,076-00 Telephone Deposits Ph. No.26766534, Flat No.1, G.R.Lake 500-00 View Apartments, Tata Silk Farm, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore.
Total 65,84,095-50
62. The Investigating Officer has furnished the below mentioned items as income pertaining to the accused.
Statement -C Income Details Sl. Particulars Worth No. (Rs) I SALARY INCOME:
1) Net Salary income of AGO 10,96,826-00
2) Salary income of Smt.Sharada W/o 1,41,600-00 AGO II RENTAL INCOME House No. 880, 4th Main, Vijayanagar, 2,92,069-00 Bangalore (HUF Property) III Business Income Kwality Wines Chamarajpet, 16,89,022-00 Bangalore.
IV Bank Loans & Interest from FDs
1) Canara Bank, Yediyur Branch, 4,50,000-00 Swift Car Loan No.KA-05-MG 1567 70 Spl.C.No.55/2020
2) ICICI Bank, M.G.Road Branch, 4,00,000-00 Swift Car Loan No.KA-51-P-1256
3) ICICI Bank, M.G.Road Branch, 3,00,000-00 Santro Car Loan No.KA 51-M-7799
4) Horticulture Loan availed from PLD 2,46,500-00 Bank, Nagamangal Taluk, Mandya District in the benami name of Sri H.Mayanna Gowda
5) Interest from fixed deposit No. 1,86,647-00 48872, Sri Lakshmi Nidhi, Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, Chamarajpet, Bangalore (Rs.7,50,000)
6) Interest from fixed deposit, No. 1,50,398-00 75612, Shamrao Vittal Co-Operative Bank, Chamarajpet, Bangalore (Rs.3,25,000)
7) Interest from fixed deposit, No. 1,50,398-00 75611, Shamrao Vittal Co-Operative Bank, Chamarajpet, Bangalore (Rs.3,25,000).
V Income from Sale of site
1) Site No.19, (40+23/2 X54) 7,50,000-00
Kempegowda Gruha Nirmana
Sahakara Sangha Limited,
Katteraguppe, Banashankari 3rd
Stage, Bangalore.
2) Site No.20 (30 X 54) Kempegowda 6,50,000-00
Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha
Limited, Katteraguppe, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore.
3) Site No. 90/1 (old No.24/A) Late 25,28,000-00 No.90, Ranojirao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore (78*27) VI Income from LIC Policies & Bonds
1) LIC Policy No. 360237308 1,34,100-00
2) Income From Maturity of NSC Bond 71 Spl.C.No.55/2020 No.
1) 771373 43,263-00
2) 187554
3) 187555
3) Income From Maturity of NSC Bond No. 1) 771374, 2) 187556, 3) 187557, 90,457-00
4)26BB 532488, 5) 46 CC 684165, 6) 30DD 771675, 7) 38 EE 188504, 8) 38 EE 188505 VII Sale of Vehicle Sale of Santro Car No. KA-51-M-7799 3,00,000-00 VIII Sale of Shares 2600 Robion Son, Shares 4,45,362-00 3000 Inter Link Finance Shares 4,48,375-00 TOTAL 1,04,93,017-00
63. Among the above said items, the accused has not disputed the following income details.
Sl. Particulars Worth (Rs) No
1. His net salary income 10,96,826-00
2. Interest from Fixed Deposit 1,86,647-00 No. 48872, Sri Lakshmi Nidhi, Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, Chamarajpet, Bangalore.
3. Income from sale of site no. 19 7,50,000-00 (40+23/2 X 54) Kempegowda Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limited, Katteraguppe, Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore.
4. Site No. 20 (30 X 54) 6,50,000-00 72 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Kempegowda Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limited, Katteraguppe, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore
5. Income from LIC Policies and 1,34,100-00 Bonds:
LIC policy No. 3602373308
6. Sale of Shares 4,45,362-00 2600 Shares (Robion Son) in the name of accused.
64. I. DISPUTED INCOME:
Rental Income: The Investigating Officer has considered an income of Rs.2,62,069/- as a rental income from House No. 880, 4th Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore (HUF Property) on the ground that during the investigation, the accused has furnished income tax returns wherein he has declared the above said income as a rental income, as such considered the same as rental income of the accused. On the other hand, the accused has contended that as per income tax returns submitted by the accused for the period from 2003-2009, the rental income from the said property is Rs.15,10,244/- and same is not considered by the IO. The learned counsel for the 73 Spl.C.No.55/2020 accused in his oral arguments and also in the written arguments submitted that in an answer to statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he has got produced income tax returns, profit and loss account and balance sheet of the accused in which the rental income from the above said property is shown as Rs.15,10,244/- which is not considered by the Investigating Officer, as such the said amount is to be considered as an income of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to its case. The Investigating Officer has got marked the income tax returns, profit and loss account and balance sheet of the accused as per Ex.P58 in which he has declared rental income of the above said property and on the said basis, the Investigating Officer has come to conclusion that accused has rental income of Rs.2,92,069/-. Through PW.7, the above said income tax returns are marked. Even during the course of 74 Spl.C.No.55/2020 313 statement, the accused was posed with the said question, which is found at Question No.269 and has admitted that as per ITR submitted by him for the period from 2003 to 2009, he has declared 1/3rd of income from the above said property as Rs.2,92,069/-. Thus, the prosecution has proved the above said income of Rs.2,92,069 as a rental income from the above said property. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused reported in (1981) 3 SCC 199 between State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ram Chandra Kaidalwar.
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the term "KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME"held as under:-
12. The terms and expressions appearing in Section 5(1)(e) of the Act are the same as those used in the old Section 5(3). Although the two provisions operate in two different fields, the meaning to be assigned to them must be the same. The 75 Spl.C.No.55/2020 expression "known sources of incomes" means "sources known to the prosecution". So also, the same meaning must be given to the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" occurring in Section 5(1)(e). No doubt, Section 4(1) provides for presumption of guilt in cases falling under Section 5(1)(a) and
(b), but there was, in our opinion, no need to mention Section 5(1)(e) therein. For, the reason is obvious.
The provision contained in Section 5(1)(e) of the Act is a self-contained provision. The first part of the section casts a burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused. When Section 5(1)(e) uses the words "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account", it is implied that the burden is on such public servant to account for the sources for the acquisition of disproportionate assets. The High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that a public servant charged for having disproportionate assets in his possession for which he cannot satisfactorily account, cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the 76 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Act unless the prosecution disproves all possible sources of income.
13. That takes us to the difficult question as to the nature and extent of the burden of proof under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. The expression "burden of proof" has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden i.e. the burden of establishing the guilt, and (2) the evidential burden i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by law upon the accused. The burden resting on the accused in such cases is, however, not so onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and is discharged by proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) are the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income for which the 77 Spl.C.No.55/2020 public servant cannot satisfactorily account. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 5(1)(e), namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under Section 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the Court in Jhingan case [AIR 1966 SC 1762 : (1966) 3 SCR 736 :
78 Spl.C.No.55/2020
1966 Cri LJ 1357] i.e. to establish his case by a preponderance of probability. That test was laid down by the court following the dictum of Viscount Sankey, L.C., in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935 AC 462] . The High Court has placed an impossible burden on the prosecution to disprove all possible sources of income which were within the special knowledge of the accused. As laid down in Swamy case [AIR 1960 SC 7 : (1960) 1 SCR 461 : 1960 Cri LJ 131], the prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of a public servant found in possession of resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income i.e. his salary. Those will be matters specially within the knowledge of the public servant within the meaning of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 reads:
"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
In this connection, the phrase "burden of proof" is clearly used in the secondary sense, namely, the duty of 79 Spl.C.No.55/2020 introducing evidence. The nature and extent of the burden cast on the accused is well-settled. The accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt. All that he need do is to bring out a preponderance of probability."
65. In view of the above said position of law, now the burden is casted upon the accused to place materials before the court to believe his version of the source of income. The accused has heavily relied upon income tax returns furnished by him in an answer to his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., Though in the above said profit and loss account, he has declared income from the above said property. But it is settled position of law that income tax returns have no evidenciary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v/s J.Jayalalitha and others referred supra as under:
"29. The accused persons therein had sought to place reliance on income tax returns and 80 Spl.C.No.55/2020 income tax assessment orders. In that context the Court had concluded that income tax returns and orders are not by themselves conclusive proof that they are lawful sources of income under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that independent evidence to corroborate the same would be required. The Court held:
"188. In Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT, 1980 Supp SCC 13 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 274] , the return filed by the petitioner assessee, who was an Abkari contractor, was not accepted by the ITO as amongst others, excess expenditure over the disclosed available cash was noticeable and further several deposits had been made in the names of others. The assessee's explanation that the excess expenditure was met from the amounts deposited with him by other shopkeepers but were not entered in his book, was not accepted and penalty proceedings were taken out against him holding that the items of cash deficit and cash deposit represented concealed income resulting from suppressed yield and low selling rates mentioned in the books. The Appellate Tribunal, however, 81 Spl.C.No.55/2020 allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the penalty order. The High Court reversed [CIT v. Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co., 1971 SCC OnLine AP 262 : (1975) 99 ITR 544] the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
189. It was held that as per Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty can be imposed in case where any person has concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The related proceeding was quasi-criminal in nature and the burden lay on the Revenue to establish that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The burden of proof in penalty proceedings varied from that involved in assessment proceedings and a finding in assessment proceedings that a particular receipt was income cannot automatically be adopted as a finding to that effect in the penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, the taxing authority was bound to consider the matter afresh on the materials 82 Spl.C.No.55/2020 before it, to ascertain that whether a particular amount is a revenue receipt. It was observed that no doubt the fact that the assessment year contains a finding that the disputed amount represents income constitutes good evidence in the penalty proceedings, but the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of penalty proceedings. Before a penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must be taken into account and must lead to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars.
190. The decision is to convey that though the IT returns and the orders passed in the IT proceedings in the instant case recorded the income of the accused concerned as disclosed in their returns, in view of the charge levelled against them, such returns and the orders in the IT proceedings would not by themselves establish that such income had been from lawful source as contemplated in the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 83 Spl.C.No.55/2020 1988 and that independent evidence would be required to account for the same.
191. Though considerable exchanges had been made in course of the arguments, centring around Section 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, we are of the comprehension that those need not be expatiated in details. Suffice it to state that even assuming that the income tax returns, the proceedings in connection therewith and the decisions rendered therein are relevant and admissible in evidence as well, nothing as such turns thereon definitively as those do not furnish any guarantee or authentication of the lawfulness of the source(s) of income, the pith of the charge levelled against the respondents. It is the plea of the defence that the income tax returns and orders, while proved by the accused persons had not been objected to by the prosecution and further it (prosecution) as well had called in evidence the income tax returns/orders and thus, it cannot object to the admissibility of the records produced by the defence. To reiterate, even if such returns and orders are admissible, the probative value would depend on the nature of 84 Spl.C.No.55/2020 the information furnished, the findings recorded in the orders and having a bearing on the charge levelled. In any view of the matter however, such returns and orders would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of evidence which have to be evaluated Noticeably, none of the respondents has been examined on oath in the case in hand. Further, the income tax returns relied upon by the defence as well as the orders passed in the proceedings pertaining thereto have been filed/passed after the charge-sheet had been submitted. Significantly, there is a charge of conspiracy and abetment against the accused persons. In the overall perspective therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.199. The import of this decision is that in the tax regime, the legality or illegality of the transactions 85 Spl.C.No.55/2020 generating profit or loss is inconsequential qua the issue whether the income is from a lawful source or not. The scrutiny in an assessment proceeding is directed only to quantify the taxable income and the orders passed therein do not certify or authenticate that the source(s) thereof to be lawful and are thus of no significance vis-à-vis a charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
200. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 302], a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ for directing the Union of India to take appropriate action to prosecute R-2 to R-5 under the 1988 Act for having amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by misusing their power and authority. The respondents were the then sitting Chief Minister of U.P. and his relatives. Having noticed that the basic issue was with regard to alleged investments and sources of such investments, Respondents 2 to 5 were ordered by this Court to file copies of income tax and wealth tax returns of the relevant assessment 86 Spl.C.No.55/2020 years which was done. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the net assets of the family though were Rs 9,22,72,000, as per the calculation made by the official valuer, the then value of the net assets came to be Rs 24 crores. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that income tax returns had already been filed and the matters were pending before the authorities concerned and all the payments were made by cheques, and thus the allegation levelled against them were baseless. It was observed that the minuteness of the details furnished by the parties and the income tax returns and assessment orders, sale deeds, etc. were necessary to be carefully looked into and analysed only by an independent agency with the assistance of chartered accountants and other accredited engineers and valuers of the property. It was observed that the Income Tax Department was concerned only with the source of income and whether the tax was paid or not and, therefore, only an independent agency or CBI could, on court direction, determine the question of disproportionate assets. CBI was thus directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the 87 Spl.C.No.55/2020 assets of all the respondents and to take further action in the matter after scrutinising as to whether a case was made out or not.
201. This decision is to emphasis that submission of income tax returns and the assessments orders passed thereon, would not constitute a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known lawful sources of income as contemplated under the PC Act and that further scrutiny/analysis thereof is imperative to determine as to whether the offence as contemplated by the PC Act is made out or not."
66. Apart from it, the accused in order to prove the above said income tax returns, profit and loss account and balance sheet has not produced any materials such as rental agreement, rent receipts, nor examined any of his tenants. In the absence of any such contra materials and evidence, it cannot be believed that the accused has so much income as declared in his income tax returns from 88 Spl.C.No.55/2020 the rents of the above said property. It is also pertinent to note that the above said income tax returns were not confronted to PW.7 in his cross- examination. More over, the income tax authorities will not indulge into an enquiry as to source of income declared in the income tax returns. Such being the case, the said aspect which is specifically in the knowledge of the accused has to prove the same as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. But, in this case the accused mere produced his income tax returns in an answer to the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,but has not made any efforts to prove them. Hence, the above said income tax returns cannot be believed. The Investigating Officer based upon the income tax returns furnished by the accused has rightly come to the conclusion that accused is having rental income of Rs.2,92,069/- from house bearing No.880 of Vijayanagar which cannot be found fault with. 89 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Hence, the said sum of Rs.2,92,069/- is considered as an income of the accused.
67. Salary Income of wife of the accused by name Sharada: The Investigating Officer PW.52 based upon the income tax returns furnished by accused during investigation has come to the conclusion that wife of the accused deceased Smt.Sharada having an income of Rs.1,41,600/- and same is considered as income of the accused. It is not in dispute that the first wife of the accused Smt.Sharada was working in Kempegowda Milk Federation Society, Bengaluru and she died in the year 2001. The accused when he was questioned on the said aspect, during the course of 313 statement by posing Question No.268, he has admitted that based upon the income tax returns from the year 1993 to 1996, income of his wife Sharada is considered as Rs.1,41,600/-. PW.52 has got marked the said income tax returns. Though the accused has produced the income tax returns of 90 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Smt.Sharada in an answer to statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but they are not proved in accordance with law by examining its author. In the absence of any such documents and evidence' based upon the income tax returns furnished by the accused for the year from 1993 to 1996, and as there were no documents in support of her salary income to the extent of Rs.5,30,700/-, the Investigating Officer has rightly taken the salary income of deceased Sharada as Rs.1,41,600/- as such same is to be considered as income of the accused.
68. Site No. 90/1 (old No. 24/A) Late No.90, Ranojirao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore (78*27):
The Investigating Officer has considered the sale proceeds of the above said property amounting to Rs.25,28,000/- as an income of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution has got marked the Encumbrance Certificate, sale deeds and letters written by Lokayukta police as per Ex.P381 to 91 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P385 with the consent of the accused. Perusal of Ex.P383 which is an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the above said property reveals that this property was purchased by accused and his daughter Yurekha on 25/5/2005 for valuable consideration of Rs.25,27,000/- and the Sale Deed is got marked as Ex.P384. This property was purchased on 25/5/2005. Within a span of 3 months of its purchase, same was sold by the accused and his daughter Smt. Yurekha vide Sale Deed dated 25/8/2005 for valuable consideration of Rs.25,28,000/-. The said Sale Deed is marked as Ex.P385. It is pertinent to note that the accused after purchase and sale of the above said property has not intimated the same to his higher officials nor declared the said property in his Annual Property Returns. Such being the case, the said property was purchased from undisclosed income in violation of service rules and by suppression of material facts. Under such circumstances, the income from sale of 92 Spl.C.No.55/2020 the said property cannot be considered as the lawful income. In the case on hand, the accused has failed to prove the source of income he had invested to purchase the said property. There is also absence of documentary and oral evidence on behalf of the accused to come to conclusion that out of known source of income, he has purchased the above said property. In the Judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 1406, in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Suresh Berry, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that onus is on the accused to prove that the assets were not disproportionate to the known source of income. The expression 'known source of income' is related to the sources known to the authorities and not to the accused. The explanation to Section 13 (1) (e) of P.C.Act provides that for the purpose of the section known sources of income means income derived from any lawful source and such receipt is intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules, or order for the 93 Spl.C.No.55/2020 time being applicable to the public servant. The assets acquired from what source of income is within the special knowledge of the accused. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of accusation and he has to satisfactorily account for the same. In the case on hand, the accused has failed to prove the sources of his income by the standard of proof by preponderance of probability. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kandanlal Case held that known source of income means income must be received from lawful source and the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the law, rules or orders applicable to the public servant. The accused neither intimated the purchase nor sale of the above said property to his appointing authority nor has proved his source of income to acquire the above said property. Thus, the accused being a public servant is expected to seek permission of his superior authority or the appointing authority as the case may be, to 94 Spl.C.No.55/2020 purchase the above said property showing his known source of income to possess the same under Rule 23 (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 which reads as under:
"23. Movable, immovable and valuable property - (1) xxxx
(a) xxxx
b) xxxx
(c) xxxx
(d) xxxx (2); No Government shall, except with previous knowledge of prescribed authority acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise in his own name or in the name of any member of the family;
Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained by the Government Servant if any such transaction is -
(i) With a person having official dealings with the Government Servant or;
(ii) Otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer;
Provided further that, nothing in this sub rule applied to transactions entered into by a 95 Spl.C.No.55/2020 member of the family of the Government Servant out of his or her own funds (including gifts, inheritance etc.,) as distinct from the funds of the Government Servant himself / herself, in his or her own name and in his or her own right."
69. But, in the instant case, the accused has not obtained any permission to purchase or sell the above said property. Therefore, the sale consideration of Rs.25,28,000/- received by him vide sale deed Ex.P385 cannot be considered as lawful income of the accused. The Investigating Officer in the final report has lost sight of all these legal aspects and has wrongly considered the sum of Rs.25,28,000/- as lawful income of the accused. The accused is entitled to sale consideration as income only on proof of purchase of said property is from lawful income. If the property is acquired from the unknown source of income of the accused, the income derived therefrom cannot be added to the 96 Spl.C.No.55/2020 income of the accused. Hence, the said amount has to be excluded from the income of the accused acquired during the check period. The sale consideration paid for purchase of the said property amounting to Rs.27,79,513/- including registration fees and stamp duty which is shown as an expenditure cannot be considered as an expenditure of the accused. Hence, the said amount is to be excluded.
70. III. Business income from Kwality Wines, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru: The Investigating Officer has considered the sum of Rs.16,89,022/- as income from the above said business. During the discussion in the foregoing paras, this Court has come to conclusion that Smt. Yurekha was having an independent source of income from the above said wine business, as such same cannot be considered as an income of the accused. Hence, the sum of Rs.16,89,022/- is to be excluded from the income of the accused.
97 Spl.C.No.55/2020
71. Bank loans and interest from FD: It is not in dispute that the accused has purchased Swift Car bearing Registration No. KA-05-MG-1567 by availing loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from Canara Bank, Yediyur Branch. As per Ex.P282 to Ex.P290 the said vehicle stands in the name of the accused and loan account abstract is also got marked by the prosecution which shows that by availing loan of Rs.4,50,000/-, the accused has purchased the above said car in his name. Hence, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- is considered as an income of the accused.
72. So far as loan availed in respect of Swift Car bearing Registration No.KA51-P-1256, Santro Car bearing registration No. KA51-M-7799 amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned, the above said vehicles are standing in the name of the daughter of the accused by name Yurekha who was having an independent income and she repaid the above said loan out of income from the Kwality Wines which is declared by her in 98 Spl.C.No.55/2020 her income tax returns, profit and loss account, balance sheet as per Ex.P162 and Ex.P163. Hence, the above said sum of Rs.7,00,000/- cannot be considered as an income of the accused and has to be excluded.
73. The Investigating Officer has shown the horticulture loan availed from PLD Bank, Nagamangala in the name of H. Mayanna Gowda to the extent of Rs. 2,46,500/- as an income of the accused. But, while discussing the assets of the accused in respect of sy.no. 153 of Hatna village, this court has come to a conclusion that the said property was not purchased out of the investments made by the accused in the name of Sri H. Mayanna Gowda. Hence, in the absence of any concrete materials and evidence, the above said sum of Rs.2,46,500/- cannot be considered as an income of the accused and same has to be excluded.
74. The Investigating Officer has shown interest from fixed deposit No. 75612 and 75611 99 Spl.C.No.55/2020 kept in Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, Chamarajpet, Bangalore in the names of Yurekha and Kavitha amounting to Rs.1,50,392/- each as an income of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the first wife of the accused Sharada had purchased site no.20 situated from Kempegowda Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limted, Katteraguppe, Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore in the year 1991 for Rs.1,19,730/- and same was sold for Rs.6,50,000/- in the year 2002 and the said sale consideration was divided into Rs.3.25 lakhs which was kept in the name of Yurekha and Kavitha as the above said FDs. Since the accused is no way concerned with the above said interest, same has to be excluded from his income, amounting to Rs.1,50,398/- each standing in the name of Smt. Yurekha and Kavitha.
75. Income from LIC Policies and Bonds:
The Investigating Officer has shown income of Rs.43,263/- and Rs.90,457/- respectively as income 100 Spl.C.No.55/2020 from maturity of NSC bonds as shown in column no.6. The same is disputed by the accused. It is pertinent to note that the NSC bonds bearing No. 771373, 187554 and 187555 amounting to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- each respectively are purchased by Smt. Yurekha on 16/4/2002 after she got liquor license in her name. Hence, the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be excluded from the income of the accused. The remaining NSC bonds are purchased in the name of another daughter of accused by name Kavitha on 16/4/2002 and 16/5/2002 respectively. At that relevant point of time, Smt. Kavitha had no independent source of income. As such, the amounts standing in the name of Kavitha in the form of above said NSC bonds amounting to Rs.52,500/- is to be considered as an income of the accused.
76. Sale of Santro Car bearing registration No. K A 51-M-7799: The Investigating Officer has 101 Spl.C.No.55/2020 shown the sale proceeds of the above said car to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- as an income of the accused on the ground that the accused by investing his ill- gotten money has purchased the above said car in the name of his daughter Yurekha. But, while discussing the assets, this Court has come to a conclusion that the above said vehicle is standing exclusively in the name of Yurekha who has purchased the same in the year 2006 when she was having independent source of income. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that the accused has invested for purchase of the said car in the name of his daughter.. More over, the income tax returns Ex.P162 and Ex.P163 pertaining to Yurekha also reflects the above said amount. Hence, same cannot be considered as an income of the accused and has been excluded.
77. Sale of 3000 Inter link Finance Shares:
The Investigating Officer has shown the sale proceeds of the above said shares amounting to 102 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Rs.4,48,375/- as an income of the accused. But, as per Ex.P162 and Ex.P163, the above said shares are standing in the name of the daughter of the accused Yurekha who has declared the said income in her income tax returns which could be seen from Ex.P162 and Ex.P163. Hence, the above said amount of Rs.4,48,375/- cannot be considered as an income of the accused and same has been excluded.
78. Hence, the total income of the accused is as under:
Sl. Particulars Worth (Rs.)
No.
1. Net salary income of 10,96,826-00
accused
2. Salary income of Smt. 1,41,600-00
Sharada, wife of the
accused.
3. Rental income of House 2,92,069-00
No.880, 4th Main,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
4. Loan in respect of Swift Car 4,50,000-00
bearing registration No. KA
05 - MG- 1567 at Canara
Bank, Yediyuru Branch
standing in the name of
accused.
103 Spl.C.No.55/2020
5. Interest from fixed deposit 1,86,647-00
No. 48872, Sri Lakshmi
Nidhi, Shamrao Vittal Co-
operative Bank,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru.
6. Income from sale of site No. 7,50,000-00
19 (40 +23/2 X 54)
Kempegowda Gruha
Nirmana Sahakara Sangha
Limited, Kattraguppe,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore.
7. Income from sale of site 6,50,000-00
No.20 (30 X 54)
Kempegowda Gruha
Nirmana Sahakara Sangha
Limited, Katteraguppe,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore.
8 Income from maturity of 52,500-00
NSCs standing in the name
of daughter of the accused
Kavitha bearing No. 771374,
187556, 187557, 26BB
532488, 46CC 684165,
30DD 771675, 38 EE
188504, 38EE 188505.
9 Income received under 1,34,100-00
policy bearing
No.360237308 standing in
the name of first wife of
accused Smt. Sharada
(death benefits).
10. Death claim award of MACT 1,46,853-00
arising out of death of first
wife of the accused Smt.
104 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Sharada. Rs.4,40,560 / 3 =
Rs.1,46,853-00.
11. Income from sale of 2600 4,45,362-00
Robion Son shares held in
the name of accused
TOTAL 43,45,957-00
79. The investigating officer has shown the following items as expenditure of Accused in the charge sheet.
80. Expenditure Details:
Statement -D Expenditure Details Sl. Description of Asset Worth No. (Rs) I REGISTRATION & STAMP DUTY 0 CHARGES
1) Registration & Stamp Fees for Site No.1. V.P. Khatha No. 179, Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, (65+60/2 X 40 ft)
1) Registration Fees 3,730-00
2) Stamp Fees 37,245-00
2) Registration & Stamp Fees for Site No.1. V.P. Khatha No.179, Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, (60+53/2 X 40 ft)
1) Registration Fees 3,730-00
2) Stamp Fees 25,000-00
3) Registration & Stamp Fees paid for, Agriculture land, 0.12 guntas at 4,020-00 105 Spl.C.No.55/2020 sy.No.19, Kuttavadi village, Hunsur taluk.
4) Registration & Stamp Fees paid for 7.02 Acres of land situated at Sy.No. 153, Hatna Village, Nagamangala 21,611-00 Taluk in the benami name of Sri H.Mayanna Gowda II Property Tax
1) Property Tax Paid for Site No.1, V.P.Khatha No. 179, Halage vaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, (65+60/2 X 40 ft)
1) Property Tax 1,249-00
2) Development Charges 30,560-00
2) Property Tax paid for Site No.1, V.P. Khatha No. 179, Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, (60+53/2 X 40 ft)
1) Property Tax 1,589-00
2) Development Charges 27,625-00 III PURCHASE OF SITES
1) Site No. 19, (40 + 23/2 X 54) 68,012-00 Kempegowda Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limited, Katteraguppe, Banshankari 3 stage, rd Bangalore
2) Site No.20, (30 X 54) Kempegowda Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Limited, Katteraguppe, Banshankari 3rd stage, Bangalore.
1) Purchase Value 1,19,730-00
2) Development Charges & 1,46,400-00
Construction cost
3) Site No. 90/1 (old No. 24/A) Late 27,79,513-00
No. 90, Ranojirao road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore (78*27) IV Registration fees Registration Fee paid towards Loka 1,105-00 106 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Seva Housing Society, Park House, Bangalore V Purchase of Vehicle Purchase of Santro Car No.KA-51-M- 3,68,814-00 7799 Purchase of Kinetic Honda 43,100-00 VI Registration & Road Tax Paid for Vehicles
1) Registration Charges & Road Tax paid for Motor Cycle Honda DEO KA-
01-EC-3699
1) Registration Charges 60-00
2) Road Tax 2,991-00
2) Registration Charges & road tax paid for Maruti Swift VDI KA-05-MG-
1567
1) Registration & Delivery Charges 4,000-00
2) Road Tax 74,211-00
3) Extended Warranty 2,395-00
4) Insurance 14,942-00
5) Fuel Expenses 10,905-00
3)Registration Charges & road tax paid for Santro, XO-M KA-51-M-7799
1) Registration Charges 300-00
2) Attractive Reg No. Fee 6,000-00
3) Road Tax 36,515-00
4) Insurance 2008 10,334-00
4) Insurance 2007 9,291-00
5) Insurance 2009 1,020-00
6) Services 18,530-00
7) Fuel Expenses 74,163-00
4) Registration Charges & road tax paid for Maruti Swift VDI KA-51-P-
1256
1) Registration 300-00
2) Attractive Reg No. Fee 6,000-00
3) Road Tax 61,648-00
4) Extended Warranty 2,395-00
107 Spl.C.No.55/2020
5) Delivery Charges 1,000-00
6) Service Charges 25,511-00
7) Fuel Expenses 86,380-00
VII Investment on Policies & Bonds
1) LIC Policy No. 360237308 43,460-00
2) Investments in NSC Bonds
1) 771373 5,000-00
2) 187554 10,000-00
3) 187555 10,000-00
4) 30DD 771374 5,000-00
5) 38 EE 187556 10,000-00
6) 38 EE 187557 10,000-00
7) 26 BB 532488 500-00
8) 46 CC 684164 1,000-00
9) 46 CC 684165 1,000-00
10) 30 DD 771675 5,000-00
11) 38 EE 188504 10,000-00
12) 38 EE 188505 10,000-00
3) New India Insurance Policy No. 8,852-00
671901/48/05/20/70051804 (Medi
Claim)
4) Oriental Insurance Policy No. 12,818-00
423001/48/09/1848 (Medi claim)
5) Medical Bills paid towards Kanva 1,020-00 Diagnostic Centre VIII Repayment of Loans 0 Car Loan of Maruthi Swift No. KA-05- 71,634-00 MG-1567 Car Loan of Maruthi Swift No. KA-51- 2,04,900-00 P-1256 Car Loan of Santro Car No. KA-51-M- 3,32,100-00 7799 108 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Horticulture Loan availed from PLD 23,696-00 Bank, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District in the benami name of Sri H.Mayannagowda IX Telephone Charges Ph.No. 26766534 Flat No.1, G.R.Lake 1,852-00 View, Apartments, Tata Silk Farm, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore.
X Electricity Charges
Flat No.1, G.R. Lake View, 31,400-00
Apartments, Tata Silk Farm,
Kanakapura Road, Bangalore.
House No. 120/2, 5th Main, 6th Cross, 67,874-00
Chamarajpet, Bangalore from April 1997 to 28-12-2007 Farm House built in Sy.No. 153, 5,271-00 Extend 07.02 Acres of land situated at Hatna Village, Nagamangala taluk, in the benami name.
XI Education Expenses
1) Yurekha
Nursery to 7th standard 32,970-00
7th Std 2,600-00
8th Std & 9th Std 4,399-00
P.U.C. 1,570-00
B.Com., 30,225-00
2) Kavitha
L.K.G. & U.K.G. 5,950-00
1 Std to 7th Std 19,910-00
8th std to 10th std 6,260-00
P.U.C. 37,000-00
3) Ankita @ Roshini
Pre Kg & LKG 51,280-00
109 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Expenditure on purchase of books, 14,600-00
uniforms & transport
XII Member Ship of Clubs
1) The Bangalore City Institute,
Basavanagudi.
1) Member Ship Fee 1,05,000-00
2) Maintenance charges 9,699-00
2) The Club, Mysore Road 20,200-00
3) Basavanagudi Union & Service Club
1) Member Ship Fee 49,285-00
2) Monthly Subscription Fee
3) Beverages XII Marriage Expenses Marriage of Yurekha D/o AGO on 2,50,000-00 31-08-08 XIV Income Tax Paid Income Tax Paid by AGO for the Year 12,376-00 2003-04 to 2008-09 Income Tax paid by Yurekha for the 3,02,320-00 year 2001-2009 Income tax paid by Smt. Sharadha for 1,118-00 the year 1996-97 XV Chartered Account Fees paid by 20,000-00 Yurekha XVI House Rent paid by AGO House No. 241, 5th Cross, 98,100-00 Kempegowda Nagar Bangalore (1983- 1997) Lease amount paid towards leasing of 3,00,000-00 house No. 120/2, 5th Main road, 6th cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore (1997- 2007) XVII Purchase of shares 2600 Robion Son, Shares by AGO 11,242-00 110 Spl.C.No.55/2020 3000 Inter Link Finance Shares by 15,000-00 Yurekha XVIII Cooking Gas 12,512-00 XIX House Hold Expenditure 7,01,394-00 TOTAL 71,28,951-00
81. Among the above said expenditure details, there is a dispute as to item no. 3 and 4 of sl.no.1 under head Registration and Stamp Duty charges in respect of agricultural land bearing sy.no. 19 measuring 12 guntas situated at Kuttawadi village, Hunsur taluk and also in respect of agricultural land bearing sy.no. 153 measuring 7.02 acres of Hatna village, Nagamangala taluk.
82. The Investigating Officer has shown the registration and stamp duty fee of Rs.4,020/- and Rs.21,611/- respectively in respect of the above said properties as an expenditure. While discussing the assets of the accused, this Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that sy.no. 19 measuring 12 guntas situated at Belikeri hobli, Kuttawadi village though purchased in the 111 Spl.C.No.55/2020 name of the daughter of the accused but same was invested by the accused, as such the said property belongs to the accused. Therefore, once it has been come to the conclusion that the said property belongs to the accused necessarily the registration and stamp duty paid in respect of the said property has to be included in the expenditure of the accused. Accordingly,said amount is considered as expenses of the accused.
83. So far as the registration and stamp duty of Rs.21,611/- in respect of sy.no. 153 of Hatna village, Nagamangala taluk is concerned, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that this property was purchased by investments of the accused in the name of Sri H. Mayanna Gowda. Hence, the said expenses has to be excluded from the expenditure of the accused.
84. The prosecution has considered the registration fees of Rs.1,105/- towards site no.337 situated in Jayasuryanagar, Yelahanka as an 112 Spl.C.No.55/2020 expenses of the accused. But, this court has already come to conclusion that the said property was purchased by daughter of the accused Yurekha out of income from Kwality Wines and above said registration fees paid out of the said source of income. Hence, it has to be excluded.
85. So far as the Santro Car bearing registration no. KA 51-M-7799 and Kinetic Honda which are in the name of the daughter of the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said vehicles are purchased by the sponsorship of the accused. Hence, the value of the said vehicles of Rs.3,68,814/-, Rs.43,100/- respectively is to be excluded from the expenses of the accused.
86. So far as registration fees and road tax paid in respect of Santro car bearing registration no. KA-51 - M- 7799 and Maruti Swift VDI bearing registration no. KA 51-P-1256 are concerned amounting to Rs.1,56,153/- and Rs.1,83,234/- respectively, the said vehicles are purchased by the 113 Spl.C.No.55/2020 daughter of the accused Yurekha out of the income of Kwality Wines. Hence, their registration charges and road tax has to be excluded from the expenses of the accused. So also, the loan in respect of the above said vehicles amounting to Rs.2,04,900/- and Rs.3,32,100/- is to be excluded from the expenditure of the accused.
87. In respect of investment on policies and bonds in NSC bonds is concerned, the NSC bonds bearing no. 771373, 187554 and 187555 amounting to Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively standing in the name of the daughter of the accused by name Yurekha and same are purchased on 16/2/2002 when she had her independent source of income out of Kwality Wines. Therefore, the above said amounts invested in the NSC is to be excluded from the expenses of the accused.
88. Education Expenses: The Investigating Officer has shown in total a sum of Rs.2,06,584/- as 114 Spl.C.No.55/2020 educational expenses of the daughter of the accused Yurekha, Kavitha and Ankita. In this regard, the prosecution has examined the officials of concerned schools as PW.44 and PW.45 through whom they got marked letters as to the fees paid in respect of Yurekha as per Ex.394 and Ex.P395. PW.52 Investigating Officer has also deposed that as per the letter of Baldwin Girls High School, a sum of Rs.32,970/- has been paid by the accused towards fees of his daughter Yurekha and in total the accused has paid a sum of Rs.71,764/- towards the education expenses of Yurekha, Rs.69,120/- towards education expenses of his another daughter Kavitha and Rs.51,280/- towards education expenses of his another daughter Kum. Ankita and in total, he has incurred a sum of Rs.2,00,504/- towards education expenses of his above said daughters.
89. The learned counsel for the accused in his arguments as well as written arguments submitted 115 Spl.C.No.55/2020 that, after the death of first wife of the accused Smt.Sharada, his two daughters by name Yurekha and Kavitha started to reside with their grand mother Chikkamma who used to look after them also she has spent on their educational expenses. But, to prove the said fact, the accused has not produced any documents. Even PW.52 was not cross- examined on the above said aspects. Even no single suggestion was put to PW.44 and PW.45 as to payment of the above said educational expenses by Chikkamma. Hence, in the absence of any contra materials, this Court has come to the conclusion that the above said expenses are borne by the accused. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,06,584/- is considered as expenses of the accused.
90. The Investigating Officer has considered the income tax paid by Yurekha and Smt.Sharada and also Chartered Accountant fee paid by Yurekha amounting to Rs.3,02,320/-, Rs.1,118/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively as an expenses of the 116 Spl.C.No.55/2020 accused. But, Yurekha having independent source of income. She has maintained her separate accounts and has paid the income tax and Chartered Accountant fees out of income from Kwality Wines. So far as the income tax paid by the wife of the accused Smt.Sharada is concerned, she was an employee at Kempegowda Milk Federation having independent source of income. Hence, the above said items cannot be considered as expenses of the accused, and same are excluded.
91. The Investigating Officer has shown lease amount in respect of house no.120/2 situated at 5 th Main, 6th Cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore of Rs.3,00,000/- as an expenses of the accused. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, the said amount will be returned back to the accused at the time of vacating the house, as such same is considered as an income.
92. The Investigating Officer has shown a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the purchase of shares by 117 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Yurekha in Inter Link Finance. But, at the time of purchase of the said shares, Smt. Yurekha had independent source of income, and she has purchased the same out of income from the Kwality Wines which is reflected in books of accounts of Kwality wines. As such, same is to be excluded from the expenses of the accused.
93. Household expenses: The Investigating Officer has considered the household expenditure amounting to Rs.7,01,394/- towards family of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution has got marked Form No.1 as Ex.P401, Form No.2 as Ex.P402 and Report as Ex.P403. The prosecution has also got examined PW.50 the Retired Joint Director, Statistics Branch, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru to prove the above said documents. In his cross-examination, PW.50 admitted that in case the public servant owning agricultural property, the expenses incurred for agriculture will be deducted. He admitted that the Investigating Officer has not 118 Spl.C.No.55/2020 furnished the details of pulses and other eatables derived from agriculture and horticulture, as such same was not taken into consideration while preparing the report. It is suggested that the total family expenditure of the accused will not exceed Rs.5,50,000/-which is denied. The learned counsel for the accused in respect of the above said expenditure, by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 816 between Krishnananda Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P., and 1963 SCC Online SC 48 between Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab submitted that the prosecution only on assumption and presumption has considered family expenses at Rs.7,01,394/- but as per the above said decisions, same is to be considered to the extent of 1/3rd of income of the accused. When the above said decisions are carefully perused, it is quite clear that in case of household expenses, 1/3rd of income is to be taken into account. In this case, the salary of the accused is 119 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Rs.10,96,826/- and 1/3rd of the same comes to Rs.3,65,608/-as such same is considered as household expenses.
94. The rest of the items shown under Statement -D -Expenditure Details are not disputed by the accused.
95. Hence, the following are the expenditure details of the accused.
Sl.No Particulars Worth (Rs.)
.
I. REGISTRATION & STAMP
DUTY CHARGES
1) Site No. 1, V.P. Khatha
No.179, Halagevaderahalli
village, Kengeri Hobli
(65+60/2X 40 feet)
1) Registration Fees 3,730-00
2) Stamp duty 37,245-00
2) Site No.1, V.P.Khatha
No.179, Halagevaderahalli
village, Kengeri Hobli,
(60+53/2 x 40 ft)
1) Registration Fees 3,730-00
2) Stamp Fees 25,000-00
3) Registration and Stamp
Fees paid for Agriculture 4,020-00
land, 0.12 guntas at
sy.no.19, kuttavadi village,
Hunsur taluk.
120 Spl.C.No.55/2020
II Property Tax
1) Site No.1, V.P.Khata
No.179, Halagevaderahalli
village, Kengeri Hobli,
(65+60/2 cross-examination
40 feet) 1,249-00
1) Property Tax 30,560-00
2) Development charges
2) Site No.1, V.P. Khatha
No.179, Halagevaderahalli
village, Kengeri Hobli,
(60+53/2 x 40 feet)
1) Property tax 1,589-00
2) Development charges 27,625-00
III PURCHASE OF SITES
1) Site No.19, (40+23/2X54)
and site No.20 (30 X 54) both
situated at Katteraguppe, 68,012-00
Banashankari 3rd stage,
Bangalore.
1) Purchase value 1,19,730-00
2) Development charges & 1,46,400-00
cost of construction
IV Registration & Road Tax paid
in respect of motorcycle
Honda DEO bearing 3,051-00
Regn.No.KA01 EC 3699
standing in the name of
accused.
Maruti Swift VDI bearing
Regn.No.KA05-MG-1567 1,06,453-00
standing in the name of
accused
V Investment on Policies &
Bonds:
121 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Investment in NSC Bonds
standing in the name of
daughter of accused Kavitha. 52,500-00
4) 30DD 771374
5) 38 EE 187556
6) 38 EE 187557
7) 26 BB 532488
8) 46 CC 684164
9) 46 CC 684165
10) 30 DD 771675
11) 38 EE 188504
12) 38 EE 188505
Medi claim policy in the name 8,852-00
of accused in New India
Insurance company policy
bearing No. 671901/48/05/
20 /70051804
Medi claim policy of Oriental 12,818-00
Insurance company policy
bearing No. 423001/48/09/
1848
Medical Bills of accused paid 1,020-00
to Kanva Diagnostic Centre
VI Repayment of car loan in 71,634-00
respect of bearing No. KA 05-
MG 1567 standing in the
name of accused.
VII Telephone charges in respect 1,852-00
of Phone No. 26766534 at
Flat No.1, G.R.Lake View
Apartment, Kanakapura
Road, Bengaluru.
VIII Electricity Charges in respect 31,400-00
122 Spl.C.No.55/2020
of Flat No.1, G.R.Lake View
Apartment, Kanakapura
Road, Bengaluru
Electricity charges in respect 67,874-00
of House No.120/2, 5th Main,
6th cross, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore.
IX Education Expenses of 2,06,584-00
Yurekha, Kavitha and Ankita
@ Roshini
X Club Membership of accused.
1) The Bangalore City 1,14,699-00
Institute, Basavanagudi.
2) The Club, Mysore Road 20,200-00
3) Basavanagudi Union & 49,285-00
Service Club
XI Marriage expenses of 2,50,000-00
daughter of accused Yurekha
XII Income tax paid by the 12,376-00
accused for the year 2003-04
to 2008-09
XIII House rent paid by the 98,100-00
accused in respect of House
No.241, 5th Cross,
Kempegowda Nagar,
Bangalore from 1983-1997
XIV Purchase of 2600 shares of 11,242-00
Robion Son by the accused.
XV Cooking gas 12,152-00
XVI Household expenditure 3,65,608-00
XVII Investments in Policies and Bonds 43,460-00 123 Spl.C.No.55/2020
1. LIC Policy No.360237308 in the name of accused Total 20,10,050-00
96. From the above said facts, evidence, principles of well settled law, reasons and on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, this Court has arrived to the conclusion that the assets, expenditure, income and disproportionate assets of the accused is calculated as under:
SL. Heads Amount (In Rs.)
No.
1. Assets acquired during 65,84,095-50
check period
2. Expenses incurred during 20,10,050-00
the check period
3. Total of assets and 85,94,145-50
expenditure
4. Income earned during 43,45,957-00
check period.
5. Assets disproportionate. 42,48,188-50
6. Percentage of disproportionate 97.75%
assets.
Total assets + Total Expenditure - Total income X 100 Total Income 124 Spl.C.No.55/2020
97. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S.P. Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran reported in (2006) 1 SCC 420 has observed that, when it is proved by the prosecution that the accused had acquired property disproportionate to his known source of income, then it shifts on accused to offer plausible evidence.
98. In another decision, between M. Krishnareddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported in AIR 1993 SC 313, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that accused has to place materials before the court to believe his version of source of income.
99. The learned counsel for the accused has pressed into service the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 402 between Ashok Tshring Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that unexplained income was very meagre one which the Government employee could have saved every year 125 Spl.C.No.55/2020 having regard to his number of years service and acquitted the accused. But, in the present case on hand, the unexplained income of the accused is almost 100%, as such with due respect the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case.
100. The learned counsel has also pressed into service the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1973 SCC Online Orissa 136 between Hemanthkumar Mohanti Vs. State of Orissa wherein the loan from relatives, gifts and other items are considered. When the said decision is carefully perused, it is quite clear that in the said case, the accused has given intimation of gifts and loans availed from relatives to his appointing authority, as such there was proper explanation, it was come to conclusion that the accused has not committed any office. But, in the case on hand no such intimation was given by the accused after purchase of property situated at Ranojirao Road, Basavangudi, 126 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Bengaluru. Hence, said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
101. The learned counsel for the accused has also pressed into service the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 14 SCC 505 between Kedarilal Vs. State of M.P., wherein the accused had given proper and prompt intimation to his Department about the source of receipt of gift or money as required under law and details of amounts received also reflected in the income tax returns, as such the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to conclusion that they are all known source of income. But, in this case, the accused being public servant was under an obligation to give an intimation to the appointing authority as to the receipt of gifts and also as to purchase of sale of property, but has not done the same and thereby violated conduct rules.
102. The learned counsel for the accused has also pressed into service decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1994 SCC Online Orissa 300 127 Spl.C.No.55/2020 between Janaki Ballav Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa which dealt with an application for discharge in respect of offences punishable under Section 13(1)
(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When facts of the case are carefully perused, it is quite clear that same are not applicable to the case on hand. The rest of the decision are taken into consideration by this court and discussed and applied to the facts of the case on hand.
103 The accused has not placed any material offering his explanation regarding known source of income to acquire the disproportionate assets. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, I answer this Point in the Affirmative.
104. POINT NO.2 : In view of the above discussion, the accused is liable to be convicted for the charges framed against him. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: 128 Spl.C.No.55/2020
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the Accused is convicted for the offence defined under Section 13(1) (e) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and his surety are hereby discharged.
****** ** * ** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of November, 2024.) (Satish J. Bali) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the learned counsel for the accused as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor.
2. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that as on today, the accused is aged about 70 years and suffering from age-old ailments and thereby prayed to impose minimum sentence. 129 Spl.C.No.55/2020
3. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that accused has amassed wealth to the extent of 171% being Excise Guard till 2001 and being Excise Sub Inspector till the date of raid and prayed to impose maximum sentence.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 2317 in the matter between N. Bhargavan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and also in another decision reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5267 between The State Vs. A. Parthiban, held that the provisions of the probation of offenders Act are not applicable to the cases covered under the P.C.Act, 1988.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 1682 in the matter of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal held that gravity of the offence under the PC Act is not to be judged on the quantum of bribe, as corruption is not to be justified in degree.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent Judgment reported in 2002 SCC Online 412 in the matter between State of Gujarath Vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhaibai Shah held that corruption is the malignant manifestation of a 130 Spl.C.No.55/2020 malady menacing the morality of men. There is a common perception that corruption in India has spread to all corners of public life and is currently choking the constitutional aspirations enshrined in the preamble. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in another Judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693 in the matter between State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar expressed its concern while taking lenient view while sentencing a public servant and observed that the public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in another Judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 147 between Madhukar Bhaskarrao Vs. State of Maharastra held that the case is pending before the court since long time is not a special ground for reducing minimum sentence.
7. The Honble Apex Court in another decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 2678 between Shanthilal 131 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Meena Vs. state of NCT, Delhi, exhaustively dealt with sentencing policy and was of the opinion that the punishment for offences under P.C. Act, there is no scope for reforming the convicted public servant unless the court awards appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence, status of the offender.
8. In view of above settled ratio, this court should bear in mind the expectation of the people to prevent corruption by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence.
9. In the case on hand, the offence was committed during the check period from 1/7/1977 to 8/7/2009. Thus, the offence under Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as on the date of offence was punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and minimum punishment shall not be less than one year and fine. As per Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where sentence of fine is to be imposed under sub clause (2) of Section 13, the Court shall take into consideration the pecuniary resources or 132 Spl.C.No.55/2020 property for which the offender is unable to account satisfactorily. In the case on hand, the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the assets worth Rs.42,48,188-50.
10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons stated herein above, it is just and necessary to strike out the balance between the maximum and minimum sentence prescribed under the law. It is to be noted that, the Accused as a Guard and as a Excise Sub Inspector has amassed wealth to the extent of Rs.42,48,188-50 disproportionate to his known source of income which is 97.75%. Therefore, considering the above said all aspects and taking into account the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed supra, and also considering the mitigating factors such as age of the offender, this court finds it proper to sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,00,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
133 Spl.C.No.55/2020
ORDER The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakhs only], and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further period of Simple Imprisonment for SIX months.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.
*** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of November 2024.) (SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Chandrashekaraiah PW.2 : Panchaksharaiah PW.3 : C.Jagadish PW.4 : T.H.Giriya Boyi PW.5 : Chandrashekhar PW.6 : C.H.Prabhudev PW.7 : Nalini PW.8 : Bharat Kumar C PW.9 : Hombalaiah PW.10 : V. Gopalkrishnappa 134 Spl.C.No.55/2020 PW.11 : N.A. Ramesh PW.12 : Nanjundaswamy PW.13 : S.M. Shivakumar PW.14 : Ramegowda PW.15 : Sadashiv Murthy G.D. PW.16 : Prabhavathi R PW.17 : S. Basavaiah PW.18 : Shivalingegowda PW.19 : M.K.Thimmegowda PW.20 : B.S.Venkatesh Murthy PW.21 : K.M.Arun Upadhya PW.22 : H. Hanumantharayappa PW.23 : B.L.Suresh PW.24 : Somashekharappa PW.25 : S.P.Gopalappa PW.26 : Chandrashekhar PW.27 : M.N.Gururaj Rao PW.28 : R.Lokesh PW.29 : P. Sanjeeva Rao PW.30 : S. Sitalakshmi PW.31 : B.Shivarthi PW.32 : V.Muniyappa PW.33 : I.M. Khan PW.34 : Raghu PW.35 : Pradeep Kumar PW.36 : Latha V PW.37 : B.H.S. Pai PW.38 : N.S.Bheemappa PW.39 : J.N.Ramesh PW.40 : Puttaswamy PW.41 : Revanna PW.42 : Kiran Kumar PW.43 : Shankar PW.44 : Suresh P.H PW.45 : Joys Sundar PW.46 : Mukunda PW.47 : Geetha S PW.48 : M.S.Santhosh PW.49 : H.L.Nagaraj PW.50 : Jayadevaprakash PW.51 : Prakash PW.52 : Goutham 135 Spl.C.No.55/2020 PW.53 : B.P.Dinesh Kumar
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED THROUGH PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Seizure Mahazar. Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.2. Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature. Ex.P.3 : Letter dated 28.05.2012. Ex.P.4 : Reply to the letter dated 10.07.2012. Ex.P.5 : Order dated 9.8.2010. Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.3. Ex.P.6 : Letter dated 15.02.2010. Ex.P.7-37 : Copies of letters. Ex.P.38 : Mahazar.
Ex.P.38(a) : Signature of PW.4. Ex.P.38(b) : Signature of B P Dinesh Kumar Ex.P.39 : Letter dated 4.8.2012 from Lokayukta Police.
Ex.P.40 : Letter.
Ex.P.40(a) : Signature of PW.5. Ex.P.41 : Letter dated 24.07.2012. Ex.P.42 : Reply to the letter dated 24.07.2012. Ex.P.43 : Information regarding accused. Ex.P.43(a) : Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.44 : Reply dated 22.02.2010 Ex.P.44(a) : Signature of PW.6. Ex.P.45 : Service particulars of accused. Ex.P.46 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2008-2009.
Ex.P.47 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2007-2008.
Ex.P.48 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2000-2001.
Ex.P.49 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2006-2007.
Ex.P.50 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2002-2003.
Ex.P51 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2002-2003.136 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Ex.P.52 : Assets and Liabilities statement of accused for the year 2001-2002.
Ex.P.53,54 : Letters dated 25.02.2010. Ex.P.55 : Letter dated 08.03.2010. Ex.P.56,57 : Reply Letters dated 23.03.2010. Ex.P.56(a) : Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.57(a) : Signature of PW.7. Ex.P.58 : Information regarding I.T. Returns of accused Ex.P.59 : Information regarding I.T. Returns pertaining to the daughter of the accused. Ex.P.60 : I.T. Returns (page. 157 to 198) Ex.P.61 : I.T. Returns (page. 213 to 239) Ex.P.62 : Letter dated 07.05.2011. Ex.P.63 : Reply Letter dated 25.05.2011. Ex.P.64 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 10.07.1969 Ex.P.65 : Encumbrance Certificate from 1.4.1969 to 31.03.2004.
Ex.P.66 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.67 : Letter dated 25.06.2012. Ex.P.68 : Letter dated 30.06.2012. Ex.P.69 : C/c of Sthira Swattu Bond Ex.P.70 : C/c of Aadhaar Bidugade patra. Ex.P.71 : Reply dated 7.8.2012 to the letters dated 28.03.2011 and 06.08.2012.
Ex.P.72 : Valuation Report of House No.880, located at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.73 : Letter dated 07.05.2011.
Ex.P.74 : Reply letter.
Ex.P.74(a) : Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.75 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.76 : C/c of Letter dated 03.10.1997 Ex.P.77 : Letter dated 07.05.2011 Ex.P.78 : Reply Letter dated 13.05.2011 Ex.P.79 : C/c of the Sale Deed dated 30.09.1997, Ex.P.80 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.81 : Letter dated 15.09.2010. Ex.P.82 : Reply dated 01.10.2010.
Ex.P.83 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 03.10.1997. Ex.P.84 : C/c of the Sale Deed dated 30.09.1997. Ex.P.85 : Letter dated 16.08.2012. Ex.P.86 : Reply dated 23.08.2012 to the letter dated 137 Spl.C.No.55/2020 16.08.2012.
Ex.P.86(a) : Signature of witness - PW.12. Ex.P.87 : Copy of Sale Deed dated 12.11.2007. Ex.P.88 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.89 : Letter dated 18.06.2012 Ex.P.90 : Reply dated 04.08.2012 to the letter dated 18.6.2012.
Ex.P.90(a) : Signature of witness-PW.13 Ex.P.91 : Copy of Mutation Register Extract. Ex.P.92-95 : RTC Extracts.
Ex.P.96 : Copy of Mutation Extracts. Ex.P.97 : Letter dated 16.08.2012 Ex.P.98 : Reply dated 24.08.2012 to Ex.P.97. Ex.P.98(a) : Signature of witness (PW.13).
Ex.P.99 : Genealogical Tree.
Ex.P.100 : Letter dated 23.08.2012. Ex.P.101 : Letter issued by Revenue Authorities and Village Accountant.
Ex.P.102 : Genealogical Tree of Gaviyappa. Ex.P.103 : Letter dated 16.08.2012 requesting to send Genealogical Tree of Mayanna Gowda. Ex.P.104 : Reply dated 24.08.2012 to the letter dated 16.08.2012.
Ex.P.104(a): Signature of PW.13.
Ex.P.105 : Genealogical Tree.
Ex.P.106 : Xerox copy of Sale Deed.
Ex.P.107 : Marked portion of deposition. Ex.P.108 : Statement of B.H.Ramegowda. Ex.P.109 : Letter dated 25.07.2012 from Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.110 : Report Ex.P.110(a): Signature of PW.15.
Ex.P.111 : Letter dated 28.03.2011 from Lokayuktha. Ex.P.112 : Estimate.
Ex.P.112(a): Signature of PW.15 Ex.P.113 : Letter dated 12.07.2012. Ex.P.114 : Reply Letter.
Ex.P.115 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 14.12.2010. Ex.P.116 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.117 : Letter dated 18.06.2012 from Lokayuktha, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.118 : Reply Letter.
138 Spl.C.No.55/2020Ex.P.119 : C/c of Aadhaar Patra.
Ex.P.120 : C/c of Aadhaar Patra.
Ex.P.121 : Letter dated 18.06.2012 from Lokayuktha Police.
Ex.P.122 : Reply dated 26.07.2012 to Ex.P.121. Ex.P.123 : Copy of Loan Application. Ex.P.124 : Aadhaar Patra Copy.
Ex.P.125 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.126 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.127 to: Document copy of Advise Card. Ex.P.132 Ex.P.133 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.134 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.135 : Copy of Mutation Entry Ex.P.136 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.137 : RTC Extract.
Ex.P.138 : RTC Extract.
Ex.P.139 : Copy of Mutation Register. Ex.P.140 : Copy of Receipt.
Ex.P.141& : Advise Cards.
142 Ex.P.143 : Copy of Loan Account Statement. Ex.P.144 : Loan Application.
Ex.P.145 : Copy of Aadhaar Patra.
Ex.P.146 : RTC Extract.
Ex.P.147 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.148 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.149 : Copy of Loan Account.
Ex.P.150 : Letter dated 16.08.2012. Ex.P.151 : Reply dated 24.08.2012. Ex.P.152 &: Copy of Loan Account Documents. Ex.P.153 Ex.P.154 : Certified copy.
Ex.P.155 &: Copy of Loan Account Documents. Ex.P.156 Ex.P.157 : Letter Ex.P.157(a): Signature of C.P.Thimmegouda Ex.P.158 : Documents.
Ex.P.159 : Letter dated 07.08.2012 Ex.P.160 : Copy of Savings Bank Account. Ex.P.161 : Documents from Page.554 to 560. Ex.P.162 : Documents from page 121 to 156 139 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.163 : Documents from page 199 to 211 Ex.P.164 : Documents from page 164 Ex.P.165 : Reply dated 22.08.2012. Ex.P.166 : B Register Extract of vehicle. Ex.P.167 : B Register Extract of vehicle. Ex.P.168 &: Applications in Form No.20 for registration. Ex.P.169 :
Ex.P.170 : Copy of Sale Certificates in form No.21 Ex.P.171 : Copy of temporary Registration Letter. Ex.P.172 : Certified copy in Form No.22. Ex.P.173 : Copy of Sales Certificates in Form No.21. Ex.P.174 : Copy of Temporary Registration Letter. Ex.P.175 : Certified copy of Form No.22. Ex.P.176 : Copy of Form No.61.
Ex.P.177 : Identity Card of Election Commission of India.
Ex.P.178 : RTC Extract of Sy.No.32. Ex.P.179 : Copy of Challan.
Ex.P.180 : Copy of Receipt.
Ex.P.181 : Copy of Form No.14 Ex.P.182 : Certified copy of Agriculturist. Ex.P.183 : Copy of application for Registration. Ex.P.184 : Same copy of Ex.P.183. Ex.P.185 : Requisition.
Ex.P.186 : Details of the Bills in page 981 pertaining to Ex.P.185.
Ex.P.186(a): Signature of PW.23. Ex.P.187 : Letter dated 16.07.2012. Ex.P.188 : Transfer Order dated 28.06.2001. Ex.P.189 : Copy of Sanad dated 27.06.2001. Ex.P.190 : Copy of pre-permission dated27.06.2001. Ex.P.191 : Copy of certificate submitted by Yureka. Ex.P.192 : Letter dated 22.06.2001. Ex.P.193 : Letter by Yureka to the Sub-Inspector Excise Ex.P.194 : Application submitted for transfer of Yureka and S.P.Gopal.
Ex.P.195 : Muchhalike Patra.
Ex.P.196 : Copy of certificate. Ex.P.197 : Copy of Ration Card.
Ex.P.198 : Muchhalike Patra.140 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Ex.P.199 &: Copies of Challans. Ex.P.200 :
Ex.P.201 : Copy of Map Ex.P.202 : Acceptance Letter of Nanjundappa. Ex.P.203 : Certificate issued by Circle-2 Asst.
Commissioner Commercial Tax Ex.P.204 : Portion of Statement. Ex.P.205 : Letter from Lokayukta Police dated 26.06.2012. Ex.P.206 : Reply letter dated 13.07.2012. Ex.P.207 : Copy of specimen signature. Ex.P.208 : Copy of PAN Card.
Ex.P.209 : Identity Card issued by Election Commission.
Ex.P.210 : Copy of S.B. Account No.11896. Ex.P.211 : Letter dated 26.06.2012 by Lokayukta Police.
Ex.P.212 : Reply dated 13.07.2012. Ex.P.213 : Account Opening Form. Ex.P.214 : Copy of Debit Card of UTI Bank. Ex.P.215 : Copy of SB Account of Yureka page.700 to
722.
Ex.P.216 : Information sought by Police dated 26.06.2013. Ex.P.217 : Reply dated 13.07.2012. Ex.P.218 : Account opening Form of Kavitha. Ex.P.219 : Declaration in Form No.60. Ex.P.220 : Copy of Ration Card pertaining to accused. Ex.P.221 : Copy of S.B. Account Statement. Ex.P.222 : Letter dated 31.05.2012. Ex.P.223 : Reply letter dated 17.06.2011. Ex.P.224 : Copy of account.
Ex.P.225 : Letter dated 12.07.2012. Ex.P.226 : Reply dated 20.07.2012. Ex.P.227 : Details of advance paid towards site. Ex.P.228 : Application for membership for site. Ex.P.229 : Application for site.
Ex.P.230 : Copy of Letter.
Ex.P.231 : Letter dated 03.08.2012 from Lokayukta Police. Ex.P.232 : Reply dated 13.08.2012 to the letter dated 03.08.2012. Ex.P.233 : RTC Extract of Sy.No.19-2 of Kalkuni Village. Ex.P.234 : Copy of Mutation Register MR 41-2007-08. Ex.P.235 : Letter dated 26.06.2012 from Lokayukta Police.
141 Spl.C.No.55/2020Ex.P.236 : Reply dated 29.06.2012. Ex.P.236(a): Signature of PW.29.
Ex.P.237 : Account opening form pertaining to Smt.Kamalamma.
Ex.P.238 : Copy of Election Identity Card. Ex.P.239 : Statement of account of Smt.Kamalamma. Ex.P.240 : Application for opening a deposit account. Ex.P.241 : Statement of account.
Ex.P.242 : Application for opening deposit account. Ex.P.243 : Nomination Form Ex.P.244 : One more statement of account. Ex.P.245 : Letter.
Ex.P.246 : Reply dated 6.10.2010 to the letter. Ex.P.246(a): Signature of PW.29.
Ex.P.247 : Statement of accounts.
Ex.P.248 : Letter dated 26.06.2012 from Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.249 : Reply dated 13.08.2012. Ex.P.250 : Statement of accounts.
Ex.P.251 : Specimen signature form. Ex.P.252 : Ledger Extract.
Ex.P.253 : Account opening form Ex.P.254 : Ledger Extract.
Ex.P.255 : Statement of accounts Ex.P.256 to:
Ex.P.258 : 3 more Statements of accounts Ex.P.259 : Letter dated 4.8.2012 from Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.260 : Statement of Account of Chikkamma & Roopa.
Ex.P.261 : Statement of Account. Ex.P.262 : Letter dated 26.06.2012 from Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.263 : Letter dated 18.7.2012 from Syndicate Bank. Ex.P.264 : Account opening form of Syndicate Bank. Ex.P.265 : Form of Declaration in Form No.61. Ex.P.266 : Form CL-2.
Ex.P.267 : Copy of PAN Card of Yurekha R. Ex.P.268 &: Account Statements. Ex.P.269 :
Ex.P.270 : Letter dated 13.8.2012 by Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.271 : Letter dated 13.8.2012 by Corporation Bank. Ex.P.272 : Account Statement. Ex.P.273 : Letter dated 16.08.2012 by Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.274 : Letter dated 18.8.2012 by Corporation Bank 142 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.275 : A/c opening Form for Term Deposit Account. Ex.P.276 : Letter dated 22.03.2010 from Lokayukta Police.
Ex.P.277 : Reply dated 31.03.2010 to the letter. Ex.P.278 : Zerox copy of Lease Agreement. Ex.P.279 : Notice dated 03.07.2012. Ex.P.280 : Reply dated 16.07.2012 Ex.P.281 &: Cheques.
Ex.P.282 Ex.P.283 : Letter dated 18.09.2010 from Lokayuktha, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.284 : Reply dated 30.09.2010. Ex.P.285 : Copy of B Register Extract. Ex.P.286 &:
P.287 : Vehicle Tax Receipts. Ex.P.288 : Copy of Application in Form No.20. Ex.P.289 : Copy of Sales Letter in Form No.21. Ex.P.290 : Copy of Temporary Registration Letter. Ex.P.291 : Copy of Invoice.
Ex.P.292 : Copy of Ration Card. Ex.P.293 : Letter dated 4.7.2012. Ex.P.294 : Reply dated 11.07.2012. Ex.P.294(a): Signature of PW.34. Ex.P.295 : Document of Vehicle History from page Nos.934 to 940.
Ex.P.296 : Letter dated 18.01.2010. Ex.P.297 : Reply dated 22.01.2010 to the letter dated Ex.P.296 Ex.P.298 : Zerox copy of Invoice. Ex.P.299 : Copy of B Register. Ex.P.300 : Reply dated 18.06.2012. Ex.P.300(b):
& (c) : Letter dated: 06.06.2012 (RTO, Jayanagar) and reply Ex.P.301 : Letter dated 17.09.2010 from Lokayuktha Police.
Ex.P.302 : Reply dated 28.09.2010. Ex.P.303 : Account Extract of Ledger. Ex.P.304 : Copy of Invoice.
Ex.P.305 : Copy of Debit Note. Ex.P.306 : Another Copy of account extract of Ledger Ex.P.307 : Copy of Invoice 143 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.308 : Copy of Debit note. Ex.P.309 : Letter dated 6.6.2012 Ex.P.310 : Reply Letter dated 12.06.2012 Ex.P.310(a): Signature of PW.36 Ex.P.311 : Challan indicating payment of motor vehicle tax.
Ex.P.311(a): Signature of PW.36. Ex.P.312 : Challan Ex.P.312(a): Signature of PW.36. Ex.P.313 : Letter dated 13.09.2010 by Lokayuktha Police.
Ex.P.314 : Reply dated 28.09.2010. Ex.P.314(a): Signature Ex.P.315 : Certificate of Interest. Ex.P.315(a): Signature of PW.37. Ex.P.316 : Statement of account. Ex.P.317 : Statement of account. Ex.P.318 : Copy of Loan Application. Ex.P.319 : Details of vehicle. Ex.P.320 : Letter dated 19.03.2009. Ex.P.321 : Account in Indian Bank. Ex.P.322 : Copy of the PAN Card. Ex.P.323 : Copy of Hypothecation Ded. Ex.P.324 : Letter agreeing to pay penal interest. Ex.P.325 : Copy of Receipt.
Ex.P.326 : Letter dated 20.03.2009. Ex.P.327 : Copy of the receipt for having paid life tax for the vehicle.
Ex.P.328 : Debit Note.
Ex.P.329 : Invoice.
Ex.P.330 : Copy of the Policy of Insurance. Ex.P.331 : Copy of the Registration Certificate. Ex.P.332 : Letter of Guarantee. Ex.P.333 : Letter of Guarantee. Ex.P.334 : Letter given by the accused and his surety. Ex.P.335 : Copy of the security inspection report of vehicle.
Ex.P.336 : Letter evidencing execution of documents by the accused.
Ex.P.337 : Copy of Form No.35. Ex.P.338 : Letter by accused accepting terms of the loan.144 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Ex.P.339 : Letter dated 06.06.2012 by Lokayuktha Police.
Ex.P.340 : Reply dated 07.06.2012 to Ex.P.339. Ex.P.341 : Another Letter Ex.P.342 : Temporary Registration Certificate. Ex.P.343 : Copy of Sale Certificate Ex.P.344 : Copy of Invoice.
Ex.P.345 : Letter dated 04.02.2008. Ex.P.346 to : Copy of Challans and Receipts.
P.348 :
Ex.P.349 : Copy of PAN Card.
Ex.P.350 : Copy of Ration Card. Ex.P.351 : Letter from Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru. Ex.P.352 : Reply dated 07.06.2012. Ex.P.353 : Another Letter.
Ex.P.354 : Copy of Loan Application. Ex.P.355 : Letter from Commissioner, Department of Transport.
Ex.P.356 : Copy of Sale Certificate. Ex.P.357 : Copy of Retail Invoice. Ex.P.358 : Copy of PAN Card.
Ex.P.359 : Copy of Ration Card. Ex.P.360 to: Copies of challans Ex.P.362 Ex.P.363 : Copy of Form No.14. Ex.P.364 : Copy of Letter dated 22.10.2009. Ex.P.365 : Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.P.366 : Letter dated 02.06.2012 Ex.P.367 : Reply dated 7.6.2012. Ex.P.367(a): Signature of PW.39. Ex.P.368 : Report pertaining to Policy. Ex.P.369 : Letter dated 02.06.2012 from Lokayuktha Police.
Ex.P.370 : Reply dated 7.6.2012. Ex.P.370(a): Signature of PW.40. Ex.P.371 : Letter dated 15.09.2010. Ex.P.372 : Property Extract. Ex.P.373 : Katha Extract of wife of accused. Ex.P.374 : Reply.
Ex.P.374(a): Signature.
Ex.P.375 : Letter dated 12.07.2012. Ex.P.376 : Reply Letter along with 7 documents.145 Spl.C.No.55/2020
Ex.P.376(a): Signature.
Ex.P.377 : Letter dated 08.08.2012. Ex.P.378 : Reply Letter containing 4 documents. Ex.P.378(a): Signature.
Ex.P.379 : Letter dated 04.10.2010. Ex.P.380 : Reply Letter along with 3 documents. Ex.P.380(a): Signature.
Ex.P.381 : Letter dated 4.6.2012 by Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.382 : Letter dated 5.6.2012 by Sub-Registrar office. Ex.P.383 : Form No.15 Ex.P.384 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 25.05.2005 Ex.P.385 : C/c of Absolute Sale Deed dated 25.08.2005 Ex.P.386 : Letter dated 23.5.2012 by Lokayuktha Police. Ex.P.387 : Reply dated 24.05.2012. Ex.P.388 : Prapatra in Form NO.15 Ex.P.389 : Prapatra in Form No.15 Ex.P.390 : C/c of Sale Deed Ex.P.391 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 11.6.2001. Ex.P.392 : Sthira Swattige sambandhisida ichha patretara vahi.
Ex.P.393 : C/c of Absolute Sale Deed Ex.P.394 : Letter to Lokayukta dated 27.10.2010 Ex.P.394(a): Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.395 : Reply letter to Lokayuktha Police Ex.P.395(a): Signature of PW.45 Ex.P.395(b): Letter dated: 26.06.2012 to Bishop Cotton Ex.P.396 &: Copy of the letter sent by the Lokayuktha 397 and reply notice Ex.P.397(a) : Signature of PW.46 Ex.P.398 : Reply letter to Lokayuktha Ex.P.398(a): Letter to Vijaya High School dated:
12.06.2012 Ex.P.399 : Letter dated 15.06.2012 from Karnataka Lokayukta.
Ex.P.399(a): Letter dated: 15.06.2012 to Jain College Ex.P.400 : Request letter Ex.P.401 : Form No.1 Ex.P.402 : Form No.2 Ex.P.403 : Report Ex.P.403(a): Signature of the PW.50 Ex.P.404 : Covering letter Ex.P.405 : Life Insurance Policy 146 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.406 : The covering letter written to BSNL Ex.P.407 : The information furnished by BSNL Ex.P.408 : Medical Insurance Policy details Ex.P.409 : School fee details of R.Ureka Ex.P.410 : Letter issued by Child Development Institute regarding tuition fee paid Ex.P.411 : Information furnished by Mahila Seva Samaja regarding payment of fee Ex.P.412 : School fee certificate furnished by Sri Kumaran Children's Home Educational Council Ex.P.413 : School fee certificate issued by Nivedita School Ex.P.412(a):
& (b) : Letter dated: 12.06.2012 to Sri Kumaran Children's Home Ex.P.413(a): Letter dated: 12.06.2012 to Nivedita School Ex.P.414 : The search warrant Ex.P.415 : The search list with Mahazar Ex.P.415(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.416 : Letter of S.P Ex.P.417 : P.F Ex.P.418 : The Club membership information Ex.P.418(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.419 : Letter to Secretary, Basavanagudi Club Ex.P.419(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.420 : Information furnished by Basavanagudi Club Ex.P.420(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.421 : Letter to AEE, PWD Ex.P.421(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.422 : Report submitted by PWD Ex.P.422(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.422(b): Letter dated: 06.08.2012 to AEE, PWD Ex.P.423 : Letter to AEE, BESCOM Ex.P.424 : Reply by BESCOM Ex.P.424(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.425 : Letter to AEE, BWSSB Ex.P.426 : Information along with annexures Ex.P.426(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.427 : Letter to BBMP-reg: Property tax Ex.P.427(a): Signature of PW.51 147 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.428 : Information and its enclosures Ex.P.428(b): Letter dated: 25.06.2012 to RI, Bengaluru Ex.P.429 : Letter to BBMP-Vijayanagar house Ex.P.430 : Information and its annexures Ex.P.430(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.431 : Letter to Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Ex.P.431(a): Signature of the PW.51 Ex.P.432 : Reply letter Ex.P.432(a) : Signature of the PW.51 Ex.P.433 & Ex.P.434 : RTC extracts Ex.P.435 : EC Ex.P.436 to:
Ex.P.438 : Information Sy.No.153, Hathna Village Ex.P.436(a) to to P.438(b): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.439 : Letter dated: 18.09.2010 to BESCOM Ex.P.439(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.440 : Reply Ex.P.440(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.441 : Bill details report Ex.P.442 : Letter dated: 04.10.2010 Corporation Bank, Chamrajpet Ex.P.443 : Reply letter Ex.P.443(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.444 : Account opening form Ex.P.445 : Statement of account Ex.P.446 : Reply by Post Master, Basavangudi Ex.P.447 : Statement of account of Kavitha Ex.P.448 : Statement of account of Eurekha Ex.P.449 : Covering letter Ex.P.450 : Letter dated:07.10.2009 to RTO, Jayanagar-
Maruti Swift Ex.P.451 : Letter dated:07.10.2009 to RTO, Bannerghatta-Santro Ex.P.452 : Reply letter Ex.P.452(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.453 : Copy of the policy Ex.P.454 : D register extract Ex.P.455 : Tax invoice Ex.P.456 : NOC Ex.P.457 : Endorsement 148 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.458 : Letter dated: 14.09.2010 to Post Master, Basavangudi Ex.P.459 : Details Ex.P.460 : 17 copies of Kisan Vikas Pathras Ex.P.461 : Letter dated: 17.09.2010 Ex.P.461(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.462 : Information details Ex.P.463 : 2 NSC copies Ex.P.464 : Letter dated:07.10.2009 to RTO, Jayanagar- Ex.P.465 : Maruti Swift Letter dated: 16.01.2010 to Bank of Baroda Ex.P.466 : Reply Ex.P.466(a): 07.10.2009-letter to LIC Ex.P.467 : LIC information Ex.P.467(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.468 : 11 Policy details Ex.P.469 : 12.01.2010-letter-LIC, Kunigal Ex.P.470 : Reply Ex.P.471 to:
Ex.P.473 : 3 status reports of Kamalamma and Roshini Ex.P.474 : 12.01.2010-letter to LIC NR Square Ex.P.475 : Reply Ex.P.476 : Status report Ex.P.477 : 12.01.2010-letter to LIC, Hunsur Branch Ex.P.478 : Reply Ex.P.479 : 21.01.2010-letter to LIC, Basavanagudi Ex.P.480 &:
Ex.P.481 : Reply letters Ex.P.482 : 12.01.2010-letter to LIC, Basavanagudi Ex.P.483 : Information Ex.P.483(a): Signature of the PW.51 Ex.P.484 : 12.01.2010-letter to LIC, Tumkur Ex.P.485 : Information Ex.P.486 : 20.01.2010-letter to LIC, Basavanagudi Ex.P.487 : Information Ex.P.488 : 12.01.2010-letter to LIC, MG Road Ex.P.489 : Information Ex.P.490 & Ex.P.491 : 2 status reports Ex.P.492 : 16.01.2010-letter to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Ex.P.493 : Information 149 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.494 & Ex.P.495 : 07.10.2009 and 11.01.2010-letters to KGID Ex.P.496 & Ex.P.497 : Information details Ex.P.498 : 18.09.2010-letter to B.N. Naveen Kumar (KA51 7799) Ex.P.498(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.499 : Reply Ex.P.500 : 04.10.2010-letter to BGSC Financial Ltd., Ex.P.501 : Information Ex.P.502 : 16.09.2010-letter to Oriental Insurance Company Ex.P.502(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.503 : 04.10.2010-letter to Kanva Diagnostic Services Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P.504 : Information Ex.P.505 : 17.09.2010-letter to Kavitha Enterprises (Domestic gas) Ex.P.505(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.506 : Information Ex.P.507 : 17.09.2010-letter to Maheshwari Gas Agency Ex.P.507(a): Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.508 : Information Ex.P.508(a) : Information Ex.P.509 : Letter from DIG, Lokayukta Ex.P.510 : Letter dated 03.07.2012-Shamrao Vittal Co-
op Bank Ex.P.510(a): Signature of PW.52 Ex.P.511 : Letter of Bank dated 13.07.2012 Ex.P.512 : Letter dated 02.06.2012 to LIC Ex.P.513 : Reply letter Ex.P.514 : Status report Ex.P.515 : Letter dated: 19.07.2012 - by AEE, Vijayanagar Ex.P.516 : Death Certificate of Muddaiah Ex.P.517 : Letter dated: 13.08.2012 by AEE, PWD (Mayanna Gowda) Ex.P.518 : Letter and its annexures dated:
25.06.2012 (AEE, CHESCOM, Nagamangala) Ex.P.518(a): Signature of PW.52 150 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.519 to Ex.P.521 : Letters dated 13.07.2012 (RTO, Electronic city) and the information Ex.P.522 to Ex.P.524 : Letters dated 06.06.2012 (ICICI Bank) and statements of account Ex.P.525 &:
Ex.P.526 : Letters dated 19.06.2012 to Chief Post Master, Bengaluru Ex.P.527 to Ex.P.529 : Letters dated 06.06.2012 (ICICI Bank) and statement of account Ex.P.530 to Ex.P.532 : Letters dated 07.08.2012 (Oriental Insurance Company) and policy copy Ex.P.533 : Letter to Advaith Motors Ex.P.534 : Reply Ex.P.535 : Letter to RTO, Electronic City dated: 11.07.2012 Ex.P.536 : Information-26.07.2012 Ex.P.537 : Letter to LIC, Kunigal dated: 04.06.2012 (Roshini) Ex.P.538 : Reply Ex.P.539 : Letter to LIC, Kunigal dated: 02.06.2012 (Kamalamma & Ramachandra) Ex.P.540 : Reply Ex.P.541 : Letter with status report Ex.P.542 : Letter to BGSE Financials Ltd., dated: 13.07.2012 Ex.P.543 : Reply letter dated: 19.07.2012 Ex.P.544 : Letter to AEE, BESCOM dated: 07.08.2012 Ex.P.545 : Reply Ex.P.546 : Letter to AEE, BESCOM dated: 07.08.2012 Ex.P.547 : Reply Ex.P.548 : Letter to Maheshwari Gas Agencies dated:
13.08.2012 Ex.P.549 : Letter to Manager, Police Bhavana, Mysore dated: 14.06.2012 Ex.P.550 : Reply Ex.P.551 : Letter dated: 18.08.2012 to accused Ex.P.552 : Reply Ex.P.553 : Statement of accused -Indian Bank 151 Spl.C.No.55/2020 Ex.P.516(a): Letter dated: 12.06.2012 to the Registrar, Birth & Death Ex.P.554 : FIR Ex.P.554(a): Signature of D.T. Srinivasan Ex.P.555 : Source report Ex.P.555(a): Signature of D.T. Srinivasan Ex.P.556 : Requisition to Head Master, dated 08/07/2009 Ex.P.556(a): Signature of B P Dinesh Kumar Ex.P.557 : Requisition to Deputy Tahasildar dated 08/07/2009 Ex.P.557(a): Signature of B P Dinesh Kumar Ex.P.558 : Search warrant Ex.P.558(a): Signature of B P Dinesh Kumar Ex.P.559 : Covering letter,dated 08/07/2009 Ex.P.559(a): Signature of B P Dinesh Kumar LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE IN SPL.C.55/2020:
DW.1 : Jayaram M DW.2 : Venkatesh M.C DW.3 : Nagaraj
List of documents marked through Defence Side in Spl.C.No.55/2020:
Ex.D.1 : RTC 32 Nos.
Ex.D.2 : Gift Deed.
Ex.D.3 : Sale Deed.
Ex.D.4 : Encumbrance Certificate.
(SATISH J. BALI)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.152 Spl.C.No.55/2020
.....ORDER pronounced in the Open Court (Vide Separate detailed Judgment..) ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the Accused is convicted for 153 Spl.C.No.55/2020 the offence defined under Section 13(1) (e) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and his surety are hereby discharged.
(SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.
.....ORDER ON SENTENCE pronounced in the Open Court (Vide Separate detailed Judgment..) ORDER The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakhs only], and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further period of Simple Imprisonment for SIX months.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.
154 Spl.C.No.55/2020Learned counsel for the accused has filed application under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., seeking for suspension of sentence till expiry of the appeal period.
Heard oral objections of learned Special Public Prosecutor.
As the accused intends to prefer an appeal against the above said order of conviction, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal, to meet the ends of justice, it is just and necessary to suspend the above said sentence and payment of fine till expiry of appeal period, on executing personal bond for Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three lakhs only] with likesum surety.
Surety by name Sri Nagaraj s/o Muddaiah, aged about 75 years, R/o No.739, Ground Floor, 5th Cross, II Block, BSK Ist Stage, Srinagar, Banashankari, Bengaluru present and filed a surety affidavit along with xerox copy of sale deed dated 22/11/1996 which is compared with original. The surety has also furnished the notarised copy of Aadhar Card, Encumbrance Certificate and tax paid 155 Spl.C.No.55/2020 receipts and also katha extract of the above said order, same were compared with the original and enquired with surety. Satisfied with solvency. Hence, surety is accepted.
Office is directed to collect bond from the accused as well as from the above said surety.
(SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.