Bangalore District Court
Investigation/Acb vs ) Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa on 26 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-4)
Dated this the 26th day of October 2016
Present: Sri. R.B. DHARMAGOUDAR,
B.Sc., LL.B., (Spl.)
XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru
Special Criminal Case No. 207/2012
State by Central Bureau of
Complainant Investigation/ACB, Bengaluru.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused 1) Sri. B.S. YEDDYURAPPA
S/o late Siddalingappa
Aged about 69 years
Member of Legislative
Assembly from Shikaripura
Constituency, Karnataka:
former Chief Minister of
Karnataka, House No.13/2,
Malerakeri, Shikaripura,
Shimoga District, Karnataka
also at No.381, "Dhavalgiri",
6th Cross, 2nd Block,
RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru.
2) Sri. B.Y. VIJAYENDRA
S/o B.S. Yeddyurappa
Aged about 37 years
2 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
R/o House No.13/2,
Malerakeri, Shikaripura,
Shikaripura Taluk,
Shimoga District,
Also at Flat No.101,
'Adarsh Rose'
Near Shivananda Store Circle,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3) Sri. B.Y. RAGHAVENDRA
S/o B.S. Yeddyurappa
Aged about 39 years
Former Member of Parliament
from Shimoga Constituency,
Business, House No.13/2,
Malerakeri, Shikaripura,
Shimoga District, Karnataka
and also at "Mythri" 2nd Block,
3rd Stage, Vinobanagar,
Shimoga.
4) Sri. R.N. SOHAN KUMAR,
S/o R.D. Nataraj
Aged 42 years
R/o Ravandur village,
Periyapatna Taluk,
Mysore District and also at
No.2914 (New No.21),
1st Cross, Hampi Nagar,
Magadi Chord Road,
Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 104.
5) Prerana Educational and
Social Trust represented
by its Managing Trustee
3 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
Shri B.Y. Raghavendra
No.26, 2nd Floor,
Prerana Chambers,
Nehru Nagar Main Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru-560020.
6) Sri. S.N.KRISHNAIAH SETTY
S/o S. Narayan Setty
Aged 53 years
Member of Legislative
Assembly from Malur,
Karnataka and former
Minister of Mujarai and
Housing Karnataka,
R/o Shivarapatna Village,
Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
Also at No.456/28,
64th Cross, Rajaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
7) M/s. South West Mining Ltd.,
Rep. by Shri Rajiv Bansal,
General Manager
Vidya Nagar PO, Toranagallu,
Sandur Taluk, Bellary District,
Karnataka.
8) M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.,
Represented by
Shri Mani C. Manuel,
General Manager,
Vidya Nagar PO, Toranagallu,
Sandur Taluk, Bellary District,
Karnataka.
4 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
9) Sri. VINOD NOWAL,
Chief Executive Officer &
Director, M/s. J.S.W. Steel
Ltd.,
S/o Late Shri Madan Nowal,
Aged about 57 years,
Bungalow No.18, Vidyanagar,
JSW Steels Ltd., Toranagallu,
Dist. Bellary, Karnataka.
Permanent resident of Nowal
House, Ward No.13, Pilani,
Dist. Jhunjihunu, Rajasthan.
10) Sri. VIKAS SHARMA,
Senior Vice President,
M/s. J.S.W. Steel Ltd.,
S/o Shri Ram Avtar Sharma,
Aged about 48 years, Triveni
Bhavan, Railway Road,
Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan.
Also at Bungalow No.16,
M/s. JSW Vidyanagar
Township, PO Vidya Nagar,
Torangallu, Bellary.
11) M/s. Real Technical
Solution Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by
Sri. Srikant Shetty,
Director. Vidyanagar PO,
Toranagallu, Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District, Karnataka.
12) M/s. Jai Bharat Technical
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by Sri. Muralidhar
Dash, Director Vidyanagar
PO, Toranagallu, Sandur
5 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
Taluk, Bellary District,
Karnataka.
13) M/s. Industrial Techno
Manpower Supply &
Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by
Sri. Vivekananda Kulkarni,
Director, Vidyanagar PO,
Toranagallu, Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District, Karnataka.
(By Sri. ERG Naidu, Adv. for A1,
Sri. Siddarth H.M. for A2 to 5,
Sri. V. Ramesha Babu for A6,
Sri. Kiran S. Javali for A7,
Sri. V.K. Jain for A8,
Sri. M.R. Sudhakar for A9 & 10,
Sri. Sandip Patil for A11 & 12,
Sri. Chinmay J Mirji for A13)
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by Addl.
Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC., Bengaluru against accused No.1 to 13 for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 420, 109, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.7, 9, 11, 12, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.9 r/w Sec. 4 of Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.
6 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
2. The averments of the prosecution case briefly stated are as under: -
(1) Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa S/o late Siddalingappa was functioning as a public servant in the capacity of Deputy Chief Minister from 17.2.2006 to 6.2.2007 and Chief Minister of Karnataka from 30.5.2008 to 31.7.2011. As a Chief Minister, he was incharge of Urban Development, Forest, Finance Departments. Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A2) and Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) are the sons of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) is the son-in-law of B.S. Yeddyurappa. Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A6) was functioning as a Minister of Mujurai and Housing in the Govt. of Sri. Yeddyurappa.
(2) Prerana Educational & Social Trust (A5) is a registered Trust represented by its Managing Trustee Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra. M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7) is a company registered with Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru represented by Sri. Anil Sood, 7 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Executive Director. M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) is a company registered with Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and represented by Sri. Sajjan Jindal, Chairman & Managing Director. Sri. Vinod Nowal (A9) is the Chief Executive Officer and Director of M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. Sri. Vikas Sharma (A10) was the Senior Vice President, M/s. JSW Steels. M/s. Real Technical Solution Pvt. Ltd.,(A11) represented by its Director Sri. Srikanth Shetty. M/s. Jaibharath Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A12) represented by its Director Sri. Muralidhar Dash, and M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply and Services Pvt. Ltd., (A13) represented by its Director Sri. Vivekananda Kulkarni are the companies registered with ROC, Mumbai but based in Torangallu and their business activities largely depend on works given on contract by M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8).
(3) It is alleged that the above accused persons viz., Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A-1), Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra 8 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (A-2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A-3), Sri. R. N. Sohan Kumar (A-4), Prerana Educational & Social Trust (A-5), Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A-6), M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A-7), M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A-8), Sri. Vinod Nowal (A-9), Sri. Vikas Sharma (A-10), M/s. Real Technical Solution Ltd., (A11), M/s. Jaibharath Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A-12), M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply and Services Pvt. Ltd., (A-13) entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during 2006 to 2010 at Bangalore, Bellary and other places to cheat the Govt., of Karnataka by favouring M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. It is further alleged that in pursuance of that conspiracy Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A-
1) de-notified the land measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, from acquisition, which was fraudulently and illegally purchased by Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A-2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A-3) and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) from Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty 9 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (A-6). It is further alleged that accused No.2 to 4 had purchased the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village even though it was notified for acquisition by the Govt., and thereby violated various rules, regulations and laws. It is further alleged that after getting the land converted, they sold it to M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7) at an exorbitant price. It is further alleged that Prerana Educational & Social Trust (A5), run by Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra and others, has also received donations from M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8), through M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7), M/s. Real Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (A11), M/s. Jaibharath Technical Services Pvt., Ltd., (A12) and M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd.,(A13) as a quid-pro-quo for the favours shown by B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) to M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8) in various decisions taken by him in his capacity as a public servant.
10 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (4) The Govt. of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification No. BDA/Commr./ALAO/LA9/104/202- 203 Bangalore dated 3rd February 2003 u/s 17(1) and (3) of BDA Act, 1976 for acquisition of land for formation of Arkavathi Layout and the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was also included in it. The Govt., accorded administrative approval for the project on 21.2.2004 and final notification u/s 19(1) of BDA Act, 1976 was issued on 23.2.2004 for formation of Arkavathi Layout. Since the estimated cost of the project was Rs.933.47 crores cabinet approval was necessary as per item No.36 of I-Schedule of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules 1997, accordingly post-facto cabinet approval was taken on 30.8.2004.
(5) It is further alleged that one Smt. Gowramma and Sri. Panduranga, were the owners of the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village and on 26.4.2003 Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty 11 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J approached Smt. Gowramma and her daughter Smt. Leelavathi and Sri. Panduranga requesting to dispose of the said property knowing fully well that the said land is notified for the purpose of acquisition accordingly got executed an unregistered agreement for sale of their land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, Bangalore in his favour. They delivered physical possession of the schedule property to Accused No.6 by receiving the consideration amount of Rs.12,35,000/-. Accused No.6 also got executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney on the same day in his favour authorising him to represent them before all the authorities for de-notification of the land from acquisition proceedings and to deal with the said property in accordance with law.
(6) It is further alleged that in the year 2006 Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A6) being an MLA from Malur Constituency approached Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) who was then functioning as Deputy Chief Minister, to 12 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J get the land de-notified by influencing him. Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa and his son Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A-2) proposed Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A6) to sell the land to them, accordingly Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A6) sold 20 guntas of land in Sy. No.55/2 to Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A2) and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) on 22.3.2006 for Rs.20 lakhs vide registered sale deed dated 22.3.2006 vide document No. 1343/2006-07 dated 12.4.2006 with SRO, K.R. Puram, Bangalore and accused No.6 also sold another 20 guntas of land in the said Sy. No.55/2 to Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) vide sale deed dated 21.4.2006 registered as document No.2401/2006-07 with SRO, K.R. Puram, Bangalore.
(7) It is further alleged that Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar had submitted the sale deed dated 22.3.2006 to SRO, K.R. Puram, on 22.3.2006 for registration. Sri. R. Lakshman Prasad, SRO, refused to register the sale deed since the land in question was notified by BDA for acquisition. The said 13 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J sale deed was received as a pending document vide P1851 on 22.3.2006 based on the undertaking letter given by B.Y. Vijayendra and R.N. Sohan Kumar to produce NOC from BDA within one month. It is further contended that B.Y. Vijayendra and R.N. Sohan Kumar submitted a fake and forged letter vide No. BDA Spl.LAO 976/2005-06 dated 29.3.2006 under a covering letter stating that BDA has issued this letter/ NOC and requested to register the deed of sale in their names. During investigation it was found that the letter/NOC, purported to have been issued by BDA was found to be forged. On the basis of said forged letter/ NOC, submitted by Sri. Vijayendra (A2) and R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) both the sale deeds were registered.
(8) It is further contended that u/s 81(a) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Sri. Vijayendra (A2) and R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) had submitted affidavits to the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, Bangalore declaring their income from non-agricultural sources as Rs.50,000/-
14 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J p.a., while Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra had declared his non- agricultural income as Rs.30,000/- p.a., though it was found during investigation that they had income much higher than their declared income from non- agricultural sources. Thus it is alleged that the very purchase of the land, which was under acquisition by BDA, by Sri. Vijayendra (A2) Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) by fraudulent means was illegal.
(9) Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A6) with dishonest intention and in connivance with Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1), B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) submitted an application to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore as a GPA holder of Smt. Gowramma and Sri. Panduranga requesting for de-notification of 1 acre 12 guntas of land situated in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, Bangalore despite of the fact that 1 acre out of said 15 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 1.12 acre had already been sold by him in favour of accused No.2, 4 and accused No.3 vide sale deeds dated 22.3.2006 and 21.4.2006. Accused No.6 S.N. Krishnaiah Setty met Sri. Siddaiah, then Commissioner of BDA told him about the interest of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa's family in the said land and succeeded by influencing him to forward the request to the Govt., by his letter dated 24.9.2008 stating that the request for de-notification of the land Sy. No.55/2 measuring 1.12 acres has been examined, further mentioning that award has not been passed though the preliminary notification as well as final notification dated 23.2.2004 for acquisition of the said land has been issued.
(10) It is further contended that on 18.10.2008 on the instructions of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1), Sri. B.G. Nanda Kumar, Joint Secretary to Chief Minister sent a note to the Urban Development Department (UDD) with a direction to submit the cases pertaining to land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, amongst 16 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J other lands for perusal of Chief Minister (A1). On the same day, Sri. R. Somashekar, Section Officer, UDD put up a note in File No. UDD 374 Bembuswa 08 with a comment that although preliminary and final notifications for acquisition of the land have been published, there is no legal impediment in de- notification of the land in Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli village, Bangalore as no award has been passed in this case and he also proposed to put up the matter before the de-notification committee. Senior Officers of the UDD agreed with his suggestion and proposed to submit the file to the Hon'ble Chief Minister after obtaining the recommendations/views of the de- notification committee. Sri. K. Jyothiramalingam, the then Prl. Secretary, UDD, submitted the file to CM. Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) on the same day i.e., 18.10.2008. Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) ordered for denotification of the land on the request of the applicant, without obtaining any opinion of the de-
17 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J notification committee despite such suggestions from the Departmental Officials.
(11) It is further contended that immediately before Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) became the Chief Minister of Karnataka (30.5.2008) and took charge of the Urban Development Department, 34 cases of de- notification of land under Arkavathi Layout have been rejected by the de-notification committee citing the reasons that the said lands under acquisition are necessary for formation of the layout. Denotification committee is competent to examine the case of denotification after consideration of all aspects. But Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) the then Chief Minister preferred not to take opinion of the said committee under an apprehension that scrutiny of application by denotification committee would have exposed illegality committed by Accused No.2 to 4 in purchase of the said lands and also with an intention to suppress the fact that the land has been illegally purchased by sons 18 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J and son-in-law (A2 to A4) in violation of the provision of Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 which prohibits sale of any land under acquisition by the Govt.
(12) It is further contended that as per the provision at Sl. No.33 of 1st Schedule of the Karnataka Govt. (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 cabinet approval was also necessary for denotification of the land, which would cause modification of the scheme, since the cabinet had approved the project on 30.8.2004.
(13) It is further contended that the proposal for denotification of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was not placed before the cabinet for its approval, but Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) the then Chief Minister himself took the decision in violation of Rule 30(5) of Karnataka Govt., (Transaction of Business) Rules 1977 which lays down that a Minister shall not take a decision in matter where his 19 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J personal interest is involved. Since the denotification of the land purchased by his sons involve the personal interest of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1), he should have referred to some other Minister or the cabinet for decision. Thus, it goes to show the malafide intention of Sri. B.S. Yeeddyurappa (A1) the then Chief Minister to pass the denotification order with an intention to benefit his kin. The manner in which this denotification was done shows abuse of official position by the public servant, the then Chief Minister Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa thereby attracting the provisions of Sec. 120B IPC, Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against accused No.1 to 4 and 6.
(14) It is further contended the accused No.2, accused No.4 and accused No.3 executed two General Power of Attorneys dated 9.2.2009 in favour of Sri. R.B. Deepak in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, Bangalore and got filed the application dated 12.2.2009 for conversion of the said 20 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J land into non-agricultural (residential) purpose before the Tahsildar, Bangalore East on 26.2.2009 under the signature of Sri. R.B. Deepak and got the land converted illegally.
(15) It is further contended that M/s. Jindal Group has many interest in the State of Karnataka and to protect their interests and to obtain favours from the Govt., they extended illegal gratification to Chief Minister Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) who was heading the Govt., in the State of Karnataka. M/s. Jindal Group paid Rs.20 crores in the form of donation to the Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) run by kins of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa and another Rs.20 crores as the sale consideration money for the land purchased from his sons Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and son-in-law Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4).
(16) It is further contended that the major interest of Jindal Group lies in its steel factory viz., 21 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (earlier known as M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd.,) of 10 million ton capacity at Torangallu in Bellary District of Karnataka and to run the company, a steady supply of iron ore is necessary. To meet their requirement M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., had applied for lease hold rights of Kumaraswamy Iron Ore Mine. The Govt., of Karnataka had recommended for lease of A, D & E blocks of Kumaraswamy Range in favour of M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., but due to litigation, the mining lease proposal has not been materialized.
(17) It is further contended that under the situation and at the instance of Govt., of Karnataka, M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., (hereinafter called M/s. MML) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 17.1.1997 with Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., (hereinafter called as M/s. JVSL) for exploitation of the iron ore resources of Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mine (TION) in Sandoor Taluk, Bellary District 22 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J belonging to M/s. MML to meet in part the iron ore needs of the steel plant set up by JVSL at Toranagallu, Bellary District.
(18) The essence of MOU dated 17.1.1997 between the parties are as follows: -
1) M/s MML will provide its Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines (TIOM) and the M/s. JVSL will bring in its matching mine(s) and both the mines would be exploited through a Joint Venture Company. This JV Company viz., M/s. Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter M/s. VMPL) would be formed by of 30% equity participation from M/s. MML and 70% from M/s. JVSL.
2) M/s Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., would primarily supply iron ore fines (IOF) to M/s.
JVSL being the requirement of its Steel Plant of 1.25 million tons per annum production 23 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J capacity set up by M/s. JVSL and M/s. MML will get the calibrated iron ore (Cal. Ore).
3) Mines would be developed with a capacity of around 8 million tons per annum. The MOU envisaged an annual supply of 3.50 million tons of iron ore fines (IOF) to M/s. JVSL, presently known as M/s. JSW Steel Limited (hereinafter 'M/s. JSWSL') and M/s. MML to get 1.50 million tons of lumps/calibrated ore at a specified transfer price. The JV Company, M/s. VMPL to sell the balance quantity of fines and lumps at a price determined by M/s. VMPL with option of first right of refusal to M/s MML.
4) M/s MML would be paid a premium of 6% of the market price of IOF supplied and 10% on the Calibrated Iron ore supplied. M/s. JSWSL is entitled for similar premium on the ore raised from its mines and sold by the JV Company.
24 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
5) Vide Clause-2 of the MOU dated 17-1-1997, the above partnership shall be purely on "commercial basis" keeping in view the interest of both the parties.
(19) The Joint Venture Company M/s.
Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (M/s. VMPL) was incorporated on 17.6.1997 and the mining operations commenced with effect from 27.11.1999. (20) It is further contended that as per the MOU signed by M/s. JVSL & M/s. MML, both the parties have to hold the mining lease of iron ore and jointly produce a total required quantity of 8 million ton of iron ore per annum. But MML is holding the mining lease at TIOM while M/s. JVSL major stake holder in the Joint Venture Company was yet to acquire a mining lease and contribute its part and production and supply of iron ore. The MOU categorically states that the said partnership agreement will be purely on commercial basis keeping in view the interest of both 25 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the parties. But in practice, M/s. JSWSL (A8) became the major beneficiary due to the sole exploitation of the mine of M/s. MML company, thereby depriving M/s. MML, its share of the iron ore to be received from matching mines which was to be brought in the JV fold for extract. Thus, M/s. MML suffered heavy losses from the transaction that have been carried out under the Joint Venture.
(21) M/s. VMPL started its operation in the year 1999 but the first commercial transaction started in the year 2001. M/s. JSWSL (A8) started purchasing the iron ore fines at 6% of the sale price fixed by MMTC and later at the price fixed by M/s. MML itself. After the rate of iron ore fines increased substantially since 2003-04, the miners and traders of Karnataka State started exporting the iron ore fines. Since M/s. JSWSL (A8) was purchasing more than 80% of the iron ore fines requirement from the market, at the export rate after demand rose in 2003-04, whereas they continued 26 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J to pay M/s. MML at 6% of the sale price. Moreover, they had not brought in their matching mines into the joint venture company which would have allowed M/s. MML to get equal benefit by way of getting the calibrated iron ore from their mines.
(22) It is further contended that 92,53,674 MTs of iron ore fines were extracted and supplied from Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mine (TIOM) to M/s. JSWSL (A8) during the period 2000-01 to 2009-10. The cost of extraction to M/s. JSWSL (transfer price + 6% premium) for the above quantity of the IOF was only Rs.175.99 Crores. Whereas, the market cost of the same quantity i.e. 92,53,674 tons of iron ore fines during the same period at M/s. MMTC and M/s. MML rate was Rs.1052.89 Crores. Hence, M/s. MML suffered a loss of Rs.876.90 Crores (Rs.1052.89-175.99 Crores). This loss of Rs.876.90 Crores has not been recovered.
27 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (23) In this connection Shri Sriraman, MD, M/s MML wrote a letter No. MML/MKT/JSW/JV/2009-10/ 1315 dated 28-7-2009 to the Secretary, Mines, SSI & Textiles, Dept. of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore requesting for approval of the government to call upon M/s. JSWSL to re-negotiate the MoU on purely commercial basis with regard to fixation of price of iron ore fines as per the market price as prevailed from time to time and in the event of M/s. JSWSL (A8) not coming forward to re-negotiate the terms and conditions of the MoU, to authorise M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited to initiate legal action to terminate the MoU dated 17.01.1997.
(24) It is further contended that Sri. M. Vasudevamurthy, the then Under Secretary, Commerce & Industries Dept., mentioned about loss of Rs.789.77 Crores and further likely loss of Rs.120 Crores per annum under the existing arrangement of exploitation of TIOM, in absence of the matching mine from M/s.
28 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J JSW Steels Ltd., and suggested for directions to M/s MML to take legal action for recovery of the losses from M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. (A8), after obtaining approval of the CM. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology agreed with the note of the Under Secretary and placed the file before the Secretary, who however directed the Joint Secretary, to advice M/s. MML to correspond with M/s. JSWSL (A8) and obtain their views before submitting it to the Chief Minister (A1).
(25) It is further contended that investigation revealed that immediately after the process for review of the MoU and recovery of the loss was initiated, M/s. JSWSL (A8) wrote a letter dated 25.8.2009 to the Secretary, Mines, Dept., of Commerce & Industries to advise M/s. MML to adhere to the existing arrangement and not to change the premium structure.
(26) A meeting was held on 20.11.2009 with the representative of M/s. JSWSL led by Vikas Sharma, Sr. Vice President. In the said meeting, Sri. R. Uday 29 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Kumar, IFS., Executive Director, M/s. MML intimated that the issue of M/s. MML being compensated for the past value losses also need to be taken into. Three broad options were given and requested to give their views. However, M/s. JSWSL, declined to accept any of the three options suggested in the said meeting and repeated that immediately after allotment of the mines by the State Government it will bring the same to the fold of the JV, M/s. VMPL and fulfill its obligation under the MOU.
(27) It is further contended that while the negotiations were going on with M/s. MML, Shri Vinod Nowal (A9), Chief Executive Officer of M/s JSWSL (A8) obtained a copy of the letter No. MML/MKT/JSWL/JV/ 2009-10/1315 dated 28-7-2009 of M/s MML addressed to the Secretary, Mines, SSI & Textiles, Dept. of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore. Immediately, Shri Sajjan Jindal, CMD, M/s. JSWSL (A8) and Sri Vinod Nowal, CEO, M/s. JSWSL met Shri 30 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J B.S. Yeddyurappa, CM on 15.9.2009 and again on 22.1.2010.
(28) After the first visit, Sri. Vinod Nowal directed Shri S.S. Gupta, Director of Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Steel Technology, which is promoted by the M/s. JSW Group to visit the campus of M/s. Prerana Educational and Social Trust for the purpose of making donations. At the same time, they continued to pursue with Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) and the Government to stop M/s. MML from increasing the rate of iron ore fines purchased by M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8). On the second visit on 22.1.2010, Shri Sajjan Jindal, CMD, M/s. JSWSL (A8) handed over a letter dated 22.1.2010 to Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1), Chief Minister requesting his intervention and giving advice to M/s. MML to maintain the existing arrangements, treating TIOM as the captive mine of M/s. JSWSL (A8) as the Govt. had committed to provide 110 hectare iron ore mining area for captive use vide G.O. No. Cl 29 SPI 94 dated 31 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 11.10.1994. Immediately after this mining, 5 cheques were written in favour of M/s. Prerana Trust by the four companies related to M/s JSW Steel (A8).
(29) It is further contended that in a meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka and attended among others by Addl. Law Secretary, Director, Mines & Geology and MD, M/s MML held at Vidhana Soudha on 17.2.2010, it was proposed as an adhoc arrangement allowing M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited to retain 100% of Calibrated Iron Ore and providing for payment of more than 50% of the value of IOF consumed by M/s. JSWSL (A8) as premium, as a temporary measure till such time M/s. JSWSL Mines are brought under the JV Company and operationalised. In the meantime, it is necessary and imperative that M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited should seek a premium on IOF of much higher than 50%. It was resolved that M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited should further recast their financial calculations after due 32 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J diligence and approval of M/s MML Board, the same be submitted to Government for consideration and appropriate decision.
(30) It is further contended that in the meeting, the issue of value loss to the tune of Rs.871.35 crores incurred on iron ore supply to M/s. JSWSL (A8) upto December 2009 was mentioned by the MD, M/s. MML, but no discussion was held on this issue and no action has been recommended. Thereafter, in the 278th Board Meeting of M/s MML held on 26.2.2010, it was proposed to the Govt., to increase the premium by 60% and communicated to the Government. Shri B.S. Ramprasad, Secretary, Commerce & Industries put up a note on 17.3.2010 recommending for enhancement of the premium on iron ore fines sold to M/s. JSWSL from 6% to 50%. This note of the Secretary, Commerce & Industries was forwarded by Shri S.V. Ranganath, Chief Secretary to Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, Chief 33 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Minister (A1) who accorded approval for the proposal on 17.3.2010.
(31) It is further contended that while the process of revision of the price of iron ore fines was being considered, M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. (A8) through its associate companies viz. M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7), M/s. Real Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (A11), M/s. Jai Bharat Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A12) and M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd., (A13) made donations to Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) which is run by the family members of Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1). Investigation further revealed that even though the 5 cheques issued by the above companies were written on 22.2.2010 and 26.2.2010, the same were not handed over to the Prerana Trust till 15.3.2010. One cheque was handed over to the trust on 15.3.2010, two cheques were handed over on 17.3.2010 and 18.3.2010, which were acknowledged by Shri Vijayendra (A2) by issuing 34 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J receipts. These cheques were deposited in the bank account of Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) on 17.3.2010 and 18.3.2010. Further, Rs.6 crores has been transferred to the Trust namely Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, headed by Shri Yeddyurappa (A1) himself. The circumstantial evidence regarding the timings of the meetings, discussions and date of signing of the files and date of handing over the cheques, clearly establish that this payment is for not insisting for the recovery of past dues by the Government of Karnataka represented by M/s. MML. It is thus alleged that B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) abused his official position and failed to safeguard the interest of M/s. MML, a Govt. of Karnataka PSU under the Department of Mines, a portfolio held by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) himself during the relevant period.
(32) It is further contended that due to non- fulfilment of it's obligation by M/s. JSWSL (A8) as per the MOU, M/s. MML had incurred a loss of 35 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J approximately Rs.876.90 Crores for selling the iron ore fines at a premium of only 6% of the market value. The decision to fix the premium on the iron ore fines at 50% instead of 60% on the iron ore fines sold to M/s. JSWSL (A8) resulted in M/s. MML losing approximately Rs.39 Crores during the period 2010-11.
(33) It is further contended that as per the joint meeting of M/s. MML with M/s. JSWSL (A8) held in November 2009, the enhancement of the premium was sought to be made with effect from 1.4.2009, while the approval was given for enforcing the enhancement in the premium on Iron Ore Fines to 50% with immediate effect from 17.3.2010. But the company, M/s. MML enforced the enhancement from 1.4.2010, thereby causing a loss of Rs.7.29 crores due to the delay by 14 days. The Principal Auditor General vide letter dated 12.6.2012 to the Principal Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department mentioned about monetary benefit accrued to M/s JSWSL (A8) to the tune of 36 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Rs.926.49 crores due to non-bringing of matching mine by M/s JSWSL (A8) coupled with un-remunerative premium of 6% on the iron ore fines. The auditors also mentioned loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.50.25 crores owing to the delay in taking decision for increase in premium.
(34) It is further contended that investigation has further revealed that many mining lease applications of M/s. JSW Group was pending with the Government of Karnataka for grant of leasehold rights of iron ore mines in favour of them from time to time.
(35) It is further contended that the Govt. of Karnataka had imposed ban on the transportation and export of iron ore from the ports under its control on 26.7.2010. Subsequent to this, the Department of Mines and Geology had issued an order stopping issuance of mineral dispatch permits w.e.f. 28.7.2010. This decision to impose ban on export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka was taken by Shri B.S. 37 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Yeddyurappa, CM (A1) himself. Under his direction, the PWD and Department of Commerce & Industries issued the orders for the ban. M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) is one of the largest buyers of the iron ore fines in the State of Karnataka could have potentially benefited from the drop in prices. This decision of Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) coincides with the date on which Shri B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Shri B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and Shri R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) had entered into agreement to sell the denotified land at exorbitant cost to M/s. Jindal Group Company, namely M/s South West Mining Ltd. (A7). Thus this is another quid-pro- quo with M/s Jindal for having banned the export of iron ore. After the ban there was, however, no immediate drop in the price of iron ore fines as the benefit of the ban could be availed by companies like M/s JSW Steel Ltd. (A8) over a period of time.
(36) It is further contended that some time in 2010, Shri B. Uday Kumar Reddy, an Advocate and 38 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J close friend of Shri B.Y. Vijayendra (A2) approached the M/s JSWSL Office at Bangalore and offered them to sell the 1 acre converted land in Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli village belonging to Shri Vijayendra (A2), Shri R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) and Shri B.Y. Raghavendra (A3). After negotiation with Sri. Vikash Sharma (A10) Sr. Vice-President and Shri Vinod Nowal (A9), CEO of M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8), the transaction was settled for Rs.20 crores.
(37) It is further contended that on 28.7.2010, Accused No.2, 4 and Accused No.3 executed two agreements for sale respectively in favour of M/s South West Mining Ltd. (A7) agreeing to sell their 20 guntas of land for consideration of Rs.l0 crores each. As per the sale agreements, Accused No.2, 4 and Accused No.3 have received full sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores each (total Rs.20 Crores) and they have executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 21.11.2010 in favour of Shri B. Uday Kumar Reddy for the purpose of 39 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J executing the sale deeds on their behalf in favour of M/s South West Mining Limited (A7). Accordingly, B. Uday Kumar, GPA holder executed sale deeds in favour of M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7) under two registered sale deeds dated 22.11.2010.
(38) It is further contended that the prevailing market price of the land at Rachenahalli could not have been more than Rs.5,22,72,000/- for 1 acre converted land. Therefore, it shows that the sale of the land at a huge price for Rs.20 crores was intended to cover up receipt of bribe (above the actual market cost).
(39) It is further contended that in order to show that these were genuine land deals, Shri Vinod Nowal (A9), CEO & Director, M/s JSW Steels Ltd (A8), Shri Vikas Sharma (A10), Sr. Vice-President of M/s JSW Steels Ltd., (A8) have got prepared the inflated valuation reports in respect of the said land to justify the high rate.
40 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (40) It is further contended that during investigation it was found that the market price of the residentially converted land in Rachenahalli Village was Rs.1.50 crores per acre vide Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification No. CVS/BUD/5/2006- 07 Bangalore dated 17.4.2007 and the market value of the residentially converted land in Rachenahalli village ascertained from the neighbouring landowners was found to be approximately Rs.3 to 4 crores per acre during November 2010.
(41) It is further contended that apart from the above, Valuer of Income Tax Department also visited the spot along with the revenue officials and valued the said property at Rs.5,22,72,000/- as on November 2011.
(42) It is further contended that M/s Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) was formed in the year 2006 in which Shri B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) is the Managing Trustee, Prof. M.R. Doreswamy, Shri B.Y. 41 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Vijayendra (A2), Shri B.M. Jayeshankar and Prof. D. Jawahar are the Trustees.
(43) It is further contended that on 15.9.2009, Shri Sajjan Jindal, CMD of M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) along with Shri Vinod Nowal (A9), CEO met Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) at his residence and spoke about grant of mining lease to M/s. JSWSL (A8). The then Chief Minister, Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) assured them of giving preference over other newcomers in the industry in allotment of the iron ore mine. During the visit, Shri B.Y. Vijayendra (A2) son of Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) approached Shri Vinod Nowal (A9) and requested to arrange for a campus interview for the students of Prerana Educational and Social Trust Management Institute. Later Shri Vijayendra (A2) also asked for donations to the tune of Rs.20-25 Crores for construction of auditorium and other facilities. The requests also came in the form of letter dated 22.10.2009 from M/s Prerana Educational and Social 42 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Trust. On the directions of Shri Vijayendra (A2), Smt. S.Y. Umadevi, daughter of Shri BS Yeddyurappa, former CM had requested M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) for donations for construction of an auditorium.
(44) It is further contended that Dr. Vinod Nowal (A9) directed M/s South West Mining Ltd., (A7) and other contractor companies viz., M/s Real Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (A11), M/s Jai Bharat Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A12) and M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd., (A13) to make the donations immediately as the budget in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of M/s JSW Steel Ltd., was exhausted. The bank transactions between the accounts of M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) and M/s. South West Mining Limited (A7) and the other 3 donor companies (A11, A12 & A13), however, indicate that the donations were in fact made by M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) through the accounts of these associate companies.
43 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (45) It is further contended that during investigation it was found that funds for the payments of the donations came from M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8), and when the company wrote the cheques on 26.2.2010 they did not have sufficient funds in their bank A/c. only after the receipt of funds from M/s JSWSL (A8), the cheques were handed over to the trust after 15.3.2010.
(46) It is further contended that moreover, the financial statements of M/s South West Mining Ltd. (A7) reveal that the company was not at all in a good financial position to offer such a hefty sum as donation.
(47) It is further contended that during investigation it was found that M/s South West Mining Ltd. (A7) made a profit of only Rs.95.18 lakhs in the year 2008-2009 and in the year 2009-2010, the company paid Rs.1000 lakhs as donations which points to the fact that M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) used 44 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J this company as a front for making the donation to the Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) in order to suppress that the relatives of the then CM (A1) have been paid bribes in the guise of donating funds to the Trust (A5) run by them.
(48) It is further contended that the three other companies viz., M/s. Real Technical Solution Pvt. Ltd., (A11), M/s Jai Bharat Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A12) and M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd., (A13) which are engaged in manpower supply business and are completely dependent on M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) for their existence, were instructed by Dr. Vinod Nowal (A9), Director and Chief Executive Officer of M/s JSW Steel Ltd. (A8) to make donations to Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5). Since these companies did not have funds, M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) issued work orders dated 22.2.2010 and made advance payment of Rs.3.43 Crores each so that the donation could be 45 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J made from amounts given as advance. Accordingly, M/s. Real Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., donated a sum of Rs.3.20 crores and other two companies donated Rs.3.40 Crores each to Prerana Educational & Social Trust. Shri B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Treasurer of PESIT&M acknowledged receipt of these amounts. Investigation has revealed that Accused No.11, 12 & 13 companies had not made any donations to any organizations in the past.
(49) It is further contended that the investigation further revealed that after the donations were made to the M/s Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5), all the three work orders issued to the above three companies were cancelled by M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) vide letters dated 5.8.2010 mentioning that the advance paid for Rs.3.43 crores each will be adjusted against other future bills.
(50) Investigation further revealed that M/s Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) has 46 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J transferred a sum of Rs.6 crores, out of the donation amount to the account of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, Shikaripura. The diversion of Rs.6 crores from the account of M/s Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) was well within the knowledge of Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) who is one of the Trustee of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe.
(51) It is the case of the prosecution that neither Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5) nor Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe spends any amount in charity. Both the trust are engaged in running educational institutions built with the money received as donations, but no free education or scholarship is given to any student.
(52) Thus, the investigation has clearly established that Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) obtained illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.40 crores not due to him to show favour to M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) through his kin and also abused his official position to 47 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J de-notify the land which was notified for acquisition by the Government.
(53) It is further contended that the above acts of Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1), Shri B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Shri B.Y. Raghavendra (A3), Shri R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4), M/s. Prerana Educational and Social Trust (A5), Shri S.N. Krishnaiah Shetty (A6), M/s South West Mining Ltd., (A7), M/s JSW Steel Ltd., (A8), Dr. Vinod Nowal (A9), Shri Vikash Sharma (A10), M/s Real Technical Solution Pvt. Ltd., (A11), M/s. Jai Bharat Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A12) and M/s Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd., (A13) constitute offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420, 109, 468, 471 IPC and Sec. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and Sec.9 r/w Sec.4 of Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 and substantive offences thereof. Thus, the Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet for the above said offences.
48 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (54) Though Investigating Officer reserved his right to submit a further final report after conclusion of further investigation, which is being carried out to find, regarding the quid-pro-quo between Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) and M/s. Jindal Group of Companies, however submitted further final report stating that no further evidence could be gathered during the further investigation as such no further charge is being pressed against any of the accused persons in this case apart from earlier charge sheeted offences.
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance of all the offences alleged against the accused persons 1 to 13 was taken and case was registered against the accused in above mentioned Spl.C.C.No., and summons were issued to all the accused persons to secure their presence before the court. In response to the summons, the accused No.1 to 13 appeared before 49 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the court and filed bail applications and they were released on bail and application filed by accused No.7, 8, 11 to 13 are allowed. Rajiv Bansal and Mani Manuel are permitted to represent Accused No.7 and 8 respectively. Srikanth Shetty, Muralidar Dash and Vivekananda Kulakarni are permitted to represent accused No.11 to 13 respectively. Copy of charge sheet and its enclosures were supplied to all the accused persons, thus complied the provisions of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was posted for hearing before charge.
4. The accused No.1 to 13 filed application u/s 227 and 239 Cr.P.C., to discharge them from the offences alleged against them. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections to all the applications. After hearing the arguments of the advocates appearing for accused No.1 to 13 on the discharge applications filed u/s 227 and 239 Cr.P.C., and also giving an opportunity for the prosecution and accused as 50 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J provided u/s 239 Cr.P.C., my learned predecessor in office was of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that accused have committed the offences alleged, thus rejected the discharge applications filed by accused No.1 to 13 u/s 227 and 239 Cr.P.C., and framed the charge against accused No.1 to 13 as per order dated 8.9.2015. The charge was read over and explained to accused No.1 to 13. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Thereafter, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in all examined 125 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 125 and got marked 608 documents at Ex.P.1 to P608. The prosecution also got marked 6 material objects as per M.Os.1 to 6. The learned advocates for accused No.1 to 13 during the course of cross-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses confronted some documents produced by the prosecution and got them marked at Ex. D1 to D87.
51 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
6. Thereafter the accused No.1 to 13 have been questioned generally under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of enabling them personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. Though the defence of Accused No.1 to 13 is one of total denial but some of the accused gave explanation to the circumstances appearing against them and accused No.8 filed written statement and the accused No.1 to 13 did not choose to lead any defence evidence. Hence, evidence was closed.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned defence counsels.
8. On going through the charges leveled against accused, oral evidence adduced and the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, and considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, I formulate the following points for consideration: -
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 to 13 have entered into a criminal 52 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J conspiracy to do an illegal act or to do an act which is not illegal by illegal means among themselves during 2006 to 2010?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that Accused No.2, 3 and 4 have purchased the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village by fraudulent means, which was notified for acquisition for formation of Arkavathi Layout by BDA, from Accused No.6 in violation Sec.79A & B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.6, knowing fully well that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was under Notification for acquisition by BDA for formation of Arkavathi Layout, sold in favour of accused No.2 to 4 in the year 2006 with an intention to defraud and cause wrongful loss to the Govt. of Karnataka?
(4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.2 and 4 forged Ex.P.99 and knowingly used the said forged document as a genuine document with fraudulent and dishonest intention to get the sale deed Ex.P.371 registered?
(5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 being a public servant has abused his official position to de-notify the land 53 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J bearing Sy. No.55/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of Rachenahalli village to obtain pecuniary advantage to his kith and kin?
(6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that mutation and conversion of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 was done in violation of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules?
(7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused No.1 being a public servant has abused his official position to fix the premium of iron ore fines at 50% instead of 60% as recommended by MML Board and deliberately caused delay in increase of premium and suppressed the loss to MML, to obtain donation of Rs.20 crores from accused No.8 through its sister concerns Accused No.7, 11 to 13 to Accused No.5 a Trust run by Accused No.2, 3 and others?
(8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 being a public servant abused his official position to impose ban on export of iron ore from Karnataka so as to favour Accused No.8 and obtained a pecuniary advantage to his kith and kin (Accused No.2 to 4), by way of exorbitant sale consideration of Rs.20 crores, above the prevailing market price of Rs.5.22 crores, for 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village from accused No.7?
54 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.2, 3 and 4 being the kith and kin of accused No.1 obtained illegal gratification in the form of inflated sale consideration for sale of 1 acre of land of Rachenahalli village from Accused No.7 and obtained Rs.20 Crores donation from accused No.8 through its sister concerns i.e., accused No.7, 11 to 13 to accused No.5 a Trust run by accused No.2 and 3 as a motive or reward for inducing accused No.1, by exercising their personal influence, to show favour to accused No.8 and thereby committed offence u/s 9 of PC Act?
(10)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused No.2, 3 and 4 abetted accused No.1 to obtain illegal gratification for them by showing official favour to accused No.8 in exercise of his official functions and thereby committed offence u/s 12 of PC Act?
(11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.2 to 5 have abetted accused No.1 to commit offences u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
(12)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.6 abetted accused No.1 to commit offences 55 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and abetted accused No.2 to 4 to commit offences u/s 468 and 471 IPC?
(13)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.7 to 13 abetted accused No.2 to 5 to exercise their personal influence over accused No.1 to do an official favour to accused No.8 and abetted accused No.1 for abuse of his official position in exercise of his official function to show favour to accused No.8?
(14)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy accused No.1 by abusing his official position fixed premium of iron ore at 50% instead of 60% as decided by MML and imposed ban on export of iron ore so as to favour accused No.8 and with an intention to obtain pecuniary advantage for his kins as a quid-pro-quo of enhanced sale price and Rs.20 crores donation to accused No.5 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Govt. of Karnataka and wrongful gain to his kins and thus committed an offence of cheating?
(15)What order?
9. My finding on the above points are:
56 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J POINT No.1 to 14 - In the Negative, POINT No.15 - As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India constituted a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in 2002 to examine the various activities infringing the laws protecting the environment and also to suggest preventive or punitive steps that may be required to protect the environment. The CEC filed report marked at Ex.P.501. After considering the report of CEC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred issues specified at Point No.1(a) and 1(b) of CEC Report for investigation by the CBI.
11. Thus, as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 11.5.2012 passed in W.P. (Civil) No.562/2009 marked at Ex.P.534, the CBI registered this Criminal Case in RC No.8(A)/2012 on 15.5.2012 and after conclusion of the investigation 57 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J submitted the charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 13 on 16.10.2012 for the offences alleged therein.
12. Prosecution in all examined 125 witnesses and got documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.608 in support of the case made out against accused. During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the advocates for Accused No.1 to 13 got marked documents at Ex.D1 to D87.
13. On the basis of the case of prosecution, charges leveled against accused, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after considering the elaborate submissions made by learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of CBI and the learned counsels appearing for accused No.1 to 13 I have formulated in all 14 points for consideration covering all the aspects of the prosecution case made out by the CBI for appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
58 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
14. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 to 13 have entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during 2006 to 2010 at Bangalore, Bellary and other places to cheat the Govt. of Karnataka by favouring M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8) and in pursuance of that conspiracy Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) denotified a plot of land, which was fraudulently and illegally purchased by Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) from Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (A6). It is further alleged that Accused No.2 to 4 purchased the said land even though it was notified for acquisition by the Govt. and thereby violated various rules, regulations and laws and after getting the land converted, they sold it to M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7) at an exorbitant price. In addition to this, M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust (A5) run by Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra (A2), Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and others also received Rs.20 crores donations from M/s.
59 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J JSW Steels Ltd., through M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7), M/s. Real Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (A11), M/s. Jai Bharat Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., (A12) and M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Pvt. Ltd., (A13) as a quid-pro-quo for the favours shown by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) to M/s. JSW Steels (A8) in various decisions taken by him in his capacity as the public servant.
15. For better appreciation of the evidence adduced by prosecution, it would be just and proper to take up the Points which are interlinked, together for discussion.
16. POINT No.2 TO 6: - I would like to consider point No.2 to 6 together since these points pertain to the allegations of purchase of land by Accused No.2 to 4, from Accused No.6, which was notified for acquisition by the Govt., in violation of Sec.4 of Restriction on Transfer of Properties Act, got it registered with the help of forged document and also in 60 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J violation of the clauses 79A & B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and various other rules and regulations and got the mutation and conversion illegally. Accused No.1 abusing his official position denotified the said land to obtain pecuniary advantage to his kins viz., Accused No.2 to 4.
REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF USING OF FORGED NOC FOR REGISTRATION OF SALE DEEDS BY ACCUSED No.2 & 4:
17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the land bearing Sy. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village measuring 1 acre 12 guntas was owned by Smt. Gowramma and Sri. Panduranga. He further argued that accused No.6 entered into an agreement to purchase said land from Smt. Gowramma under Ex.P22 though the said land was notified for acquisition by the Govt. for BDA to form Arkavathi Layout, in violation of Sec. 4 of Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.
61 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
18. He further argued that from the recitals of the agreement Ex.P22, intention of the parties can be gathered. It is also elicited in the evidence of PW.28 Sri. M. Panduranga that the land was sold in favour of accused No.6 and he has handed over the possession and he has not dealt with the said property thereof. Thus, he argued that though Accused No.6 purported to have entered into an agreement to purchase land Sy. No.55/2 from Smt. Gowramma and Sri. Panduranga, the recitals of the agreement and the fact of execution of GPA by Panduranga and Gowramma in favour of accused No.6 would goes to show that Accused No.6 has purchased the said land by paying valuable consideration, in violation of Sec. 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.
19. He further argued that accused No.6 sold the said land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, in turn to accused No.2, 4 and to accused No.3 under sale deeds marked at Ex.P.371 and Ex.P.374 62 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J respectively, knowing fully well that the said land is notified for acquisition by BDA and there is a restriction on transfer of the said land. 20. He further argued that accused No.2 and 4 presented their sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar of K.R.Puram, Bangalore. PW.90 R. Lakshmana Prasad, Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, Bangalore refused to register the deed on the ground that the said land is notified for acquisition. Accused No.2 and 4 submitted the requisition letter marked at Ex.P372 dt. 23.2.2006 to keep the document pending for Registration till production of NOC from BDA. He further argued that on 12.4.2006 the NOC was produced and the sale deed was registered on the same day.
21. He further argued that Ex.P99 a forged NOC purported to have been issued by the BDA was produced by purchaser along with a letter Ex.P373 to register the document and thus accused No.2 and 4 got 63 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J registered the sale deed Ex.P371 on the basis of forged document. Thus, he argued that accused No.2 and 4 fraudulently and dishonestly used Ex.P.99 as a genuine document knowing it to be a forged document, for registration of the sale deed Ex.P371.
22. He further argued that the evidence adduced by PW.90, goes to show that the purchaser produced Ex.P.99 before him and thereafter the sale deed was registered. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.90, to disbelieve his version that Ex.P.99 was produced before him by accused No.2 and 4. The beneficiaries of the said documents Ex.P.99 are A-2, A- 3 and 4. Thus, the Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that Accused No.2 to 4 have used Ex.P.99 as a genuine document for the purpose of registration of their sale deeds knowing it to be a forged document.
23. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that the order passed by the then Chief 64 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna denotifying an extent of 131.07 acres of land proposed for IT/BT Park by the M/s. Manyatha Promoters, has been subsequently modified by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh by his order dated 20.1.2006 reducing the extent of lands to be denotified to 60 acres. Thus, he argued in his reply argument that the arguments of learned advocates for accused that land bearing Sy. No.55/2 was denotified on 17.5.2004 and draft gazette notification was prepared as per Ex.D23 is against the factual aspects on record. He further argued that Ex.D23 is only a draft gazette notification, it was not published. Thus, he argued that the order dated 17.5.2004 denotifying 131.07 acres of land was not acted upon. On the other hand, as per the order dated 20.1.2006, the denotification order dated 17.5.2004 has been modified and the extent of land denotified was reduced to 60 acres. Thus, he argued that the arguments of the learned advocates for accused that 65 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J land bearing Sy. No.55/2 was denotified as per the order dated 17.5.2004 does not hold any water. Further, he argued that the NOC produced by accused No.2 and 4 before PW.90, the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram for registration of the sale deeds marked at Ex.P.371 and 374 is a forged document and accused No.2 and 4 knowing fully well that it is a forged document used it as a genuine document for registration of their sale deeds. In support of his arguments he drew my attention to the evidence of PWs.4, 12, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 90, 98 and 108.
24. On the other hand the learned senior advocate who argued on behalf accused No.1 to 5 submitted that Ex.P.99 is not a forged document. The prosecution has failed to prove that it is a forged document. He further argued that Ex.P.99 is a genuine document issued by BDA authorities stating that R.S.No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village has been de- notified and BDA has no objection for any transaction 66 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J of the said property. He further argued that there was no need for accused No.2 to 4 to create a false document for the purpose of registration of their sale deed at Ex.P.371 and 374. In this connection he drew my attention to the notification dated 14.2.1994 marked at Ex.D.87(a) and another notification dated 10.5.1999 Ex.D87(b) superceding the earlier notification. He also relied on the evidence of PW.108 wherein he has deposed that Ex.D87(a) is the notification dated 14.2.1994 published by Govt. of Karnataka invoking Sec.22-A of Registration Act prohibiting registration of sale transactions which are opposed to public policy, including the sale transaction in respect of lands notified for acquisition by BDA for its project and further deposed that the notification dated 10.5.1999 marked at Ex.D87(b) was published by Govt. of Karnataka invoking the provisions of Sec.22-A of the Registration Act superceding the notification marked at Ex.D.87(a) and the sale 67 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J transactions in respect of lands notified for acquisition by BDA is not included in the said notification. Thus, he argued that there was no necessity to produce NOC from BDA for registration of sale deeds marked at Ex.P.371 and 374 in view of notification marked at Ex.D.87(b) from 10.5.1999 onwards. He further argued that R.S. No.55/2 had been de-notified at the request of Manyatha Promoters and draft gazette notification dated 18.5.2004 was prepared as per Ex.D23.
25. He further argued in his reply to the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna on 17.5.2004 denotifying 131.07 acres of land has been subsequently modified by the order dated 20.1.2006 by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh limiting the extent of land to be denotified to 60 acres, does not take away the effect of the denotification order passed by Chief Minister Sri. 68 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J S.M. Krishna on 17.5.2004. He would contend that once the order is passed denotifying any land from acquisition, the said order cannot be reviewed subsequently by the successive Govt., or Chief Ministers. If at all the Govt. again want to acquire any land which was denotified earlier, it requires to again follow the procedure provided under the Land Acquisition Act or BDA Act for acquisition of land. Thus, he argued that the subsequent order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh on 20.1.2006 is not only against the law but also against The Karnataka Govt. (transaction of business) Rules, 1977.
26. Thus, he argued that as on 29.3.2006, the date on which Ex.P.99 came to be issued, R.S.No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village had been already de-notified. As such, he would contend that there is nothing to suspect the genuineness of Ex.P.99. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove who has forged 69 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P.99 and also failed to prove that accused No.2 and 4 have used Ex.P.99 as a genuine knowing it to be a forged document. On the other hand, the learned advocate for Accused No.1 vehemently argued that the witnesses examined by prosecution admitted that Ex.P.99 is typed on the letter head of the BDA, it bears the seal of BDA and further admitted that it is issued by BDA. In this connection, he drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.29, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 46, 90, 98 and 108 to demonstrate that Ex.P.99 is not a forged document but it is a genuine document issued by BDA.
27. Advocate for Accused No.6 also in his written argument submitted that Ex.P.99 is not a forged but it is a genuine document issued by BDA in support of his argument relied on the evidence of PW.37, 38, 40 and PW108.
28. Now, I would like to consider whether the prosecution was able to prove that Ex.P.99 is a forged 70 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J document and that accused No.2 and 4 have used the said document as a genuine document knowing it to be a forged for registration of Ex.P.371. The learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly conceded in his argument that there is no evidence to prove that who has forged the said document Ex.P99. However, he argued that there is evidence to prove that accused No.2 and 4 have produced the Ex.P.99 before the Sub- Registrar PW.90 along with covering letter marked at Ex.P.373 and further argued that accused No.2 and 4 used Ex.P.99 as a genuine document knowing it to be a forged document.
29. Thus, it is suffice to consider, in the light of submission made by learned Special Public Prosecutor, whether Ex.P.99 is a forged document, if so, whether accused No.2 and 4 have used it as a genuine document knowing it to be a forged document for the purpose of registration of the sale deed Ex.P.371.
71 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
30. In this connection I would like to rely on the cross-examination of PW.29 wherein he has admitted that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was de-notified in the year 2004 itself when Sri. S.M. Krishna was the Chief Minister and he further admitted that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village is found at Sl. No. 76 in Ex.D23 which is a draft gazette notification dated 18.5.2004.
31. PW.31 in his cross-examination admitted that once the de-notification is ordered and the same is published in the official gazette, it means that the land in question is free and there is no acquisition proceedings of the said land and further admitted that there is nothing wrong in the authorities to say that the land in question is not notified for acquisition if the order for denotification precedes such communication.
32. PW.36 admitted in his cross-examination that if once the denotification is ordered by the concerned Minister or the Chief Minister in respect of a particular 72 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J land, there is no provision for reviewing the said order under any statute. The witness further volunteered that if any person is aggrieved by the said order of denotification he can question the same before the competent court of law. He further admitted that if there is a denotification of the land, there is nothing wrong on the part of the authority for issuing an endorsement to the owner of the land or to his representative stating that the land is not notified for acquisition.
33. As per the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the order of denotification by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna dated 17.5.2004, denotifying an extent of 131.07 acres of land has been subsequently modified by the then Chief Minister Dharam Singh on 21.6.2006 by limiting the exemption to 60 acres. Whether such an order by the succeeding Govt. or Chief Minister can be passed reviewing the earlier order passed for denotification is a point to be 73 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J considered for appreciation of the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor. First of all the prosecution has not adduced oral evidence from any of the witnesses and got marked the subsequent order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh on 21.6.2006 limiting the exemption to 60 acres. Mere marking of entire file Ex.P.93 is not proof of contents of all the documents in the said file. The subsequent order limiting exemption to 60 acres by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh was not at all brought on record and put the accused on notice so that accused can put forth their defence in that regard. The said order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh was not at all relied by the prosecution while adducing evidence but the same was relied upon by the prosecutor only during his reply argument without providing an opportunity for the accused to offer an explanation on that aspect. On this ground alone, the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor 74 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J cannot be accepted. However, the subsequent order passed by then Chief Minister limiting the exemption to 60 acres amounts to reviewing the earlier order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna on 17.5.2004. Once the land is denotified by a competent authority and released the said land from acquisition, the said land cannot be acquired by reviewing the earlier order. On the other hand, if at all the Govt. wants to acquire the land which has been earlier denotified it has to again follow the procedure laid down for acquisition of land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or BDA Act. Therefore, the subsequent order dated 20.1.2006 passed by then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh does not take away the effect of denotification order passed as per the order dated 17.5.2004. The arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the denotification order dt. 17.5.2004 has not been acted upon since a gazette notification was not published and preparing a draft 75 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Gazette Notification as per Ex.D23 does not amount to publication is not proper. On the other hand, the arguments of the learned advocate for accused that publishing a gazette notification is only for public consumption appears to be probable and acceptable. Moreover, as per Ex.D19, Manyatha Promoters requested the Secretary to Govt., Dept. of Information Technology and Bio Technology, to write to Commissioner, BDA for deletion of 50 acres of land earmarked by them for Bio-Tech Park as per the enclosed list with Sy. Nos. of the land. Ex.D19(a) is the list enclosed to Ex.D19 and Ex.D19(e) is the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village which is also shown in the said list. As per the order dated 20.1.2006 passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh includes 50 acres requisitioned by the Manyatha Promoters for Bio-Tech Park. Thus, even as per the order passed by subsequent Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh, the land Sy. No.55/2 comes under 76 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J proposed Bio-Tech Park by the Manyatha Promoters. As such, even by the subsequent order dated 20.1.2006, land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was denotified from the acquisition by BDA.
34. On appreciation of the evidence of PW.29, 31 and 36 and considering the documents marked at Ex.D37, D23, D19, D19(e), it becomes clear that the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was de- notified in the year 2004 itself by then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna and re-affirmed by subsequent order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh on 20.1.2006.
35. Whereas Ex.P.99 bears date 29.3.2006. When the document marked at Ex.D23, the draft gazette notification dated 18.5.2004 reveal that land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli was also came to be de- notified as per the order passed by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna and re-affirmed by the subsequent order dated 20.1.2006, though the said 77 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J land was came to be de-notified at the request of Manyatha Promoters as GPA Holders of the land owners, but the fact remains that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 had been de-notified as far as back in the year 2004 itself. Thus, there is nothing to suspect genuineness of Ex.P.99.
36. My finding that there is nothing to suspect genuineness of Ex.P.99 gets further fortified by the admission of PW.40 wherein he has admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P.99 has been issued from BDA and it is based on records and he further admitted that Ex.P.99 has been issued based on the records maintained in the BDA in respect of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village and that it bears the round seal, signature and seal of the officer. So also, PW.108 admitted in his cross-examination that letterhead, round seal and officer seal forthcoming in Ex.P99 are the letterhead, round seal and officer's seal of BDA. The admission of these two witnesses goes to 78 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J prove that Ex.P.99 is on the letterhead of BDA, it bears round seal of BDA and also bears officers seal.
37. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relying on the evidence of PW.37 and 38 argued that Ex.P.99 endorsement was not issued by them and Ex.P.99 does not bear their signature or it does not bear signature of other Land Acquisition Officers who worked during that period and that Ex.P.99 is not issued from BDA office. Thus, he submits that Ex.P99 is a forged document.
38. Though PW.37 in his chief-examination deposed that endorsement in the letter dated 29.3.2006 marked at Ex.P.99 was not issued by him, it does not bear his signature or signature of other Land Acquisition Officers who worked there during that period and Ex.P.99 was not issued from his office, however, PW.37 admitted in his cross-examination that if the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village had been denotified prior to 29.3.2006, the reasons on 79 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J which he stated that Ex.P.99 is a fabricated document is incorrect. Though, PW.38 also deposed in his evidence that Ex.P.99 was not issued by him and the said endorsement does not bear his signature and that Ex.P.99 was not issued from their office because it does not bear his signature and the seal is not pertaining to their office, however admitted in his cross-examination if there was de-notification of land Sy. No.55/2, there is nothing wrong on the part of BDA to say that the land was not notified for acquisition and there is nothing wrong on the part of BDA issuing endorsement as per Ex.P.99 stating that the land has been dropped from acquisition and further admitted that for issue of endorsement or communication the computer letter heads of BDA will be used and further admitted Ex.P99 is the computer letter head of BDA and further admitted that Ex.P99 bears Outward No., and if it is verified with regard to the number mentioned in Ex.P99 it can be ascertained whether 80 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J such endorsement has been issued by the BDA. PW.46 in his cross-examination admitted that the letter head used for Ex.P.99 may be of BDA and further admitted that it bears the round seal and officers seal of BDA. He further admitted that the seals are called as security items and to avoid misuse of the same, the seals and letter heads will be kept in security by the concerned case worker in the branch, to avoid easy access to the public and others.
39. PW.40 admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P.99 is on the letter head of BDA, it bears the round seal of BDA and that of officers seal and further Ex.P.99 has been issued from BDA and it is based on records. Though PW.40 subsequently cross-examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is not suggested in his cross-examination that Ex.P.99 is a forged document. On the other hand, tried to prove by suggesting to this witness that letter head Ex.P.99 is not the letter head of BDA. On the other hand, the 81 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J prosecution witnesses have clearly admitted that the letter head used for Ex.P.99 is the computer letter head of BDA and PW46, the then Deputy Secretary and Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA has categorically admitted that the seals and letter heads of BDA are security items, they are kept in security to avoid easy access to the public and others.
40. The prosecution examined PW.41 to prove that the seal found on Ex.P.99 are not the round seal and officers seal of the BDA and got produced through him the sample seals of Addl. Land Acquisition Officer, BDA containing in 2 pages and sample round seals of BDA office containing 6 pages at Ex.P111 and P112 respectively. He further deposed that as per Ex.P.113 he produced the original rubber stamp of Addl. Land Acquisition Officer (in Kannada) used during the period January to April 2006 and original rubber stamp (round seal) of BDA being used by PRO, Commissioner and Chairman used during the year 2006. He 82 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J admitted in his cross-examination that he produced seals M.Os.1 to 6 before CBI Officer during June 2012 and further admitted that he has not produced any other seals before CBI other than the seals produced during June 2012. Whereas in his further cross- examination deposed that on 22.5.2012 itself he produced the records and seals before CBI Officer contrary to his version in chief-examination that on 18.6.2012, he produced the documents before CBI Officer under covering letter Ex.P.113. He further admitted in his cross-examination on 20.5.2012 CBI Officer prepared panchanama for seizure of records and seal and further admitted that CBI Officer affixed the paper containing the signatures on the seals seized on 22.5.2012 and put it in the cover sealed with wax and took his signature on the cover. Whereas in the earlier part of his cross-examination admitted that on the seals M.O.1 to 6 there is no paper affixed containing his signature and further admitted that four 83 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J covers in which the seals were put and sealed do not contain his signature. Thus, a doubt arises as to whether M.O.1 to 6 are the seals produced by this witness before CBI and were seized in his presence as per Ex.P.113. PW.41 in his further cross-examination deposed that he has not used M.O.1 to 6 prior to 2010 and at no point of time he used M.O.1 to 6 for official purpose, M.O.1 to 6 were never in his custody at any point of time.
41. Although the impression of sample round seal and the officer seal does not tally with the round seal and officer seal found on Ex.P.99, however in the absence of proof that M.O.1 to 6 are the seals used by BDA during 2006, this court cannot come to the conclusion that seals found on Ex.P.99 are forged seals.
42. Thus, on careful appreciation of the evidence of PW.37, 38, 40, 41 and 46, I am of the opinion that 84 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J prosecution has failed to prove that Ex.P.99 is a forged document beyond all reasonable doubts.
43. Prosecution tried to prove that Ex.P.99 was not issued by BDA by producing a Tappal Book to show that the NOC letter dated 29.3.2006 does not find place in the Outward Register. In this connection he relied on the evidence of PW.41. PW.41 deposed that the documents mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.P.108 are produced by him before CBI Officer and he identified the Tappal Book for the period from 8.12.2000 to 14.12.2011 marked at Ex.P.108. The Special Public Prosecutor relying on Ex.P.108 Outward Register argued that the letter Ex.P.99 dated 29.3.2006 does not find place in it. Thus, he argued that Ex.P.99 is not issued by BDA but it is a forged document.
44. Whereas, the defence counsel argued that Ex.P.108 is not the register containing the correspondence between BDA and private persons, but it is the register containing the correspondence 85 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J between BDA and Government and other agencies of the State Government. In this connection he drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.46 wherein he has admitted that the communications sent to the parties will be mentioned into To Register and received communications are entered in the From Register and further admitted that the communication received from Government and responses sent to the Govt. are entered separately in a separate register maintained in the BDA. Further admitted that Ex.P.108 contains correspondence sent to Govt. and other agencies of the State Govt. the evidence of PW.46 that Ex.P.108 is a Tappal Book containing correspondence sent to Govt. and other agencies of the State Govt. found to be correct, on perusal of Ex.P.108, since all the correspondence and letters mentioned therein are between the BDA and the Govt. of Karnataka and other Govt. Agencies.
86 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
45. Ex.P.99 is a correspondence from BDA to the land owners Smt. Gowramma and Smt. G. Leelavathi. Therefore, the letter from BDA addressed to Smt.Gowramma and Smt. G. Leelavathi marked at Ex.P.99 naturally cannot find place in the Tappal Book Ex.P.108. Thus, the arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor that the dispatch of the letter dated 29.3.2006 marked Ex.P.99 does not find place in Tappal Book Ex.P.108 as such Ex.P.99 is a forged document is fallacious since Ex.P.108 is a register containing correspondence between BDA and Government and other agencies of the State Govt., only. As such, the dispatch of Ex.P.99 to Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Leelavathi from BDA naturally cannot find place in the said register. On the other hand, the prosecution ought to have produced the register containing the correspondence between BDA and private persons so as to establish that Ex.P.99 was not issued from BDA. Therefore, the argument of 87 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J learned Special Public Prosecutor that Ex.P.99 is a forged document is not acceptable.
46. When prosecution has failed to prove that Ex.P.99 is a forged document and accused were not under an obligation to produce NOC for registration of sale deed, as it was no more a legal requirement in view of the notification dated 10.5.1999 marked at Ex.P.87(b), therefore, the production of Ex.P.99 before PW.90 for registration of sale deed Ex.P.371 would loose the importance. So also, the person who produced Ex.P.99 before PW.90 for registration of sale deed Ex.P.371 would also becomes inconsequential. Hence, I held that the prosecution has failed to prove Ex.P.99 is a forged document. Therefore, the question of considering further aspect that accused No.2 and 4 have produced Ex.P.99 as a genuine document knowing it to be a forged would not at all arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that Accused No.2 to 4 have purchased the land from Accused No.6, which 88 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J was notified for acquisition by the Govt., in violation of Sec.4 of Restriction on Transfer of Properties Act. REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF EFFECTING MUTATION ILLEGALLY:
47. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that accused No.2 to 4 have falsely sworn to an affidavit declaring their income as Rs.50,000/- p.a. and Rs.30,000/- p.a., from sources other than agricultural income as per Ex.P8 and P11 and also filed declaration u/s 81A of KLR Act as per Ex.P9 and P12. Accused No.2 to 4 had income more than Rs.2 lakhs per annum from sources other than agricultural income, therefore they were not entitled to purchase the property. Thus, the mutation effected on the basis of sale deeds marked at Ex.P.371 and 374 without verifying their income from sources other than agricultural income was illegal and invalid.
48. He further argued that the revenue authorities have certified the mutation without verifying the
89 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J income of the parties as declared in their affidavit marked at Ex.P.8 and P11 and without verifying the genuineness of the declaration submitted by them u/s. 81A of KLR Act as per Ex.P.9 and 12. He further argued that there are no documents to show that when the notice was published and when 30 days period was expired. There are no records to show regarding publication of Form No.21 after receiving J-Form before certifying mutation entry marked at Ex.P14(a).
49. He further argued adverting my attention to the evidence of PW.89 Jagadishwar, Revenue Inspector at para No.2 that J. Form files pertaining to Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village marked at Ex.P369 and 370 were sent to the Village Accountant. The Village Accountant has to publish Form No.21 and to give his report after 30 days. Ex.P369 and 370 do not disclose the date of publication. Though the Village Accountant has mentioned the date of publication as 29.6.2006 in the notice, but there are no records to 90 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J show that Form No.21 was duly published. He has further argued that PW.2 Special Tahsildar, K.R. Puram admitted that the Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector have not verified the income of the parties even then the mutation was accepted. The revenue officials have not followed the procedure as per law before certifying the mutation entry. The evidence on record discloses that the mutation was not in accordance with law but was done at the pressure of accused No.2 to 4 and 6.
50. On the other hand the learned senior advocate for accused No.1 to 5 argued that the mutation of the land in the name of accused No.2 to 4 has been done in accordance with law by following the procedure prescribed. He further argued that on careful appreciation of the evidence of PWs.2, 5, 13, 87, 89, 91 and 102 it goes to prove that the mutation was effected by following the procedure prescribed under Karnataka Land Revenue Act. He drew my attention to 91 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the evidence of above said witnesses to show the mutation of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village as per Ex.P.14 was done in accordance with law. In this connection he drew my attention to the evidence of PW.87 who has deposed the procedure to be followed in case if any document is registered in the office of Sub- Registrar in respect of the property and he further argued that the witnesses examined by the prosecution themselves have deposed that the procedure as stated by PW87 has been followed before certifying the mutation entries marked at Ex.P14(a) and 14(d).
51. Now, I would like to consider whether there is any illegality committed by the revenue officials in certifying the mutation entries marked at Ex.P.14(a) and P14(d). Ex.P.14 is the Mutation Register. The relevant entries certifying the mutation 15/05-06 and 18/05-06 are marked at Ex.P.14(a) and P14(d). The endorsement made by the Village Accountant and acceptance of the said mutation entry by the Revenue 92 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Inspector are marked at Ex.P.14(b), 14(c) and 14(e), (f) respectively.
52. The prosecution has examined PW.2, 5, 13, 87, and PW.89 to prove the alleged illegality committed by the revenue officials in certifying the mutation at the pressure of Accused No.1 to 4. PW.2 has deposed in his evidence that during May and July 2012 CBI Officers came to Taluk Office at K.R. Puram and requested him to furnish the certified copies of the RTCs, mutations, J-Form, Sale Deed, Declaration form and affidavit pertaining Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli. Accordingly, he submitted the documents before CBI under seizure memo dated 23.5.2012. He further deposed that as per Ex.P.4, the property was mutated and accepted in the name of Accused No.2 and 4 on 29.6.2006 and in the name of accused No.3 on 25.7.2006. He deposed that for effecting mutation based on the registered document, J-Form will be sent to the Tahsildar's office, after receiving J-Form, check 93 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J list will be generated and then Form No.21 will be generated and the same will be notified in the village for filing objections. Before expiry of 30 days if any objections are received, it will be treated as disputed and RTS Proceedings will be held. If no objections are received before expiry of 30 days, the income of the declarant will be verified through Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector and if the income is correct then the mutation will be certified and accepted. He further deposed that in the present case income was not verified by the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector even then the mutation was accepted.
53. The learned Special Public Prosecutor heavily relied on this evidence of PW2, to submit that mutation was effected without verifying the income of accused No.2 to 4. Thus, he argued that this is one of the illegal acts done at the pressure of Accused No.1 to 4.
54. On the other hand, the learned Senior advocate for accused No.1 to 5 has argued that PW.2 94 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J has no personal knowledge whether the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector have verified the income of the accused No.2 to 4 before certifying the mutation entries marked at Ex.P.14(a) and (d). He further argued that the evidence of PW.2 to the effect that the mutation was accepted without verifying the income by the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector cannot be relied upon.
55. On appreciating the cross-examination of PW.2, I am of the opinion that he has no personal knowledge whether the Village Account and Revenue Inspector have verified the income before certifying the mutation entry marked at Ex.P.14(a) and (d). In support of my finding, I would like to rely on the admission of PW.2, wherein he has admitted that he has not made any personal verification with the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector regarding verification of the income done by them. Further admitted that in the records it is not written that the 95 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Village Account and Revenue Inspector have not made any verification. Further admitted that there is no column provided in the Mutation Register to make an entry with regard to verification made by the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector about the income. He further admitted that, if there were to be any lapses on the part of the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector in following the procedure and verification of the income, before certifying the mutation entry, the matter will be viewed seriously by the higher authorities and the departmental action will be initiated. Further admitted that according to his knowledge, no action has been initiated against the Village Accountant or Revenue Inspector alleging any lapses on their part in respect of verification of the income of Accused No.2 to 4, as indicated in J-Form. Thus, on the basis of above admission of PW.2 it can be held that his evidence, that income was not verified by the Village Account and Revenue Inspector before 96 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J certifying mutation entries marked at Ex.P.14(a) and
(d), is not reliable.
56. Learned Special Public Prosecutor in support of his argument that the mutation entries were certified without following the procedure, at the pressure of kins of accused No.1 and accused No.6 relied on the evidence of PW.5 at para-15 wherein he has deposed that Revenue Inspector told that the mutation entries are pertaining to the kins of Deputy Chief Minister Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa and do it early, at that time Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty was MLA of Malur Constituency and the Revenue Inspector further told him that Sri. S.N. Krishnaiah Setty was pursuing the matter and to do the same early.
57. On the other hand, the Senior Advocate for Accused No.1 to 5 and 6 have argued that there is nothing in the evidence of PW.5 to prove that mutation entries were certified without following the procedure at the pressure of accused No.2 to 4 and 6. On the 97 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J other hand argued that PW.5 being a Village Accountant submitted a report to the Revenue Inspector to take further action in the matter when No objections were received from any villager within 30 days from the date of publication of Form No.21 and the mutation entries came to be certified following due procedure of law.
58. Now I would like to consider whether the evidence of PW.5 would indicate that there was any pressure or force upon him by the Revenue Inspector at the instance of kins of accused No.1 and by accused No.6. PW.5 in his evidence deposed that after publication of Form No.21, he has written that No objections were received since he has not received any objections from anybody. He further admitted in his cross-examination that after receiving Form No.21 pertaining to M.R. No.15 and 18/2005-06, after completion of 30 days after publication he made an endorsement on 29.6.2006 and 25.7.2006 respectively.
98 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Further admitted that he has published the Form No.21 and followed all the procedures and the acts done by him pertaining to the above mutations are legal and in accordance with law. Further admitted that Revenue Inspector told him to do his job as early as possible only to avoid any unwanted delay. Further admitted that he has not shown any official favour in the present matter on the ground that Accused No.6 was MLA of Malur. The above admissions of PW.5 goes to prove that the mutation entries came to be certified legally and there was no any pressure or force from anybody in discharge of his duties. Thus, the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the mutation entries Ex.P.14(a) and (d) are came to be certified at the pressure of accused No.2 to 4 and 6 is not acceptable.
59. Though the prosecution has examined PW.87, the then Special Tahsildar, Bangalore to prove that the certification of mutation entry was not done legally by 99 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J following the due procedure. Whereas PW.87 clearly deposed that Ex.P.369 and P370 are the files containing J-Forms in respect of the transaction of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village measuring 20 guntas each in favour of accused No.2 and 4 and accused No.3. He further deposed that J-forms received from Senior Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram are at Ex.P.369(a) and 370(a) and Form No.21 generated from Taluka Office for publication are marked at Ex.P.369(b) and Ex.P.370(b). He further deposed that after publishing Form No.21, the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant have waited for 30 days and when No objections were received from any villagers, the mutation has been effected by the Revenue Inspector and sent to the Taluka Office where it was scanned and generated the mutation for transfer of khatha. He further admitted in his cross-examination by Senior Advocate for Accused No.1 that the prescribed procedure was followed by the revenue officials before 100 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J certification of mutation entries and further admitted that the accused No.1 has not pressurized him and he has not influenced Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant to do any illegal mutation. Thus, the evidence of PW.87 goes to prove that the certification of mutation entry was done legally without any pressure from any body.
60. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that PW.5 deposed that he has made endorsement on 29.6.2006 and 25.7.2006 but there is no record to show that notice Form No.21 was published 30 days prior to the date of endorsement and further argued that Ex.P.369(b) and P370(b) do not disclose the date of publication of Form No.21. However, Ex.P.369 and 370 reveal that there is an order on checklist marked at Ex.P.369(c) and 370(c) to publish Form No.21 and the Form No.21 were generated on 19.5.2006 and 20.6.2006 respectively. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Form 101 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J No.21 was not published by providing 30 days time, calling for objections if any by the villagers.
61. Learned Special Public Prosecutor in his further argument relied on the evidence of PW.89 to prove that mutation entries were certified at the pressure of accused No.1 to 4 and 6. PW.89 has deposed in his evidence that the Village Accountant has published Form No.21 for both J-forms and waited for 30 days and No Objections were received and sent the report stating that area is tallying to RTC and inspite of publication of Form No.21, nobody has filed objections and recommended for effecting mutation. On the basis of report of Village Accountant, he accepted the mutation and send the file to Taluk Office for entering in computer and to change in the RTC.
62. He further deposed that Sri. Boraiah, Special Tahsildar informed him not to delay the matter and to do it early and further deposed that nobody influenced or pressurized him to certify the mutation as per 102 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P.14(a) and 14(b). Thus, this witness has been treated hostile by the prosecution and in the cross- examination, he denied the suggestions put by learned Special Public Prosecutor that he has stated before CBI that at the instance of Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluka, R.R. Sheristedar and PA to Deputy Commissioner, though he was required to wait for 30 days for objections, he accepted the mutation hurriedly without waiting for 30 days.
63. However, PW.89 admitted in his cross- examination by Special Public Prosecutor that Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East, R.R. Sheristedar and PA to Deputy Commissioner informed him to do the work expeditiously and further admitted that since the Senior Officers started putting pressure on him he obtained the report from the Village Accountant, accepted the mutation and sent J-form to the computer section for change of khatha and he could not verify the income declared by the purchasers under Section 103 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 81A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Whereas in his cross-examination by learned advocate for accused, he has admitted that the mutation proceedings right from receiving the file from Taluka office, he sending Form No.21 to the Village Accountant for publication and thereafter publication made by Village Accountant and Village Accountant submitting his report and acceptance of mutation by him and forwarding the file to Taluka Office for change of khatha has been done by following all the prescribed procedure and in accordance with law. He further admitted that he never yielded to any pressure and not done any work illegally during entire tenure of his service and further admitted that none of his senior officers informed him to do an illegal act in accepting the mutation pertaining to land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. He further admitted that his Taluka Officers and PA to Deputy Commissioner informed to do his work diligently and by following procedure in an expeditious manner.
104 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Though the admission of PW.89 goes to prove that his Senior Officers asked him to do the work expeditiously and diligently, but there is nothing to suggest that the Senior Officers of PW.89 have pressurized him at the instance of kins of Accused No.1 and by accused No.6 to certify mutation entry bypassing the procedure. On the other hand, admission of PW.89 goes to prove that he certified the mutation entries marked at Ex.P.14(a) and 14(d) by following due procedure without yielding to any pressure.
64. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that accused No.2, 4 and accused No.3 have filed a false affidavit declaring their income as Rs.50,000/- p.a., and Rs.30,000/- p.a., respectively from sources other than agricultural income and got registered the sale deeds Ex.P.371 and P374 and thereby purchased the land in violation of the provisions of Sec.79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In order to prove that accused No.2 to 4 had income of more than Rs. 2 105 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J lakhs per annum from sources other than agriculture and they purchased the land in violation of the provisions of Sec.79A of the KLR Act and that mutation was certified by the revenue officials without verifying the income declared by them in Form No.81, the prosecution examined PW7, 13, 32, 42, 71, 72, 78, 88, 89, 91, 102 and PW109. Relying on the evidence of above said witnesses, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the accused No.2, 4 and 3 filed false affidavits declaring their income as Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- p.a., from the sources other than agricultural income and the revenue officials certified the mutation entries at Ex.P.14(a) and
(d) without verifying the income of accused No.2 to 4 as declared by them u/s 81A of the KLR Act. Thus, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that accused No.2 to 4 purchased the land in violation of Sec.79A of KLR Act.
106 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
65. On the other hand, the learned senior advocate who argued for Accused No.1 to 5 submitted that for violation of Sec. 79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, a penal provision is made under Sec. 125(2) of KLR Act, 1961, the jurisdictional Magistrate can impose penalty as provided u/s 125(2) of KLR Act only when the revenue authority makes a complaint with regard to violation of Section 79A. Therefore, this court cannot take cognizance of the said offence in the absence of charge. He further argued that in order to prove the violation of provisions of Sec.79A, prosecution requires to prove that accused No.2, 3 and 4 had income more than Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than agriculture for a period of 5 years preceding the date of purchase of the land, therefore, the affidavit filed by them declaring their income at Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- p.a., from sources other than agriculture is false. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence to prove that 107 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J accused No.2, 3 and 4 had income more than Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from the sources other than the agricultural income for a period of 5 years preceding the date of purchase and thereby failed to prove that accused No.2, 3 and 4 filed false affidavit declaring their income as Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- p.a., from sources other than agricultural income. On the other hand, he has argued that the evidence adduced by prosecution itself goes to show that income of accused No.2, 3 and 4 was never more than Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than agriculture prior to 2005-2006. He drew my attention to the evidence of PW.7, 13, 32, 42, 71, 72 and PW.109 to demonstrate that income of accused No.2, 3 and 4 had never exceeded Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than agriculture prior to 2005-2006. Thus, he argued that the allegation of prosecution that accused No.2, 3 and 4 filed false affidavit declaring their income as Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- p.a., from the sources other than the agricultural income is 108 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J baseless and unfounded. He further argued that there is no violation of the provisions of Sec.79A of KLR Act, thus he argued that mutation of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village in the name of accused No.2, 4 and 3 on the basis of the sale deeds at Ex.P.371 and P374 respectively was done legally in accordance with law.
66. On going through the charges framed against accused No.2, 3 and 4, it is found that accused No.2, 3 and 4 have not been charged u/s 125(2) of KLR Act for violation of the provisions of Sec. 79A of the KLR Act. Unless the accused is put on notice of the offence which he has to meet in the trial, he cannot be held guilty for the said offence. Admittedly, no charge is framed against Accused No.2, 3 and 4 u/s 125(2) of the KLR Act as such this court cannot venture to consider the violation of provisions of Sec. 79A of KLR Act and thereby accused No.2, 3 and 4 committed an offence u/s 125(2) of KLR Act.
109 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
67. However it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of their conspiracy got the mutation entries marked at Ex.P.14(a) and 14(b) certified by the revenue officials by putting them under pressure. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 abused his official position to get the mutation entry certified, though not an illegal act but by illegal means. Thus, in view of the above allegations made by the prosecution, it becomes necessary to consider whether there was any violation of Sec.79A of KLR Act and that accused No.2, 3 and 4 have declared their income falsely to purchase the land in Sy. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village in violation of Sec.79A of KLR Act.
68. In order to prove that accused No.2, 3 and 4 had income more than Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than agriculture, the prosecution examined PW.32, who served as Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-2, Circle II(1), HMT Bhavan, Bangalore, he 110 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J has deposed in his evidence that CBI officer requested him to furnish the certified copies of Income Tax Returns filed by R.N. Sohan Kumar during the financial year 2004-05 to 2009-10. He further deposed that on verification of the records, he found that assessee has not filed income tax returns pertaining to the financial years 2003-04, 2006-07, 2010-11, 2011-
12. He further deposed that he produced Income Tax Returns pertaining to the financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2009-10 and the said income tax returns together are marked as Ex.P.87.
69. Nothing is elicited in his evidence to show that accused No.4 R.N. Sohan Kumar had income more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum from sources other than agriculture. On the other hand, PW.32 admitted the income of the assessee for the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06 was less than Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than agriculture and assessee has not submitted returns for the financial year from 2001 to 2004.
111 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
70. Prosecution examined PW.42 Inspector of Income Tax in the Office of the Asst. Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle-1, Shivamogga who worked from 2011 to 2013. He has deposed that the Income Tax Returns of accused No.2 and 3 for the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06 were not available. He further deposed that the Income Tax Returns pertaining to accused No.2 and 3 for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 are produced which are marked at Ex.P.118 to P121. PW.42 admitted in his cross-examination that, previous 5 years financial years, for declaration of income with reference to March 2006, will be 2000-01 to 2004-05. He further admitted that Ex.P.118 and P119 income of assessees pertaining to the year 2006-07 from sources other than agriculture is less than Rs.2 lakhs. Thus, the evidence of PW.42 is of no avail for prosecution to prove that accused No.2 and 3 had income more than Rs.2 lakhs 112 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J p.a., from sources other than the agricultural income during the financial years from 2000-01 to 2004-05.
71. The prosecution further examined PW.71 to prove that accused No.2 and 3 are the partners in M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products, Shivamogga and also partners in M/s. J.A.M. Pipes and they were entitled to get 16.67 share each out of the profits of the said partnership firm. The prosecution got produced the income tax returns along with the balance sheet pertaining to M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products for the assessment year 2001-02 to 2007-08 and got them marked at Ex.P.319 to P325. This witness in his cross- examination categorically admitted that the total income by way of profit of B.Y. Raghavendra (A3) and B.Y. Vijayendra (A2) from these two firms was not exceeded Rs.2 lakhs p.a., prior to 2005-06. The income tax returns of the said firms marked at Ex.P.319 to P323 would also reveal the income earned 113 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J by accused No.2 and 3 from the said firms never exceeded Rs.2 lakhs p.a.
72. The prosecution also examined PW.72 and got marked the income tax returns pertaining to M/s. J.A.M. Pipes for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2007-08 and got them marked at Ex.P.329, P330, P331. On perusal of these income tax returns pertaining to M/s. J.A.M. Pipes, it becomes clear that share of profit received by accused No.2 and 3 would not exceed Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from the said firm. On the other hand, PW.71 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that the total income of accused No.2 and 3 earned by way of profit from these two firms never exceeded Rs.2 lakhs prior to 2005-06.
73. The prosecution examined PW.73 to prove the income of accused No.4 from M/s. FICOM Engineering Pvt. Ltd., However, the screen print of AST Data base wherein the Income Tax Returns data is entered pertaining to M/s. FICOM Engineering Pvt. Ltd., for the 114 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06. These two print out of income tax returns of M/s. FICOM Engineering Pvt. Ltd., have not been admitted in evidence for non- compliance of Sec.65-B of Evidence Act. PW.73 further admitted that he was unable to produce original Income Tax Returns before the court because he could not trace the original returns inspite of the efforts made. PW.73 deposed in his chief-examination that R.N. Sohan Kumar (A4) was one of the Director of M/s. FICOM Engineering Pvt. Ltd. PW.73 admitted in his cross-examination that a person can become a Director of a company without being the shareholder and further admitted that unless the company declares the dividend, it will not become income of the share holders. The evidence of PW.73 does not disclose what was the income earned by accused No.4 from the said company. Therefore, the evidence of PW.73 would be of no avail to prove the income of accused No.4 115 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J exceeded Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than agriculture.
74. The prosecution examined PW.109, the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax who deposed in his evidence that the CBI Officers requested him to furnish certified copies of income tax returns of B.Y. Raghavendra for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2011-
12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor tried to elicit the income of accused No.2 and 3 was exceeding Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than agriculture for the assessment year 2007-08 and for subsequent years. The income of accused No.2 and 3 subsequent to March 2006 is of no consequence. Therefore, the effort of the prosecution to prove the income of accused No.2 and 3 was more than Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than agriculture subsequent to March 2006 is a futile exercise. On the other hand, the income tax returns produced by the prosecution in this case for the assessment year 2006-07 and for previous 116 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J assessment years and the categorical admission of PW.71 that the income of accused No.2 and 3 from the said two firms by way of profit never exceeded Rs.2 lakhs p.a., prior to 2005-06 would suffice to held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the income of accused No.2, 3 and 4 exceeded Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from sources other than the agricultural income. Thus, it cannot be said that accused No.2, 3 and 4 have filed a false affidavit declaring their income as less than Rs.2 lakhs p.a., from the sources other than agriculture. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused No.2 and 3 have violated the provisions of Sec.79A of KLR Act while purchasing the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village under Ex.P.371 and 374.
REGARDING ALLEGATION OF CONVERSION OF LAND ILLEGALLY:
75. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the revenue officials have not followed the procedure before converting the land into non-
117 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J agriculture but ordered for conversion of the land into non-agriculture land hurriedly at the pressure of kins of accused No.1 and accused No.6. In this connection, he relied on the evidence of PW.7, 8, 9, 13, 78, 88, 91 and 102.
76. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that PW.9 Deepak R.B., who is a distant relative of accused No.4 was looking after the household work of accused No.1 to 3. PW.9 was appointed as GPA holder of accused No.2 and 4 for filing application before competent authority for conversion of land. He went to the office of Tahsildar, K.R. Puram submitted application for conversion of the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village on 26/2/2008 as per Ex.P37 on behalf of Accused No.2 to 4 and deposited the amount through challans at State Bank of Mysore. He further argued that PW.9 admitted that he put his signatures on Ex.P.42 in the residence of B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) at Race Course Road on the 118 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J instructions of B.Y. Vijayendra (A2). Thus, he argued that the purchase of R.S. No.55/2 by accused No.2 to 4 as per Ex.P.371 and 374 was within the knowledge of accused No.1.
77. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that PW.78 Retired Revenue Inspector of Horamavu Circle, K.R. Puram admitted in his cross- examination that he has not visited the spot and not enquired the villagers about their objections for conversion of the land. Further admitted that he dictated to write the contents of Ex.P.32 mahazar in his office to his Village Assistant Narasimhaiah and mahazar is in the handwriting of his Village Assistant. He further argued that the inability of PW.78 to say the name and address of the witnesses who have signed on the mahazar goes to prove that PW.78 without visiting the spot prepared the mahazar. Thus, he argued that the mahazar was concocted without visiting the spot at the influence of Accused No.2 to 4.
119 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
78. He further argued that the file pertaining for conversion of the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was sent for Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk for conversion and the Tahsildar recommended for conversion even though it was noted down by the Office Assistant that endorsement under Sec. 79(A) and (B) of KLR Act was not produced. Thus, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relying on the evidence PW.88 argued that the requirement of compliance of Sec.79(A) and (B) has been overlooked by all the concerned before according permission for conversion. He further argued that the endorsement was passed on 6.3.2009 and the letter was addressed to Deepak R.B., immediately. Amount paid by him on the next day. The challan for having deposited the amount on 7.3.2009 are marked at Ex.P38 and 39. The conversion order was issued on 7.3.2009 signed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.
120 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
79. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that PW.91 R.Srinivas, Retired Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore deposed about the procedure for conversion of land. According to his evidence, the Revenue Officer has to verify the non-agricultural income of the family and the Procedure shown in the Circular issued by the Govt., as per Ex.P17 has to be followed by the Asst. Commissioner and subordinates for conversion of agricultural land. For conversion of land one has to submit RTC, Mutation, Survey Sketch of the land, NOC from the Tahsildar, NOC under PTCL and NOC u/s 79(A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Tahsildar has to obtain report from the Revenue Inspector of the concerned Hobli, thereafter the Tahsildar has to make spot inspection. The Tahsildar after making the spot inspection has to forward his report to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner is empowered to pass orders for conversion. The learned Special Public Prosecutor 121 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J argued that Ex.P.40 application was received on 26.2.2009 for conversion and order was passed on 6.3.2009 without following the procedure mentioned above. Conversion was done hurriedly which discloses the misuse of official power by accused No.1.
80. On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused argued that all the procedure and requirement of law have been complied with before conversion of the land. In this connection he drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.13 wherein he has admitted that once the mutation is duly certified, it means that all the legal requirements including the requirements under Sec.79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act are deemed to have been complied. He also adverted my attention to the admission of PW.13 in his cross-examination at para No.5, wherein he has admitted that along with the application for conversion, RTC of the land was submitted which indicated compliance of Sec.79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act. Further admission that compliance 122 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J of Sec. 79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act again for the purpose of consideration of the request for conversion does not arise. He also adverted my attention to the cross-examination of PW.78 wherein he has admitted that after receiving the file, the notice was published in the village inviting objections if any and nobody submitted objections for the conversion, accordingly he reported. He also adverted my attention to the cross- examination of PW.8 wherein he has admitted that there was no discrepancy in the report Ex.P.30 and 31 and the records pertaining to conversion of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. He also relied on the evidence of PW.88 and 102 in support of his argument that if the mutation is certified it presupposes that there is no violation of Sec. 79(A) and (B) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Thus, he argued that the PW.7 who was serving as Tahsildar, Bangalore East at the relevant time, has followed all the procedure and the requirements of law before 123 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J forwarding the report for conversion. He further argued that PW.7 admitted that he has personally made spot inspection of the land and then submitted the proposal to Spl.D.C., Bangalore Urban District. Therefore, the admission of PW.8 that he has not made physical verification of the land becomes inconsequential.
81. Now, I would like to appreciate the evidence of PW.7, 8, 9, 13, 78, 88, 91 and 102 in order to find out whether the prosecution was able to prove that the revenue officials have acted hastily and illegally in converting the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village without following due procedure at the pressure or force of kins of accused No.1 and that accused No.1 misused his official position to get the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was converted into non-agricultural land.
82. The Special Public Prosecutor has heavily relied on the evidence of PW.8 who was working as 124 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Office Assistant in DC, Urban Office and the evidence of PW.78 who was working as a Revenue Inspector, Horamavu Circle, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore at the relevant time. PW.8 deposed in his evidence about the procedure to be followed for conversion of land. He has deposed that Revenue Inspector has to make physical verification of the land and ascertain the title of the land, extent and to verify the land whether it is covered under PTCL Act, Land Reforms Act, Land Acquisition Act and prepare mahazar for the same and submit the report to the Tahsildar. PW.78 deposed in his evidence that he verified the application and enclosed documents, surveyors report and submitted his report and further deposed that on verifying the documents and pahani, he found that there was no hurdle for conversion, accordingly he recommended for conversion. PW.78 deposed that he has not seen the spot and not prepared the mahazar and further deposed that he got prepared the mahazar through his 125 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Village Assistant. Thus, this witness has been treated hostile and cross-examined. In the cross-examination he admitted that the village assistant has written the contents of Ex.P.32 on his dictation in his office. Thus, from the evidence of PW.78, it becomes clear that the Ex.P.32 mahazar was prepared in his office and not on the spot. However, he denied the suggestion of learned Special Public Prosecutor that he was aware that the land was owned by sons and son-in-law of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa. He further denied the suggestion that to help the sons and son-in-law of accused No.1 the then Chief Minister he submitted false report to the higher authorities. On the other hand he has deposed in his cross-examination that in the pahani column No.11 of land Sy. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village, nothing was mentioned. Thus, the land was free from Sec.79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act, accordingly he has submitted the report. In his cross-examination admitted that after receiving the file the notice was published inviting 126 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J objections if any for conversion and nobody submitted any objections, accordingly he reported. He further admitted in his cross-examination that he secured the villagers of Rachenahalli village who have signed as a witness on Ex.P.32 to his office and ascertained that there is no objection and accordingly he dictated the contents to his Village Assistant and further admitted that he prepared Ex.P.32 based on the village map, information of villagers and village assistant and based on the document. Though, there is a lapse on the part of PW.78 to visit the spot personally but there is nothing to indicate that the report submitted by him is false or against the true facts. On the other hand, PW.7 who was working as the Tahsildar has deposed in his chief-examination itself that after he obtained report and mahazar from the Revenue Inspector he obtained sketch from the surveyor and personally made spot inspection of the land and then submitted the proposal to Spl.D.C. Therefore, the lapse if any on 127 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the part of PW.78 to make a personal visit to the spot before submitting report to the Tahsildar, the said defect can be said to have been cured by PW.7 who has deposed that he has personally made spot inspection of the land and then submitted the proposal.
83. Though PW.88 deposed in his evidence that case worker at para No.4 noted that endorsement u/s 79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act are not produced and submitted the file for appropriate orders and the Office Assistant also suggested to obtain endorsement u/s 79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act before according permission for conversion, however admitted in his cross-examination that if mutation is duly certified it means that there is a compliance of Sec. 79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act and further admitted that since there is a mutation in the names of purchaser there is no violation of Sec.79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act and further admitted that the Special Deputy Commissioner after considering the proposal and the 128 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J records, approved for conversion of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village to the extent of 1 Acre. He further admitted that if the note put up by Case Worker and Office Assistant are contrary to rules and regulations, the competent authority may over look the objections and pass appropriate order. He also admitted that as per the clause (8) of the Circular issued by Govt. of Karnataka in the year 1964 for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose marked at Ex.D49, 'the burden of verification regarding the above laws lies solely on the Tahsildar and the applicant shall not be asked to produce the documents for the same'.
84. PW.13 who was the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in Bangalore Urban District at the relevant period and who has forwarded the file to Spl.D.C., for approval for conversion of the land, admitted in his cross-examination that once the mutation is duly certified that it means that all the 129 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J legal requirement including the requirement u/s 79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act are deemed to have been complied with and further admitted that along with the application for conversion, the RTC of the land was submitted which indicated compliance of Sec. 79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act and further admitted that compliance of Sec. 79(A) and (B) of Land Reforms Act again for the purpose of consideration of request for conversion does not arise.
85. The prosecution has neither cited as a witness nor examined the Special D.C., who has approved conversion of land. The Spl. D.C., who has approved conversion of land is the best witness to prove the alleged illegality in approval of the conversion of the land. Thus, the prosecution has withheld the best evidence who could have thrown light on the aspect of legality or illegality of conversion of the land.
86. The file in respect of conversion of land is produced and is marked at Ex.P.36. The conversion 130 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J order passed by the Spl. D.C., was got marked at Ex.P.36(j) by the prosecution and the original copy of the conversion order bearing signature of Spl.D.C., is marked at Ex.D15. Ex.D51 is the report submitted from BDA that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 can be considered for conversion for residential purpose by excluding the 18 meter area proposed for road. Ex.P31 is the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. Ex.D13 is the portion of the report marked at Ex.P.31. PW.7 admitted in his cross-examination that the land Sy. No.55/2 does not come in the green belt. PW.7 further deposed that he personally inspected the land to ascertain the truth of the facts in the report submitted by Revenue Inspector and further admitted that he did not find anything wrong in the report of Revenue Inspector at Ex.P.31. Thus, the Special Deputy Commissioner after considering the proposal submitted by the Tahsildar and the relevant documents approved for conversion of the land.
131 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
87. While appreciating the evidence of the witnesses regarding mutation, I have already held that the mutation was duly certified by following the due procedure of law. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner who has approved for conversion of land, having found the note put up by the Office Assistant is not in accordance with rules and regulations and in view of the proposal submitted by the Tahsildar, Bangalore after personal spot inspection of the land. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish that the conversion of the land was done by the revenue officials either at the force or pressure of kins of accused No.1 or that the conversion of the land was got done by accused No.1 by misusing his official position.
REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF ILLEGAL DE- NOTIFICATION OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.55/2 OF RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE:
132 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
88. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that a Preliminary Notification was published in the gazette dated 3.2.2003 u/s 17(1) of BDA Act, 1976 marked at Ex.P.18 proposing to acquire 3339 acres of lands mentioned therein for BDA for formation of Arkavathi Layout and a Final Notification was published in the gazette dated 23.2.2004 as per Ex.P19 declaring that the lands specified in the schedule totally measuring 2750 acres, needed for public purpose to wit for the formation of the layout called Arkavathi.
89. He further argued that Ex.P.20 the file maintained by BDA pertaining to Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was got produced through PW.20 which contain notices issued to the owners of land marked Ex.P.20(b) and 20(e) and the draft award prepared in respect of land Sy. No.55/2 as on 1.7.2004 and submitted to DC., Land Acquisition for approval, but it was not approved.
133 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
90. He further argued that accused No.6 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy filed application dated13.9.2008 for denotification of the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 as a GPA holder of Smt. Gowramma and Sri. Panduranga, though by that time, the land was sold by him as a GPA in favour of accused No.2 to 4. He further argued relying on the evidence of PW.26 that accused No.6 and another person by name Sudhir who was working in Personal Section of Chief Minister's Establishment pressurized and forced PW.26 and other officers in his office to send a report recommending for denotification. He further argued that as per the instructions of Chief Minister, PW.36 B.G. Nanda Kumar, Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister's office, summoned the file from the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, which goes to show the keen interest shown by accused No.1 in securing the file pertaining to Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village for denotification. He further 134 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J argued relying on the evidence of PW.1 to 6 that accused No.1 has passed order for denotification as per Ex.P.36(j) on 7.3.2009 bypassing the denotification committee which was in existence. He would contend that, the fact that the award was ready, it was not approved by Addl. DC., (LA), and the fact that accused No.6 and one person by name Sudhir working in the personal section of Chief Minister's Establishment were pursuing the matter with the Commissioner of BDA and the fact that the accused No.1 instructed PW.36 Joint Secretary in his office to summon the file from Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department and the fact that accused No.1 himself passed order of denotification bypassing the denotification committee though he was aware that his sons and son-in-law were the owners of the land would goes to prove that accused No.1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with accused No.2 to 4 and 6 passed denotification order fraudulently and dishonestly to help his sons and 135 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J son-in-law. He further argued that accused No.1 being interested person in the denotification of the said land should not have passed denotification order bypassing the denotification committee and without placing the matter before cabinet. He further argued that accused No.1 has not placed the matter before denotification committee or before the cabinet under the apprehension that placing the matter before denotification committee or before the cabinet would have exposed his sons and son-in-law who have purchased the said land though it was under
acquisition. Thus, he argued that the act of denotifying the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village from acquisition as per the order dated 7.3.2009 was misuse of official position by accused No.1 to help his kins to get pecuniary advantage. Thus, he argued that the order of denotification though not an illegal act but it was done by illegal means by misuse of his official position for
136 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J obtaining pecuniary advantage for his sons and son-in- law. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW.2, 3, 19, 20, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, and 40 and the relevant documents in support of his arguments. In this connection he relied upon the ruling reported in (2010)7 SCC 129 (Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs. BDA and others).
91. On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused No.1 to 5 vehemently argued that there is no legal impediment for denotification of land if the application made u/s 48 of Land Acquisition Act, by the applicant is genuine and honest. He further argued that Govt. is at liberty to withdraw from acquisition any land, if the award has not been passed and possession of such land has not been taken. He further argued that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village had already been denotified on 17.5.2004 by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna, therefore the subsequent de-notification done by 137 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J accused No.1 is only a superfluous and no legal inference can be drawn that accused No.1 has denotified the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli to favour his kith and kin. He further argued that denotification committee is not a statutory committee. It is only a recommending authority. Recommendations of the denotification committee are not binding on the competent authority. Hundreds of acres of lands were denotified by the previous Chief Ministers even though recommended otherwise by the denotification committee.
92. The learned senior advocate for accused No.1 in support of his argument that decision making process has been followed by accused No.1 in passing the denotification order. In this connection, he drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.3 at para No.6, page No.3 wherein he has admitted that he has put a note marked at Ex.P.21(a) recommending for de- notification of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 from 138 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J acquisition and that his note was approved by the Addl. Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Commissioner- Land Acquisition and Commissioner, BDA and nobody has given any letter or documents before him covered under Ex.P.20 and 21. He also drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.19, wherein he has deposed that the letter dated 5.6.2004 was submitted by him to the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, GOK, Bangalore, requesting for denotification of 125 acres 28 guntas of land under acquisition by BDA, to establish a software park and that the entry at Sl. No.76 in Ex.D20(c) is relating to Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village standing in the name of Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Panduranga and that the surrounding lands of Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village were purchased by their company and that Ex.D22 is the certified copy of the sketch of lands of Rachenahalli village and that, the land shown in pink and blue colour in the said map have been 139 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J purchased by their company surrounding Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village and that the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village is in the middle of the land purchased by their company and it is impossible to form a layout in 1 acre of land.
93. The advocate for accused No.1 further drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.20 wherein he has deposed that acquisition of land would be complete only if all the five stages are complied i.e., publication of preliminary notification, publication of final notification, passing of award, taking of possession and publication of Sec. 16(2) notification under Land Acquisition Act.
94. He also drew my attention to the chief - examination of Sri. Siddaiah, Commissioner of BDA who is examined as PW.26, wherein he has deposed that report Ex.P.79 was submitted stating that preliminary and final notification have been published and award was not yet framed in respect of land Sy.
140 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. He drew my attention to the admission in cross-examination of this witness wherein he has admitted that Ex.P.79 is a factual report submitted to the Govt. based on the records maintained in the BDA office and further admitted that Ex.P.79 was sent to the Govt., without showing any favour to anybody in respect of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village and that denotification committee is not a statutory committee formed by the Govt., it is only a recommending committee and that recommendation made by the committee is not binding on the Govt. and that inspite of recommendation by the committee not to denotify the lands, the Govt. took decision to denotify certain lands and that Sy. No.55/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of land remained as an island and surrounding all lands have been denotified by the Govt., it was not possible to the BDA to form a layout in that piece of land and further admitted that nobody has influenced him to act in a particular 141 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J manner in respect of the application submitted by Sri. Krishnaiah Setty nor he has shown any favour in that matter, request was only to expedite the matter and to send the report early to the Govt. and there was no request to suppress any fact and to submit the report.
95. The learned advocate for accused No.1 further drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.29 wherein he has admitted that note put up by him was based on record and he has not given any false information and that the owner of the land can request for denotification, if the award is not passed and possession is not taken. He further admitted that the lands mentioned in Ex.D23 were ordered to be denotified by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna. Further admitted that land Sy. No.55/2 was denotified in the year 2004 itself and the said entry marked at Ex.P.23(a) and further admitted that there was no legal impediment for ordering denotification of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village.
142 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
96. He further drew my attention to the admissions in cross-examination of PW.31 Jyothiramalingam, Prl. Secretary, UDD wherein he has admitted that there was no legal impediment for denotification of land Sy. No.55/2 and that denotification committee was not constituted under any rule or law or on the policy decision by the Govt. of Karnataka and further admission that denotification committee was not given any statutory power by the Govt. Further admission that the competent authority may accept the recommendation of the denotification committee or take any independent decision on the issue of denotification. Further admission that absolutely there is nothing wrong in the direction given by the Chief Minister to secure the files Ex.P84(d). Further admission that there were several instances wherein denotification was ordered without referring the matter to denotification committee. The learned senior advocate for accused No.1 drew my attention to 143 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the evidence of PW.34, 36, 37, 40, 74, 108 and 123 in support of his argument that land bearing Sy. No.55/2 had already been denotified and that there was no need to place the matter of denotification before cabinet under the Karnataka Govt. (Transaction of Business) Rules 1977, since the order of denotification did not involve any financial burden on the Govt. On the other hand, the Govt., is not liable to pay compensation in case of denotification. Thus, the senior advocate for accused No.1 argued that the accused No.1 has not acted fraudulently or dishonestly while denotifying the land Sy. No.55/2. In fact the order of denotification of RS No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was only a superfluous since it had already been denotified on 17.5.2004 by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence to show that accused No.1 misused his official position to show favour to his kins.
144 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
97. I would like to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to consider whether prosecution would be able to prove that the accused No.1 in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy between him and accused No.2 to 4 and 6 has fraudulently and dishonestly denotified the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village to obtain pecuniary advantage to accused No.2 to 4.
98. The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses they are PW.3, 19, 20, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 74 and 108 in connection with matter of denotification and got the documents marked at Ex.P18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 79, 84, 93 to 96 and 355. On the other hand the learned advocate for accused got the documents marked at Ex.D19, 20, 23 and 27 during the course of cross-examination.
99. PW.3 who was FDA in the Land Acquisition Department during relevant period has deposed in his evidence that Ex.P.21 is file pertaining to denotification 145 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J of R.S.No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. He has deposed that he has put a note as per Ex.P.21(a) as per the instructions of ALAO., BDA. Admitted in his cross- examination that Ex.P.21(a) note was made recommending the denotification of land Sy. No.55/2. Further admitted that his note was approved by ALAO, DC Land Acquisition and Commissioner, BDA.
100. PW.26, who served as a Commissioner, BDA during the relevant period has deposed in his evidence that Sri. Krishnaiah Setty (A6), the then Minister in the Govt. of Karnataka submitted his request application in respect of Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village for denotification and Accused No.6 Krishnaiah Setty repeatedly requested him and met him for second time and requested him to send the report immediately to the Govt. He further deposed that apart from Krishnaiah Setty (A6) another person Sri. Sudhir who was working in the personal section of Chief Minister's Establishment persuaded the matter with him and his 146 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J officers for immediately sending the report. He deposed in his chief-examination that Ex.P.79 is a report sent to the Govt. in respect of Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village reporting that preliminary and final notification has been published, an award was not yet framed in respect of said Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. Further admitted in his cross- examination that the award in respect of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was not passed and possession of land was not taken by the BDA. PW.26 admitted in his cross-examination that as a Commissioner of BDA he has not shown any favour to anybody in discharge of his duty in the present case on hand and further admitted that Ex.P79 is a factual report based on records maintained in the BDA office and further admitted that Ex.P79 was sent to the Govt. without showing any favour to anybody in respect of land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. He has admitted in his cross-examination that denotification 147 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J committee is not a statutory committee formed by the Govt. and further admitted that recommendations made by the committee are not binding on the Govt. He further admitted that decisions for denotification of lands were taken by the Govt. as well as during President's Rule by the Governor ignoring the decisions of denotification committee.
101. PW.29 who worked as Section Officer, UDD, Govt. of Karnataka during relevant time has deposed in his evidence that the file pertaining to denotification of Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was received by the Under Secretary and the file came to him on 3.10.2008 and he put up a note at Ex.P.84(b) recommending for denotification after placing the matter before denotification committee and then file went to Under Secretary from there the file went to Joint Secretary and then to Prl. Secretary and then to Chief Minister. He further deposed that one Sudhir, Special Officer in C.M. office came to him once and enquired him about 148 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the denotification of the present case. This witness was treated hostile and in the cross-examination by Special Public Prosecutor though he has admitted that one Sudhir along with some other persons used to come for pursuing the file and he questioned his interference in August 2010 and said Sudhir told him that he will ensure his transfer out of UDD department accordingly he was transferred from the said Department in 2010, however, admitted in his cross- examination that in his first and second statement before CBI Officer he has not stated the above said facts, thus there are material improvements in his evidence which makes his evidence doubtful. He further admitted in his cross-examination that Under Secretary, Joint Secretary as well as one Sri. Sudhir never insisted him to put up note against any rules and regulations and further admitted that he has not put up any note pertaining to this matter which is illegal or irregular.
149 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
102. PW.31 was the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department at the relevant time has deposed in his evidence that the Joint Secretary of Chief Minister sent a note to him requesting to put up certain files for de-notification and he sent the said note to the Joint Secretary to call for the files and further deposed that the file was sent to him with the notes of Section Officer, Under Secretary, Joint Secretary and he put up a note at Ex.P.84(L) for orders since the possession of the land had not been taken and there was no legal impediment for denotification and to take the opinion of denotification committee. Further deposed that accused No.1 was the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister passed order for denotification of the land without sending the file to denotification committee even though it was recommended by them. However PW.31 admitted in his cross-examination that there was no legal impediment for ordering denotification of the said land 150 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J since the possession of the land had not been taken and award was not passed. Further admitted that denotification committee was not constituted under any rule or law or it was given any statutory power. Further admitted that there was nothing wrong on the part of Chief Minister passing order for denotification as per Ex.D84(e) bypassing the denotification committee. Further admitted that there are several instances wherein denotification was ordered without referring the matter to the denotification committee. PW.36 deposed in his evidence that Ex.D84(d) is a note given by him as per the instructions of Chief Minister and he summoned the files from Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department. He has admitted in his cross-examination that as per Ex.P.84(d) as per the instructions of Chief Minister he secured not only the file pertaining Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli but also several other files of the said village.
151 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
103. Thus, on appreciation of evidence of PW.3, 26, 29, 31, it becomes clear that the note put up by PW.3 recommending for denotification of the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 has been approved by the ALAO, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, BDA and the file was sent to Prl. Secretary, Urban Development, GOK for further action.
104. After the file was reached the Urban Development Department, he recommended for denotification of the land and his note was approved by Under Secretary, Joint Secretary and Secretary. Though a feeble effort was made by the prosecution to prove that PW.29 was forced or pressurized to put up a note for recommendation for denotification however PW.29 has clearly admitted that Under Secretary, Joint Secretary and Secretary as well as one Sudhir never insisted him to put up note against any rules and regulations and further admitted that he has not submitted any note pertaining to this matter which is 152 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J illegal or irregular. So also, prosecution has made a feeble effort to prove through the evidence of PW.31 that the denotification order passed by accused No.1 bypassing the denotification committee is an order passed by illegal means. However, PW.31 in his cross- examination clearly admitted that there are several instances wherein denotification was ordered without referring the matter to denotification committee.
105. It is also admitted by PW.26 and 31 in their cross-examination that denotification committee was not constituted under any rule or law and no statutory powers are vested with the denotification committee. Both of them have also admitted in their cross- examination that there are several instances wherein the denotification was ordered without referring the matter to the denotification committee. Nothing is elicited in the evidence of PW.26 to show that he and other officers have been pressurized and forced by Accused No.6 Krishnaiah Shetty and another person by 153 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J name Sudhir who was working in Personal Section of Chief Minister's Establishment. On the other hand, PW.26 deposed that as a Commissioner of BDA he has not shown any favour to anybody in discharge of his duty in the present case on hand and further admitted that Ex.P.79 is a factual report based on records maintained in the BDA office. In this connection, reference can be made to Ex.P.96. This is the letter given to Addl. Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC., Chief Investigation Officer, Bangalore, which goes to show at ink page No.3, 4, 5 and 6, the Sy. Nos., of the Rachenahalli village which have not been placed before the denotification committee as per the records available. Thus, as per the said letter, as many as 90 Sy. Nos., of Rachenahalli village which are denotified have not been placed before denotification committee. Thus, the denotification order passed by Accused No.1 in this case in respect of R.S. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village cannot be singled out to held that it was done 154 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J fraudulently or dishonestly with an intention to obtain pecuniary advantage to accused No.2 to 4. On the other hand, the process of decision making has been followed in this case. Right from the case worker in BDA office till the Commissioner of BDA and right from the Section Officer in UDD Department till the Prl. Secretary in the UDD department have recommended for denotification of the said land. They have also deposed that there was no legal impediment for denotification of the said land since award has not been passed and possession of the land was not taken. When the witnesses after witnesses have deposed that there was no any legal impediment for denotification of the said land and that they have not recommended for denotification of the said land at the pressure of anybody or to favour any person, no malafide intention can be imputed to the action of accused No.1 in denotifying the land Sy. No.55/2 by exercising power vested u/s 48(1) Land Acquisition Act only because the 155 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J opinion of denotification committee was not obtained before passing the order.
106. In this connection, I would like to appreciate the evidence of PW.19 and consider the sketch map of the Rachenahalli village marked at Ex.D22. PW.19 admitted in his cross-examination that the surrounding lands of Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli have been purchased by him and further admitted that the lands surrounding to land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village which are shown in pink and blue colour have been purchased by their company. Further admitted that land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village is in the middle of the land purchased by them and he further admitted that as per his experience as a Real Estate Developer it is impossible to form a layout in 1 acre of land. I would also like to rely on the cross-examination of PW.26 wherein he has admitted that if 1 acre 12 guntas of land is remained as island and surrounding all lands have been denotified by the Govt. it is not 156 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J possible to the BDA to form a layout in that piece of land and further admitted that a piece of 1 acre or 2 acres of land cannot be used for formation of layout. The order of denotification passed by accused No.1 if appreciated in the light of evidence of PW.19 and 26 and in the light of situation of land Sy. No.55/2 as could be seen in the sketch map of the Rachenahalli village marked at Ex.D22 I am of the opinion that no other order except the denotification order of land Sy. No.55/2 could have been taken by any other person if he was in the position of accused No.1.
107. In this connection, I would like to rely on the ruling relied upon by Special Public Prosecutor reported in 2010(7) SCC 129 wherein their Lordships in the concluding para No.160(2) held as under: -
"Where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for forming self contained layouts."
157 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Admittedly, R.S. No. 55/2 was surrounded by lands denotified by BDA and it was further admitted by PW.19 and 26 that small piece of land measuring 1 acre 12 guntas cannot be used by BDA to form a layout. Thus, as per the principle laid down in the above said ruling, the denotification order passed by Accused No.1 appears to be just and reasonable.
108. Therefore, I cannot find any fraudulent or dishonest intention in passing the denotification order by accused No.1. Moreover, I am of the opinion that the denotification order passed by accused No.1 is only a superfluous since 131.07 acres of land in Rachenahalli village including Sy. No.55/2 was denotified as long back on 17.5.2004 itself by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna which aspect I have already dealt with while discussing on the point of allegations of using forged NOC for registration of sale 158 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J deeds by accused No.2 to 4. Hence, I answer point No.2 to 6 in the negative.
POINTS No.7 TO 10: -
REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF SUPPRESSION OF LOSS SUFFERED BY M/s. MML & DELAY IN INCREASE OF PREMIUM ON IRON ORE AND FIXATION OF PREMIUM ON IRON ORE FINES PAYABLE TO M/s. MML.
109. It is alleged in the prosecution case that to run the company M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (earlier known as JVSL) a steady supply of iron ore is necessary. That M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd., had applied for lease hold rights of Iron Ore Mine. The Govt. of Karnataka had recommended for lease of A, D & E Blocks of Kumaraswamy Range in favour of M/s.
Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., but due to litigations the mining lease proposal has not been materialized.
110. It is further made out in the case of prosecution that at the instance of Govt. of Karnataka, M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., (M/s. MML) entered into a 159 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 17.1.1997 with M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd., (M/s. JVSL) for exploitation of iron ore resources of Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mine (TIOM) in Sandur Taluk of Bellary District belonging to M/s. MML to meet, in part the iron ore needs of the steel plant set up by M/s. JVSL at Toranagallu, Bellary District. As per the said MOU, the Joint Venture Company M/s. Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (VMPL) was incorporated on 17.6.1997 and mining operations commenced w.e.f., 27.11.1999. As per the MOU, both the parties have to hold the mining lease of iron ore and to jointly produce a total required quantity of 8 Million Ton of iron ore. It is further alleged that M/s. JVSL has yet to acquire mining lease and contribute its part on production and supply of iron ore. It is further alleged that M/s. JSWSL (A8) became the major beneficiary due to the sole exploitation of the mine of M/s. MML Co., thereby depriving M/s. MML to its 160 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J share of iron ore lumps to be received from the matching mine which was to be brought in the JV fold for extraction. M/s. JSWSL (A8) started purchasing iron ore at 6% premium on the price fixed by the M/s. MMTC and later at the price fixed by M/s. MML itself. After the rate of iron ore increased substantially since the year 2003-04, the miners and traders of the Karnataka State started exporting the iron ore fines. It is further alleged that JSWSL was purchasing more than 80% of the iron ore fines requirement from the market at the export rate whereas they continued to pay M/s. MML at 6% of the sale price. Moreover, JSWSL (A8) had not brought in their matching mine into the JV Company for exploitation, which would have allowed M/s. MML to get equal benefit by way of getting the calibrated iron ore from their mines. Thereby, the MML suffered loss of Rs.876.90 crores between the period from 2001 to 2010. In this connection Managing Director M/s. MML requested the 161 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Govt. through the Secretary, Mines SSI & Textiles, Department of Commerce & Industry to call upon M/s. JSWSL to re-negotiate the MOU on purely commercial basis or authorizing MML to initiate further action in accordance with law to terminate MOU dated 17.1.1997 through appropriate legal process. Though the Under Secretary and Joint Secretary of Commerce & Industries Department have suggested for directions to M/s. MML to take legal action for recovery of losses from JSWSL (A8). However, the Secretary directed the Joint Secretary to advise M/s. MML to correspond with M/s. JSWSL (A8) and obtain their views before submitting it to the Chief Minister. Soon after the process for review of MOU and recovery of loss was initiated, M/s. JSWSL (A8) wrote letter dated 25.8.2009 to the Secretary, Mines, Department of Commerce & Industries to advise M/s. MML to adhere to the existing arrangement and not to change the premium structure. Though in the meeting held on 162 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 20.11.2009, three broad options were given to JSWSL but JSWSL declined to accept any of the above options and stuck to its stand that immediately after the allotment of the mines by the State Govt. it will bring the same to the fold of JV Company, M/s. VMPL and fulfill its obligations under MOU. While negotiations were going with M/s. MML Sri. Vinod Nowal (A9) Chief Executive Officer M/s. JSWSL obtained a copy of the letter written by M/s. MML to the Secretary, Mines, SSI & Textiles, Dept. of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru seeking Govt. approval for renegotiation of the MOU with M/s. JSWSL and also to initiate action in accordance with law to terminate MOU. Sri. Sajjan Jindal, CMD, M/s. JSWSL (A8) and Sri. Vinod Nowal, CEO met Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa on 15.9.2009 and again on 22.1.2010 to pursue with him and the Govt. to stop M/s. MML from increasing the rate of iron ore and handed over a letter dated 22.1.2010 to B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) Chief Minister requesting his 163 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J intervention to advise M/s. MML to maintain the existing arrangements. After the first meeting with Accused, Sri. Vinod Nowal directed Sri. S.S. Gupta, Director of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Steel Technology which is promoted by M/s. JSW Group to visit the campus of M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust for the purpose of making donation. It is further alleged that in the meeting held on 17.2.2010, chaired by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka and attended by Director of Mines & Geology & Mining Director M/s. MML, it was agreed that there is a need to make an adhoc arrangement allowing Mysore Minerals Ltd., to retain 100% of the calibrated iron ore and for enhancement of premium of iron ore fines more than 50% of the value of IOF to be consumed by M/s. JSWSL. In the said meeting, the issue of value loss to the tune of Rs.871.35 crores incurred by MML was raised by the MD, M/s. MML but no discussion was held on the issue and no action was recommended. In 164 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the board meeting of M/s. MML held on 26.2.2010, the resolutions were taken and communicated to the Govt. for enhancement of premium to 60%.
111. After the decision of the board was communicated to the Govt. Sri. B.S. Ramprasad, Secretary, Commerce & Industries put up a note on 17.3.2010 recommending for enhancement of the premium on iron ore fines sold to M/s. JSWL from 6% to 60%. This note of the Secretary, Commerce & Industries was forwarded by Sri. S.V. Ranganath, Chief Secretary to Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) Chief Minister who accorded approval on the proposal on 17.3.2010 with immediate effect i.e., from 17.3.2010, though enhancement of premium was sought to be made w.e.f., 1.4.2009.
112. While process of revision of the price of iron ore fines was being considered, M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8) through its association companies, i.e., Accused No.7, 11 to 13 made donations to M/s. Prerana 165 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Educational & Social Trust which is run by the family members of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1). Thus, it is alleged that the circumstantial evidence regarding the timings of the meetings, discussions and date of signing of the files and date of handing over of cheques clearly establish that this payment was not insisting for the recovery of past dues by M/s. MML. Further alleged that Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) abused his official position and failed to safeguard the interest of M/s. MML, a Govt. of Karnataka Public Sector Undertaking under the Dept. of Mines, a portfolio held by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) himself.
113. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that M/s. MML wanted to increase the premium from 6% to 60% and MML had deliberated in this regard and requested the Govt. for enhancing the premium since JSWSL Ltd., (A8) has not brought matching mine into the JV fold therefore only the iron ore mine viz., Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mine of MML 166 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J was exploited by M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., by paying premium of only 6%, thereby M/s. MML was put to loss. He further argued that the commercial transactions of iron ore lifting started in the year 2001 and M/s. JSW Steel (A8) started purchasing the iron ore at 6% of the sale price fixed by the MMTC and later at the rate fixed by MML itself. He further argued that since 2003-04 there was steep increase in the iron ore on account of export of iron ore from Karnataka. Though JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) was purchasing more than 80% of the iron ore fines requirement from the market at the export rate but continued to pay M/s. MML at 6% of the sale price. Thus, he argued M/s MML was put to loss to the tune of Rs.876.90 crores, therefore M/s. MML wanted the Govt. to call upon M/s. JSWSL to renegotiate the MOU on purely commercial basis with regard to pricing of iron ore fines or to authorize to initiate further action in accordance with law to terminate MOU dated 17.1.1997. After deliberations, 167 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J M/s. MML in its board meeting dated 28.7.2009 proposed to increase iron ore premium rate from 6% to 60% from 1.4.2009. He further argued that evidence of PW.66, 67, 95 and 96 goes to show that a proposal was considered by the Chief Minister and the premium of iron ore was ordered to be increased to 50% w.e.f., 17.3.2010 but not to 60% from 1.4.2009 as recommended by MML. He further argued that there is no direct evidence on record to show that accused No.1 had influenced the officials of MML and the Secretaries of the Govt., but there is evidence on record to show that M/s. JSW Steels requested intervention of accused No.1 by the letter dated 22.1.2010 and in view of the request of CMD of Accused No.8, accused No.1 fixed the price at 50% w.e.f., 17.3.2010 and not at 60% from 1.4.2009 as recommended by Board of MML, thereby extended official favour to M/s. JSW Steels (A8) as a quid-pro-quo for the donations of Rs.20 crores given by M/s. JSW Steels through its sister concerns Accused 168 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J No.7, 11 to 13. In this connection he drew my attention to the evidence of B.S. Ramprasad PW.96, evidence of PW.95 and also the evidence of PW.66 and 67 and the relevant documents got marked at Ex.P310, 312, 313, 314, 315.
114. On the other hand, the learned senior advocates for accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13 have vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant while fixing the price of iron ore fines at 50% w.e.f., 17.3.2010 though it was recommended at 60% from 1.4.2009 by MML board.
115. The learned senior advocate for accused No.1 to 5 argued that Ex.P.314 is a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between M/s. MML Ltd., an M/s. JVSL Steel Ltd., in the year 1997. He further argued that MOU does not provide a right to MML to increase the premium at any point of time. He further 169 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J argued that suggestions to increase the premium at 60% has no basis or yardstick. M/s. JSW (A8) has never accepted the proposal to increase the price of iron ore fines even by 1% let alone at 50% as fixed by the Govt. On the other hand, the evidence on record goes to show that M/s. JSW (A8) has been resisting the increase of premium on iron ore fines when MML tried to increase the rate of premium unilaterally with the Govt. of Karnataka. The learned senior advocate for accused No.1 to 5 drew my attention to the terms and conditions of MOU to show that there is no clause in the terms of agreement for increase of premium of IOF. He further argued that accused No.1 has taken a bold step to increase the rate of premium to 50% as recommended by Secretary, Mines, Commerce & Industries and approved by Chief Secretary though there is no clause for increase of premium on Iron Ore Fine in the Memorandum of Understanding. Thus, he argued that accused No.1 not only safeguarded the 170 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J interest of MML by increasing the premium on the iron ore fines but also made M/s. MML company a profit making company. He further argued that accused No.1 has not taken any independent decision except approving the recommendations of the Secretary, Commerce & Industries which was also recommended by the Chief Secretary on the same day when the file was put up before him. Thus, he argued that absolutely there is no delay on the part of accused No.1 in taking decision to increase the premium on iron ore fine payable by JSW. He further argued that there is evidence on record to show that MML started making a huge profit after the premium on iron ore fine has been increased to 50%. In this connection, he drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.95 wherein he has admitted that the revised arrangement resulted in MML receiving an enhanced premium of 50% in financial terms Rs.195 crores for the year 2010-11 compared to the premium of only Rs.11 crores received 171 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J during the year 2009-10 and further relied on the admission of PW.95 at para-17, wherein he has admitted that MML made turnover of Rs.580 crores during 2010-11 and earned profit of Rs.480 crores. He further drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.95, to show that M/s. JSW (A8) has not willingly accepted the increase in the premium of IOF to 50% but it was thrust upon M/s. JSW (A8), at para No.32 wherein he has admitted that there is no record to show that in writing there is amended MOU between the parties and that he unilaterally communicated to M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., regarding increase of premium on iron ore fines and admission at para-54 wherein he has admitted that if the enhanced premium was not paid by M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., the MML would have stopped the supply of iron ore fines to it. He also drew my attention to admission of PW.95 that M/s. JSW Steels had instituted a suit in O.S.No.7213/2012 against MML for recovery of money paid in excess of 172 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 6% premium. Thus, he argued that the theory of prosecution case that accused No.1 by abusing his official position as a public servant obtained pecuniary advantage for his kins in the form of donation to Prerana Educational & Social Trust is only a stint of imagination without any basis.
116. (1) The learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 argued that the contractual dispute between M/s. JSWSL Ltd., and MML said to constitute a criminal conspiracy is something strange. He further argued that prior to 1996 Govt. of Karnataka invited M/s. JSW as a part of economical development of the State, to establish steel industry. He further argued that it is a well established Govt. policy to give land, water and other amenities to establish new ventures and industries. He further argued that at the instance of Govt. of Karnataka, M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., entered into a joint venture with M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., on commercial terms mutually acceptable to the 173 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J parties concerned to keep up the stand taken by the Govt., in regard to supply of additional requirement of iron ore to M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.
(2) In this connection he drew my attention to the document at Ex.D72 and D73 which discloses that at the instance of Govt. of Karnataka, MOU marked at Ex.P.314 came into existence and a Joint Venture Company, Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., has been incorporated in the year 1997 for exploitation of Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mine for steady supply of Iron ore fines to JSW as per the terms of MOU. He further argued that MML was a loss bearing company before a Joint Venture Company came into existence. In this connection he drew my attention to the Ex.D63 which discloses that during the year 1999-2000 the MML had suffered loss of Rs.399.89 lakhs and the JV Company had ensured compensation to employees working in its mines. He further drew my attention to the Ex.D64 annual report of the MML for the year 174 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 2001-02, the relevant portion marked at Ex.D64(a) wherein it is disclosed that the company has earned profit of Rs.146.48 lakhs after a gap of 4 years.
(3) Thus, he argued that after M/s. MML Ltd., company entered into a Joint Venture with M/s. JSW (A8), turned into a profit making company from loss bearing company. Thus, he argued that the case of the prosecution that MML had suffered loss because the JSW has not brought its captive mine into the JV fold has deprived the MML from receiving its share of iron ore to be received from the matching mines which was to be brought into the JV fold for extractions, thus, MML suffered heavy loss militates against the evidence on record.
(4) He further argued that M/s. JSW (A8) was ever ready to bring the matching mine into the JV fold no sooner it was allotted by the Govt. He also drew my attention by taking me through the evidence of PW.86 and the documents that M/s. JSW (A8) has been 175 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J making effort to get a captive mine allotted from the Govt. Though, Govt. of Karnataka had made a solemn promise to allot a captive mine for exploitation of iron ore to cater the need of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (A8) but the same was not materialized despite recommendations made by Govt. of Karnataka, since the Govt. of India has not allotted the mine. He further argued that the story of the prosecution that MML had suffered loss of Rs.876.90 crores is imaginary and is not an actual loss suffered by MML. On the other hand, he argued that the matching mine which is likely to be allotted to the JSW by the Govt. is intact and soon after the said mine was allotted to the JSW it will be brought into the JV fold to fulfill its obligations as per MOU marked at Ex.P.314.
(5) He further argued relying on the document marked Ex.P.312(c) that is the extract of the resolution passed at 270th Board Meeting dated 13.3.2009 till then there was no indication for enhancement of 176 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J premium of IOF. He also drew my attention to the Ex.D57 draft share holders agreement prepared in the year 2007 to show that till then Govt. has proposed for premium at 6% only. PW.95 admitted that he suggested for enhancement of premium from 6% to 31%. PW.123 admitted that as per Ex.P.586, the board of M/s. MML proposed for increase of premium on iron ore fines from 6% to 31% only. Thus, the learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 argued that when there was a proposal for enhancement to 31% as per Ex.P.586 by PW.95, there is no rational explanation for increase of premium of IOF from 6% to 50%. Therefore, he argued that the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 by abusing his official position as a public servant fixed the price of iron ore price at 50% despite MML Board recommended for 60% to extend the favour to Accused No.8 is baseless and imaginary.
(6) He further argued that as per the letter written from MML to Secretary, Mines, Commerce & Industries 177 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J suggested to negotiate the terms and conditions. MML board after receipt of reply by JSW as per Ex.D34 resolved to submit a comprehensive report to the Govt. suggesting to increase premium of IOF from 6% to 50% on 11.1.2010 and in a meeting chaired by Chief Secretary on 7.2.2010 it was decided to have an adhoc arrangement allowing MML to retain 100% of the calibrated iron ore and for providing more than 50% of the value of IOF consumed by JSWSL as premium as per Ex.P313(b). Whereas as per Ex.P.312(f) MML Board recommended for enhancement of premium for IOF to 60%. Whereas the Secretary, Mines, Dept. of Commerce & Industries has recommended for increase of premium of IOF to 50%, the same has been approved by Chief Secretary and finally the Chief Minister has approved for enhancement of premium of IOF to 50%. Thus, he argued that there is no evidence to show that there was influence by JSW Group upon the Accused No.1 to come to decision that premium be 178 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J fixed at 50% instead of 60% as proposed by MML Board.
(7) He further argued that the evidence of PW.95 at para-22 is proved to be false in view of Ex.D62 since JSW has not agreed for increase of premium of IOF to 50% and has sought modification of the proposal as per the letter dated 1st April 2010. Thus, he argued that absolutely there is no evidence to prove that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant to obtain a pecuniary advantage to his kins by fixing IOF at 50% with immediate effect. On the other hand, he argued M/s. JSW (A8) has never agreed for increase of premium at any rate. He also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged loss sustained by the MML. Ex.P.315 sought to be proved through PW.69. Vouchers are not produced which are referred in the evidence of PW.69. PW.69 admitted that in para-8 that Ex.P.315 does not bear his signature. Ex.P.315 is marked subject to proof.
179 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P.315 is not proved, therefore the so called loss is not proved by the prosecution. Loss has to be booked in the books of accounts. Prosecution has not produced any documents to show the loss suffered by MML. PW.95 has not deposed about Ex.P.315. PW.95 is the best evidence to say about Ex.P.315 but he has not stated anything about Ex.P.315, hence Ex.P.315 is not proved. There are material omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW.95, hence, his evidence is liable to be discarded.
(8) PW.96 has not been treated hostile, thereby the prosecution has accepted the evidence of PW.96, no suggestion is made to this witness that his decision has been influenced by accused No.1 to 4. He further argued that conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Thus, agreement is a contract, there must be consensus ad idem. There is no material to show that there was an agreement between accused No.1, 8 and 9 in relation to fixing of 180 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J premium of 50% instead of 60%. There is no material to establish connection between accused No.1, 8 and 9, the only connection is the representation given by JSW to the Chief Minister for considering their request. There is absence of the agreement. There was an attempt by MD, MML to increase the premium. The JSW was resisting enhancement of premium by giving representation to maintain the contract as it is at 6%. The proposal of 40: 60 sharing by JSW was refused by MML.
(9) He further argued that the entire evidence of prosecution militates against the story of prosecution. When the alleged object of conspiracy was to give undue advantage to JSW by fixing premium at 50%, on the other hand JSW has not accepted the premium fixed at 50%. Thus, he argued that there is no common object. In support of his argument, he relied on the rulings (1988)3 SCC 609 (Kehar Singh vs. State), (1977)4 SCC 540 (Yashpal Mittal vs. State of 181 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Punjab) and (1970)1 SCC 152 (Lennart Schussler vs. Director of Enforcement). He further argued that when JSW was insisting for premium at 6% but it was fixed at 50%. Therefore, the theory of quid-pro-quo made out by the prosecution is false. There are no overt act by accused No.7, 10 to 13, as such accused No.7, 10 to 13 cannot be held liable for conspiracy since the dominant object of conspiracy has not been established to be within the knowledge of other members of conspiracy.
117. Keeping in mind the rival contentions urged by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned advocates for accused No.1 to 5, 7 to 13, I would like to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to know whether prosecution has been able to prove that accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13 have conspired with each other that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 have to donate a sum of Rs.20 crores to Prerana Educational & Social Trust 182 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (A5) as a quid-pro-quo for the official favour to be shown by accused No.1 in not insisting the recovery of the loss suffered by MML and in fixing the premium on iron ore at 50% w.e.f., 17.3.2010 instead of 60% from 1.4.2009 as recommended by M/s. MML Ltd.
118. In order to appreciate the case made out by the prosecution, it is necessary to go into the history of the establishment of Steel Manufacturing Unit at Toranagallu by JSW and under what circumstances, at the instance of the Govt., the Joint Venture Company, Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., has been incorporated. In this connection I would like to rely on Ex.D47, the averments of the plaint in para No.9 and 8 wherein it is revealed that the Govt. of Karnataka could not, on its own establish a steel plant of the magnitude as had been conceived by the Govt. of India, since the construction, commissioning and operation of an integrated steel plants required huge investments running into several crores of rupees. As the Indian 183 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J economy was being liberalized, opening of several sectors to private sector entities during the year 1994, the Govt. of Karnataka also invited many companies/ groups in the field of manufacture of steel to set up an integrated steel plant at Toranagallu. The Jindal company responded positively to the said invitation and after several negotiations and discussions between the Jindal Company and Govt. of Karnataka, Jindal Company was chosen to set up the integrated steel plant at Toranagallu, Bellary District. The Govt. of Karnataka allotted 3430 acres of land to the Jindal Company and made several long term commitments to the Jindal Company with regard to supply of iron ore to the Jindal Company Steel Plant by allotting a captive iron ore mines. The Jindal Company made huge investments relying on the said commitment of Govt. of Karnataka and accordingly in the year 1994, Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., was incorporated which was subsequently renamed as JSW Steel Ltd., PW.86 in 184 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J para-20 of his cross-examination admitted about the Govt. of Karnataka encouraged growth of Steel Industries in the State to provide employment opportunity in the State.
119. It is also on record that the Govt. of Karnataka recommended allotment of Kumaraswamy A, D, E Blocks of mines to the JSW Steels but the Central Govt., has not approved and other recommendations made by Govt. of Karnataka have also not been materialized because of court stay. Sl. No.1 and 2 of the List of Annexures found in Ex.P.312 reveal the circumstances under which the Joint Venture Company was came to be established to ensure short fall of regular supply of iron ore mine to cater the requirement of Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., from Kumaraswamy A, D & E Blocks. Thus, under those circumstances, at the instance of Govt. to ensure adequate supply of iron ore to the JSW, a Joint 185 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Venture Company came to be incorporated as per the Memorandum of Understanding marked at Ex.P.314.
120. As per the Memorandum of Understanding marked at Ex.P.314 JVSL has to bring Kumaraswamy A, D, E Blocks as will be granted to it by the Govt. as its contribution to the Joint Venture Company and MML will bring Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines as its contribution to the Joint Venture Company and the parties to the MOU mutually agreed to immediately take up the exploration and development of Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore deposit and Kumaraswamy's A, D, E Blocks after the due grant of the lease to JVSL.
121. Keeping in mind the back ground in which the Joint Venture company came to be incorporated as discussed above, I would like to appreciate the evidence adduced in this case to find out whether accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant while fixing the premium on iron ore at 186 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 50% from 17.3.2010 instead of 60% from 1.4.2009 as proposed by MML.
122. In this connection, the prosecution has examined PW.66, the then Under Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Govt. of Karnataka. PW.67, the then Chief Secretary. PW.86, the then Director of Mines & Geology. PW.95 the then Managing Director, MML. PW.96 the then Secretary, Commerce & Industries Dept.
123. PW.95 deposed in his evidence that as per the MOU, the MML brought its Thimmappanagudi Iron Ores for exploitation, but M/s. JVSL did not bring its matching mines for exploitation. Therefore, the only mines of MML were exploited and thereby MML lost the opportunity of getting the share from the iron ore of mines of M/s. JVSL (JSW) (A8), therefore MML incurred loss. He further deposed that JVSL continued to procure iron ore by paying nominal production cost of Rs.300/- and 6% of the prevailing market price as 187 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J premium without bringing its matching mines for operations. He further deposed that as per the report submitted by Lokayuktha during 2008 his predecessor in office made efforts for increase of iron ore premium payable by M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., and further deposed that after he assumed the charge as the Managing Director initiated action for increase of premium payable on the iron ore and submitted proposal to the Govt. for taking decision and as the JSW Steels Ltd., did not agree for proposal made by MML. Thereafter at the Govt., level in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, as an interim measure MML was permitted to seek enhancement of premium of more than 50% and in the meeting of Board of Directors of MML, it was decided to submit the proposal to the Govt., seeking increase of premium payable to 60% and on 17.3.2010, Govt. of Karnataka approved for enhancement of premium payable from 6% to 50%. The file maintained in Govt. in respect of 188 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J proposal is marked at Ex.P.310. The proceedings of meeting of MML board is marked at Ex.P.313(a).
124. On appreciation of the evidence of this witness in the cross-examination at para-42, he admitted that he as a MD of MML suggested to the board for enhancement of premium from 6% to 31%. He further admitted that his predecessor in office addressed a letter to Govt. of Karnataka as Ex.D6 on 26.9.2007 for approval of the draft share holders agreement as per Ex.D57 suggesting the premium payable at the rate of 6% on the market value of the iron ore. PW.95 admitted in his cross-examination that both the parties are bound by terms and conditions incorporated in Ex.P.314 and there is no clause in Ex.P.314 which provides for termination of contract. PW.95 further admitted that the obligation on the part of JVSL to bring Kumaraswamy A, D, E Blocks for joint venture arise only on the due grant of lease in its favour by the Govt. Though he admitted 189 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J that JVSL submitted request application for grant of lease of Kumaraswamy A, D, E blocks in its favour and State Govt. also recommended the Central Govt. for allotment, but he pleads ignorance that the Govt. of India did not accord approval.
125. On appreciating the evidence of PW.95 regarding approval given by Accused No.1 for fixing the rate of premium on iron ore fines at 50%, it becomes clear that, that decision taken by Accused No.1, was found to be based on the recommendation made by the Secretary to Govt., Commerce & Industries Department and the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka. The proceeding of the meeting marked at Ex.P.310(o) clearly reveal that the circumstances under which, the Secretary to Govt., Commerce & Industries Department and the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka have recommended for increase of premium of iron ore fines from 6% to 50% instead of 60% as recommended by MML Board.
190 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
126. The prosecution examined PW.96, the Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department. Evidence of this witness reveal that several meetings, deliberations and discussions were held between MML and Govt. with regard to fixation of premium on IOF and at the advise of Govt., MML also held discussion with JSW regarding fixation of premium on the iron ore and ultimately in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 17.3.2010, it was felt that an adhoc arrangement allowing MML to retain 100% of the calibrated ore produced from TIOM and providing for payment of more than 50% of the value of IOF consumed by JSWSL as premium could be more appropriate as a temporary measure, till such time JSWSL Mines are brought under the JV company and operationalised. The proceedings of the meeting are marked at Ex.P313(b). He further deposed that thereafter the matter was again placed before the Board of MML and Board of MML decided to seek 191 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J increase of premium by 60%, M/s. JSW Ltd., did not agree for increase of premium to 60% but alternatively gave another proposal for sharing both iron ore fines as well as calibrated iron ore by 40:60 ratio i.e., 40% for MML and 60% for JSW Steels Ltd. He further deposed having regard to the commitment of the Govt., to provide iron ore to M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., he has suggested that premium should be increased to 50% of the market value as an adhoc arrangement till the matching mines are brought by the JSW Steels.
127. Neither the prosecutor has treated this witness hostile, nor he has made a suggestion to this witness that he was influenced by accused No.1 to recommend for increase of premium only to 50%. On the other hand, PW.96 in his cross-examination admitted that unless and until the parties to the contract Ex.P.314 mutually agree for any enhancement of premium there could not have been unilateral enhancement of premium payable by JSW. He further 192 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J admitted that in the meeting held on 20.11.2009 Sri. Sriram, MD, MML suggested for increase of premium from 6% to 50%. He further admitted that his note to increase iron ore premium payable by JSW Steels Ltd., from 6% to 50% was found just and reasonable and proper by the then Chief Secretary of Govt. of Karnataka. He further admitted that Govt. of Karnataka and MML was satisfied about the approval accorded by the Chief Minister for increase of premium from 6% to 50%. He further admitted that M/s JSW Steels Ltd., never agreed to pay the increased premium from 6% to 50%. PW.95 admitted in his cross- examination if enhanced premium was not paid by M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., the MML would have stopped the supply of iron ore fines to it. Thus, it becomes clear from the evidence of PW.95 and 96 that increase of premium from 6% to 50% was found to be just and reasonable, the MML was also satisfied with the increase of premium to 50%. On the other hand, 193 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J admissions of PW.95 and 96 goes to prove that JSW (A8) never agreed for increase of premium to 50% and it was forced to pay the premium at 50% to avoid stoppage of supply of iron ore fines by MML. PW.66 admitted in his cross-examination that the then Chief Minister has not taken any independent decision apart from approving the note and recommendation of the then Secretary and Chief Secretary of Govt. of Karnataka. PW.67 Chief Secretary also admitted in his cross-examination by advocate for accused No.1 that there is no clause in MOU Ex.P.314 for increase of premium either by MML or State Govt. PW.86 admitted in his cross-examination JSW Steels & its sister concern had submitted number of applications for allotment of mines and further admitted that 3 to 4 applications of M/s. JSW Steels were recommended by the Govt. of Karnataka, but the Govt. of India has not allotted mines in favour of M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., because the some other interested persons had 194 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J approached the court of law challenging the recommendations in favour of M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., by the Govt., of Karnataka. PW.86 also admitted in his cross-examination that in the board meeting of MML Ex.P.314 MOU was not placed for consideration of clauses for enhancement of premium. Further admitted that there is no clause in the MOU Ex.P.314 for termination of contract between the parties on any ground.
128. The entire evidence of prosecution militates against the story of prosecution. When the alleged object of conspiracy was to give undue advantage to JSW by fixing premium at 50%, on the other hand, the JSW (A8) has been resisting increase rate of premium. JSW has suggested for sharing of iron ore fines produced at TIOM in 40:60 ratio (40% to MML and 60% to JSWSL) as per letter dated 8th February 2010 marked at Ex.P310(j) and again by its letter dated June 2010 the JSW has given a proposal for sharing of iron 195 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J ore mines at 50:50% at the agreed transfer price. Earlier to it as per the letter dated 22.1.2010 marked at Ex.P.310(l), the JSW had given a representation to accused No.1 seeking his intervention to advise MML authorities to maintain the existing arrangements. Thus, the records available on record goes to prove that JSW has been resisting the increase of the rate of premium and there were deliberations between Govt. of Karnataka and MML regarding the increase of iron ore and also there was meeting and deliberations between M/s. MML and M/s. JSW regarding fixation of price of premium on iron ore. The meeting of MML Board was held on 26.2.2010 and it was communicated to the Govt., the decision was came to be taken on the same day when the office note was placed before him on 17.3.2010. Therefore I hold that there was no delay on the part of Accused No.1 in fixing the price of iron ore premium but the delay if any was on account of the process of decision making by meetings, negotiations and deliberations.
196 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
129. On the other hand, as per Ex.D56, MML has requested to accord approval for the draft shareholders agreement as per Ex.D57 showing the rate of premium at 6% marked at Ex.D57(a) i.e., in the year 2007. PW.95 admitted in his cross-examination that he suggested for increase of premium from 6% to 31% in the year 2009 when he was Managing Director of MML. Thus there is no basis on which the MML board has recommended for increase of rate of premium at 60% when MML was satisfied with 6% premium till 2007 and the MD of MML suggested increase of premium from 6% to 31% in the year 2009. Accused No.1 in reply to question No.370 recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that, keeping in mind welfare of the State, premium of IOF was enhanced from 6% to 50% as per the recommendations of the officers of the Secretariat.
Therefore, the decision taken by accused No.1 to give approval for fixation of rate of iron ore premium at 50% w.e.f. 17.3.2010 as recommended by the 197 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Secretary, Commerce & Industries approved by the Chief Secretary, instead of 60% from 1.4.2009 as recommended by the MML board cannot be said to be an act of abusing official position by accused No.1 in furtherance of alleged conspiracy.
130. Now, I would like to consider whether prosecution has proved that the MML has suffered loss and the same has been suppressed by accused No.1 and not insisted for recovery. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that MML has suffered loss of Rs.876 crores as made out in the case of prosecution. On the other hand, the prosecution produced Ex.P.315 to show the details of sales realization in respect of Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines for the year from 2000-01 to 2009-10. The estimated loss of Rs.876.90 crores incurred by MML was worked out by deducting the amount received by VMPL out of the total value of the iron ore exploited from the Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mine (TIOM).
198 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J PW.95 is the best witness to depose about Ex.P.315. Ex.P.315 was marked subject to proof. It is not elicited from the mouth of PW.95 as to how the loss was estimated at Rs.876.89 crores. It has not been proved by the prosecution to show that MML has suffered loss as stated in Ex.P315. The loss incurred by MML was estimated on the cost of iron ore at MMTC/MML value minus the total amount received by VMPL which is contrary to the terms of Memorandum of Understanding marked at Ex.P314. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the MML is entitled to purchase the lumps 1.5 Million Tons at transfer price and in addition it is entitled to receive a premium of 6% of the market price of the fines. Therefore, the estimation of loss incurred by MML as if the JSW was supposed to pay MMTC Price for entire iron ore fines supplied to it from Joint Venture is basically wrong and it cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the story of the prosecution itself reveal that the issue of value loss 199 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J to the tune of Rs.871.35 crores incurred on iron ore supply to M/s. JSWSL up to December 2009 was mentioned by the MD., M/s. MML but no discussion has been held and no action has been recommended. It is not the case made out by the prosecution that at the instance of accused No.1, the issue of value loss to the tune of Rs.871.35 crores was not discussed in the said meeting. It is also not the case of prosecution that JSW (A8) had influenced Accused No.1 to prevail upon the Secretary, Commerce & Industries and the Chief Secretary not to propose for recovery of value loss. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the MML has suffered loss of Rs.871.35 crores as made out in the story of prosecution. PW.66 also admitted that nobody has asked him to calculate the loss. Further admitted that in the note put up by the Secretary and the Chief Secretary, there is no mention of any loss to MML. He further admitted that apart from the letter of MD, MML, he had no other 200 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J records to mention about the loss in his note at para- 73 marked at Ex.P.310(a). Further admitted that the MD, MML has not suggested for recovery of any loss. Further admitted that he has not calculated the loss on the basis of the difference of the market price and the premium payable at 6% or 50%. PW.69 admitted in his cross-examination that before he visited CBI Office, the statement Ex.P.315 had been already prepared by the CBI Officer and he has only checked the correction. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence to prove that the MML has suffered actual loss on account of JSW not bringing a matching mine to JV fold thereby MML was deprived of its share of iron ore lumps. Admittedly, the JSW has not been allotted with any mining lease by the Govt. It is not the case of the prosecution that the JSW has not brought the matching mine to the JV fold inspite of grant of mining lease by the Govt., and that the JSW (A8) is exploiting the said mine without bringing it into the JV fold, to 201 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J say that, thereby MML has suffered loss. On the other hand, no mining lease was granted to JSW. The one which would be granted to JSW is still intact, as such MML cannot be said to have suffered actual loss. On the other hand, the MML would get the share of iron ore lumps as and when the matching mine would be brought within JV fold by JSWSL. Therefore, it cannot be said that M/s. MML has suffered loss. As such, question of loss suffered by MML and not insisting for recovery of the same by accused No.1 does not arise at all.
131. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 has abused his official position for not insisting for recovery of past dues by the Govt. of Karnataka represented by M/s. MML from JSW and while fixing of premium on iron ore at 50% w.e.f., 17.3.2010 instead of 60% from 1.4.2009 as a quid-pro-quo for the donations of Rs.20 crores 202 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J made by JSW to Prerana Educational & Social Trust run by his family members.
REGARDING DONATION:
132. The prosecution has made out a case that accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13 have entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy accused No.1 fixed premium of iron ore fines payable to M/s. MML at 50% instead of 60% as proposed by MML Board and also caused delay in fixation of premium and suppressed loss suffered by M/s. MML Ltd., and M/s. JSWSL (A8) as a quid-pro-
quo for the favour shown by Accused No.1 in fixing the premium of iron ore fines at 50%, causing delay in fixation of premium and for not insisting for recovery of loss suffered by M/s. MML to the tune of Rs.871.35 crores, donated a sum of Rs.20 crores to Accused No.5, the Prerana Educational & Social Trust run by accused No.2 and 3 who are the kins of accused No.1.
203 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
133. The learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 are the sister concerns of M/s. JSWSL (A8). That accused No.8 used its sister concern companies i.e., Accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to make donation to the Accused No.5 Trust run by Accused No.2 and 3. He further argued that accused No.8 has credited the amount to the accounts of Accused No.7 and 11 to 13 and through the said sister concerns, accused No.8 donated a sum of Rs.20 crores to Accused No.5 Trust. Thus, accused No.8 used Accused No.7 and 11 to 13 as a front companies to show that the donation was made by the said companies, though in fact the entire fund of Rs.20 crores was arranged by accused No.8 itself to donate to accused No.5. Thus, he argued that in order to cover up the receipt of bribe by the kins of accused No.1, it was made to appear that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 as their corporate social responsibility have donated the said amount to accused No.5. The learned 204 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Special Public Prosecutor drew my attention to the oral and documentary evidence to show that accused No.7 was not financially sound enough to donate a sum of Rs.10 crores and accused No.11 to 13 were not financially sound enough to donate a sum of Rs.3.40 crores each. Thus, he argued that Accused No.8 has donated this amount to accused No.5 as a quid-pro- quo for the favour shown by accused No.1 in fixing the premium of iron ore fines at 50%, causing delay in fixing premium of iron ore fines and for not insisting for recovery of loss suffered by MML to the tune of Rs.871.35 crores. He further argued that out of the amount of Rs.20 crores donated to accused No.5, a sum of Rs.6 crores has been transferred to the Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe of which Accused No.1 is the Chairman. He further argued that out of the amount of Rs.6 crores transferred to Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe a sum of Rs.2 crores is not shown in the Income Tax Returns. Thus, it can be 205 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J inferred that the said amount has been siphoned off by accused No.1. He further argued that donation of Rs.20 crores is said to have been given to the Accused No.5 Trust for constructing an Auditorium to be named after Sri. O.P. Jindal, the founder member of Jindal Group of Companies. But, accused No.5 has not constructed auditorium and thereby misutilised the fund donated to the Trust in which accused No.3 and 2 are the Managing Trustee and one of the Trustees respectively. Thus, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the purported donation amount of Rs.20 Crores to accused No.5 was in fact a bribe given by accused No.8 for the favour shown by Accused No.1. In this connection, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW.52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 76, 80 and the relevant documents.
134. On the other hand, advocate for Accused No.1 argued that Accused No.5 and Swamy 206 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe are the registered Trusts. In this connection, he drew my attention to the document marked at Ex.P.123, the Trust Deed of Accused No.5. He also drew my attention to the Trust Deed and Supplementary Trust Deed marked at Ex.P.266 and 267 pertaining to Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. He drew my attention to the objects of the Trust of Accused No.5 and also of Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. He further argued that the donations made to these institutions are exempted from Income Tax u/s 80G of Income Tax Act. Thus, he argued that imparting education is held to be a charitable work under Income Tax Act. Therefore, the case made out by the prosecution that Accused No.5 Trust is not engaged in charitable work of providing free education to the students is misconceived. Imparting education itself has been defined to be a charitable work and exemption was provided u/s 80G of Income Tax Act for the donations received by such institutions. He further 207 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J argued that the Trust Deed reveal that the Trustees are not entitled to utilize the amount donated to the Trust for their personal expenses. On the other hand the funds and income of the trust shall be solely utilized for the achievement of the trust and no portion of it shall be utilized for payment to trustees by way of profit, dividend, etc. He also drew my attention to the another clause in the Trust Deed that accused No.5 was entitled to give donations to the charitable institutions provided that such institutions are eligible to get the exemption u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He also drew my attention to the terms of the Trust Deed which goes to show that the Trustees shall not be entitled to any remuneration and shall work in honorary capacity, however they are entitled to receive the expenses incurred by them in the course of discharging their functions and duties in furtherance and for achievements of the objects of the trust. He further argued that Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe is also 208 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J a Trust eligible to get exemption u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act. The said trust is also engaged in imparting education to the rural community and that the trustees of the said trust are not entitled to utilize the funds donated to the trust for the purpose other than the objects of the trust and that the trustees are not entitled to receive any remuneration and to work honorary. He further argued that the amount donated to accused No.5 has been utilized for the objects of the trust. The two blocks constructed in the campus of Prerana Educational Institute are named after O.P. Jindal and thus the object of donation by accused No.8 was also achieved. In this connection, the learned advocate for accused No.1 drew my attention to the evidence of PW.97, 99, 100, 107 and the Trust Deeds marked at Ex.P.123 and 267 and other relevant documents. He further argued that PW.99 admitted in his cross-examination that accused No.5 trust is not receiving any donations from the students and he 209 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J further argued that the evidence of PW.100 reveal that the donation amount has been properly utilized by accused No.5. He further argued that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the amount of donation given to accused No.5 has been siphoned off by accused No.1 to 4 or misutilised by trustees. Thus, he argued that when the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 abused his official position as a public servant in fixing premium of iron ore, caused delay in fixing the premium of iron ore and also failed to prove that MML has suffered loss, therefore the question of considering donation of Rs.20 crores given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to accused No.5 which is a educational and social trust, as a quid-pro- quo for the favour shown by accused No.1 to accused No.8 does not at all arise.
135. On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 vehemently argued that M/s. JSWSL (A8) has been generously contributing to the 210 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J charitable and educational institutions as a part of its corporate responsibility, so also accused No.8 involving accused No.7 and 11 to 13 in philanthropic and charitable works. He further argued that the prosecution has not re-examined PW.54 to discredit the evidence and prosecution has failed to produce any documents nor adduced any evidence to prove that Prerana Trust is not doing any charitable work. He further argued that donation was made by M/s. JSW as corporate social responsibility and not as a quid- pro-quo. He further argued that JSW has contributed the amount to other companies for donation as a part of tax planning. He further argued that Sec. 80GGB provide deduction in computing the total income of the assessee in respect of contributions given by companies to political parties. Thus, he argued that the Income Tax Act has recognized the donations made by the companies to any political parties in order to have a political patronage. Therefore, he argued that, 211 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J even if the donation made by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to accused No.5 Prerana Trust was with an intention to have a political patronage it cannot be termed as quid-pro-quo. He further argued that the company law mandates for donation to the extent of 2% of the profit towards corporate social responsibility. When there is a mandate of law to donate as a corporate social responsibility, such donation by companies cannot be termed as corruption. The learned advocate for accused No.7 and 11 to 13 took me through the evidence of PW.97, 104. The learned senior advocate for accused No.7 to 13 submitted that the O.P. Jindal Group was founded in the year 1952 by late Sri. O.P. Jindal. He further argued that growth with a social conscience has been a way of life for O.P. Jindal Group. In consonance with O.P. Jindal Group philosophy, JSW Group companies have also been actively involved in various activities with respect to corporate social responsibility in different fields and 212 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J contributed more than Rs.250 crores in the past decade to the society much before CSR activities are made mandatory in the company law. He further argued that JSW Group Companies contributed for education, social infrastructure, health, livelihood and empowerment, sports, environment, arts, culture and heritage, flood relief, rural BPOs and he also drew my attention to the statement of accused No.8 submitted u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused No.8 has given the details of the donations made by JSW Group Companies as a part of corporate social responsibility. Thus, he argued that the donation of Rs.20 crores given to the Prerana Trust cannot be termed and treated as a quid-pro-quo as made out in the case of prosecution. He further argued that JSW Group after considering the fact that accused No.5 is a reputed educational institute in Shivamogga and their need for infrastructural funding to expand their schools and technical institutions and also taking into 213 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J consideration that the trust has offered to name the Auditorium in the name of Sri. O.P. Jindal, founder of Jindal Group of Companies, advised their group companies, associates to give donation to Prerana Trust. He further argued that there is not even a suggestion by prosecution to PW.104 that the amount of Trust has been misutilised. So also, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused No.5 Trust has misutilised the amount of the trust. The prosecution has not elicited any evidence from the mouth of PW.54, 99 and 107 to prove that trust amount has been misutilised by the trustees of Accused No.5. Therefore, he argued that the donation given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to accused No.5 trust cannot be treated as a bribe in disguise.
136. The prosecution examined PW.55 Accountant of M/s. Jaibarath Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and PW.59 Accountant of M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply Services Ltd., and PW.61 Associate 214 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Vice President of Accounts of M/s. JSW Steels who was authorized by M/s. South West Mining Ltd., to sign the cheques, to prove that a sum of Rs.20 crores has been donated in all by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 companies to Prerana Institute. It is not in dispute that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 companies have donated a sum of Rs.20 crores to accused No.5 Prerana on 15.3.2010. The only point that now remains to be considered, by appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, would be to know whether the said donation given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 as per the advise of accused No.8 is a quid-pro-quo for the favour shown to it by accused No.1 by abusing his official position as a public servant.
137. In this connection, I would like to appreciate the evidence adduced by prosecution. The prosecution examined PW.49 and got produced through him Ex.P.123, the copy of the Trust Deed of Accused No.5 Trust, which reveal that accused No.3 is the Managing 215 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Director, Accused No.2 is one of the Trustees apart from 3 other trustees.
138. The prosecution examined PW.56 Dr. S.S. Gupta, who deposed in his evidence that he visited Accused No.5 trust as they had requested for donation. After visiting the Prerana Educational Trust he was very much happy about the facilities created in the campus, he received a letter from Smt. Umadevi to help their trust for construction of auditorium and the trust was ready to name the auditorium after Sri. O.P. Jindal, thereafter he discussed matter with Dr. Vinod Nowal, Chief Executive Officer of M/s. JSW Group of Companies, he directed him to forward the request to the JSW Group companies. M/s. JSW Group companies have a social wing or unit named as JSW Foundation, which support for the education, health, infrastructure, art, culture and sports. He further deposed that the JSW Steel Ltd., is motivating all its vendors to make contribution under Corporate Social 216 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Responsibility and accused No.7 and No.11 to 13 have made donation to M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust as a corporate social responsibility. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it becomes clear that accused No.5 trust made a request for donation, he visited the accused No.5 trust and he was very much happy about the facilities created in the campus of PESIT-M and that accused No.5 trust is not a fake trust.
139. The prosecution examined PW.99 the Charted Accountant who was auditing the books of accounts of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe and Prerana Educational Trust. This witness was treated hostile and in the cross-examination it is established that a sum of Rs.2 crores has come from M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust to Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. However, he denied that the institution which received the donation cannot donate that fund to another institution as per law. It is not 217 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J disputed that accused No.5 has donated a sum of Rs.6 crores in all to Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relying on the evidence of PW.99 that he is unable to find the entry in respect of donation of Rs.2 crores made by M/s. Prerana Educational Institute in Ex.P.395, argued that an amount of Rs.2 crores has been siphoned of by accused No.1 who is the trustee of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused drew my attention to the list of details of donations marked at Ex.399 wherein at Sl. No.9 and 10 it is clearly revealed that a sum of Rs.4 crores was donated to Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe by accused No.5 trust on 19.3.2010 and another sum of Rs.2 crores was donated by it on 23.9.2010. He also drew my attention to Ex.P.394, a financial statement for the year 2010-11 of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe wherein the donation of Rs.6,06,30,000/- marked at Ex.P.394(a) was shown to 218 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J be the total donation received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. Thus, he argued that the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that Rs.2 crores has not been properly accounted by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe and that the said amount has been siphoned of by accused No.1 is baseless and unfounded.
140. Ex.P.399 clearly reveals the donations of Rs.4 crores given by accused No.5 trust on 19.3.2010 and another sum of Rs.2 crores on 23.9.2010. Ex.P.394 also reveal the total donation received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe amounting to Rs.6,06,30,000/-. The prosecution examined PW.100, an Accountant from Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, it is elicited in his cross-examination that out of the Rs.2 crores received from M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust Rs. 98 lakhs has been paid to M/s. Hayagreeva Infra Tech Projects Ltd., and Rs.98 lakhs to M/s. Techno Art Constructions Pvt. Ltd., on 219 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 25.9.2010 and further elicited from the mouth of this witness that the said amount has been used for construction of school building at Shikaripura by the said companies. The evidence elicited by the prosecution itself revealed that an amount of Rs.2 crores received from M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust has been used for construction of school building at Shikaripura. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that an amount of Rs. 2 crores has not been accounted for by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe and the amount has been siphoned of by accused No.1 proved to be baseless and unfounded.
141. Relying on the admission of PW.99 that Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe and Prerana Educational Institutions are not giving free education in their respective institutions, learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that accused No.5 is not engaged in any charitable work. Whereas the learned advocate for 220 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J accused No.7 to 13 argued that Sec.2 (15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 defines education as a charitable purpose and it does not refer to a free education as a charitable purpose. Thus, he argued that the argument of learned Special Public Prosecutor that accused No.5 trust is not engaged in charitable work is not sound and acceptable.
142. Sec.2 (15) of Income Tax, 1961 defined what is charitable purpose. It is an inclusive definition and education is also treated as a charitable purpose for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that accused No.5 is not giving free education to the students as such it is not engaged in a charitable work appears to be not sound and acceptable. On the other hand, PW.54 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that accused No.5 is giving free education to several students and also providing free hostel facilities to many students and it is not taking donations from the 221 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J students. PW.54 further deposed that the donations given to the trust are properly utilized for running of the educational institutions. Therefore, I hold that accused No.5 is engaged in charitable work, it is entitled to receive donation and also give donation to other trust engaged in imparting education.
143. The prosecution examined PW.54 the Manager of M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust, Bangalore. Except eliciting the evidence of production of documents by him before CBI in respect of Prerana Trust, nothing is elicited by the prosecution from the mouth of this witness to prove that the amount of donation given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 has been siphoned of by accused No.1 to 4. On the other hand, in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the Prof. Doreswamy and Sri. B.M. Jayashankar are the well known and reputed educationalists and they are the founder trustees of the said trust. He also admitted that Prof. D. Jawahar was a Chancellor of 222 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J PES University and that he is a well known philanthropist and he is one of the founder trustees of the trust. He further admitted that trustees are not entitled for any remuneration and the trustees are required to work honorary. He further admitted that accused No.5 trust has started several educational institutions and they are all running more effectively and further admitted that accused No.5 trust is running Prerana Institute of Technology & Management, Polytechnic, Institute of Advance Management Studies, Pre-University School and Public School. He further admitted thousands of students are pursuing their studies in this institute and further admitted that free education is given to several students in the institution and free hostel facility is given to many students and further admitted that donations given to the trust are properly utilized for the running of these institutions. The prosecution has not chosen to cross-examine this witness so as to discredit 223 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J his admissions in the cross-examination. Thus, entire cross-examination of this witness has remained unchallenged. The admissions of this witness goes to prove that accused No.5 trust is a reputed trust having well known educationalist and philanthropist as founder trustees and is engaged in imparting education to the thousands of students in the field of technology and management.
144. The prosecution examined PW.104 and elicited that the Prerana Educational & Social Trust had invited the tenders for construction of Engineering College Building, School construction, Boys and Lady Hostel, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Blocks and connected works. The fact that accused No.5 has floated tender for construction of various buildings goes to prove that the business transactions of the trust are transparent and there is no scope for misutilising the funds of the trust.
224 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
145. The prosecution examined PW.107, who is the Chartered Accountant and he was Auditor for M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust. Nothing is elicited in the evidence of this witness by the prosecution to prove that the amount of donation given to accused No.5 trust has been misutilised or siphoned off by accused No.1 to 4. On the other hand, he has admitted that if the amount was illegally or unauthorisedly paid to institutions or persons, he would have raised objections and he further admitted that all the payments made by those two institutions were legitimate and authorized between the period from 2006-07 till 2009-2010. Thus, the evidence of PW.107 goes to prove beyond any doubt that amounts of donation given to accused No.5 and the donation given to Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe by accused No.5 have been properly utilized for development of infrastructure and to achieve the objects of the trust. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record 225 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J to prove that accused No.2 and 3 being the trustees of accused No.5 have illegally siphoned off the amount of donation given to accused No.5.
146. The next point of argument urged by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 companies were not making a good profit so as to donate a sum of Rs.10 crores by accused No.7 and Rs.3,40,00,000/- by accused No.12 and 13 and Rs.3,20,00,000/- by accused No.11. It is true that the documents produced by prosecution revealed that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 after receiving advance amount for the work order placed by accused No.8 have donated the said amount to the accused No.5. It is also on record that accused No.8 requested accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to donate to accused No.5. It is argued by the learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 that accused No.8 was involving its group companies in the philanthropic and charitable work as their corporate social responsibility and also as a part of tax 226 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J planning, it has given advance amount to accused No.7 and 11 to 13 and that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 being independent companies have taken decision to donate the amount to accused No.5. As such, he argued that the amount of donation given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 cannot be treated as corruption. He further argued that statement of Accused No.8 submitted u/s 313 Cr.P.C., would also go to show that the JSW Group Companies have also been actively involved in various activities with respect to corporate social responsibility in different fields and contributed more than Rs.250 crore in the past decade to the society.
147. In this connection, again I would like to rely on the ruling reported in 1995(3) SCC 333, wherein it is held that so long the possibility of some other conclusion cannot be fully ruled out, the prosecution case remains in the realm of probability. Therefore, the possibility of accused No.7 and 11 to 13 being independent companies, having their independent 227 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J board of directors, taking decision to donate the amount to accused No.5 Trust as a corporate social responsibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the suspicion of the prosecution that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 have been used by accused No.8 as a front companies to donate the amount to accused No.5 in disguise to suppress the bribe, at the instance of accused No.8 and 9 remains in the realm of probability.
148. While discussing the point on the allegations made against accused No.1 of abusing his official position as a public servant to show favour to accused No.8 in the fixation of premium on iron ore, alleged delay in fixing the premium and for not insisting the loss suffered by MML, on elaborate discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant in the matter of fixation of premium on 228 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J iron ore. It was also held that accused No.1 cannot be held responsible for the delay in fixation of premium on iron ore and it was further held that the MML has not suffered any actual loss but it is the case of deferred revenue which it is likely to get in due course as and when accused No.8 brings the mine for exploitation into the JV fold soon after the mining lease was granted to it. It was also held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged conspiracy between accused No.1 to 4 and 8 in the matter of fixation of premium on IOF. When it was already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged conspiracy between accused No.1 to 4 and 8 and also failed to prove that accused No.1 in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, abused his official position as a public servant to favour to accused No.8, therefore, the donation made by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to accused No.5 cannot be held to be a quid-pro-quo for the favour shown by accused No.1.
229 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF IMPOSING BAN ON EXPORT OF IRON ORE SO AS TO FAVOUR ACCUSED No.8:
149. The prosecution has made out a case that Govt. of Karnataka had imposed ban on the transportation and export of iron ore from the ports under its control on 26.7.2010. Subsequent to this, the Dept. of Mines & Geology had issued an order stopping issuance of mineral dispatch permit w.e.f.
28.7.2010. The prosecution has made out a case that the decision to impose ban on export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka was taken by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1), Chief Minister, himself. It is further the case of the prosecution that M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8) being one of the largest buyers of iron ore fines in the State of Karnataka could have potentially benefited from the drop in the prices of iron ore fines in the domestic market. It is further alleged that this decision of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) coincides with
230 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the date on which Accused No.2, 3 and 4 had entered into agreement to sell the denotified land at an exorbitant price to M/s. Jindal Group Company viz., M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7). Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that this is another quid-pro-quo with M/s. Jindal Group for having banned the export of iron ore. It is further the case of the prosecution that after the ban on export of iron ore, however there was no immediate drop in the price of iron ore fines. But the benefit of ban could be availed by the companies like M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., over a period of time.
150. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that imposing ban on export of iron ore was the individual decision taken by Chief Minister without following the procedure of decision making by the Govt. as provided under the Karnataka Govt. (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977. In this connection, he drew my attention to the admissions of PW.67 in the cross-
231 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J examination wherein he has admitted that the Chief Minister conveyed him regarding the decision taken to ban export of iron ore and further admission of PW.67 that before 26.7.2010 there was no meeting regarding banning of export of iron ore and further admission that before communication of oral order by the Chief Minister to him, there was no meeting held in the matter by the Chief Minister and other officers. He further argued that the evidence of PW.67 and 96 will disclose that the decision regarding imposing of ban on export of iron ore was taken by the Chief Minister (A1) unilaterally and subsequently instructed the Chief Secretary PW.67 Sri. Ranganath to take further action. Thus, he argued that the order of imposing ban on export of iron ore was taken on 26.7.2010 and the meeting was held on 27.7.2010. Therefore, there is cogent and convincing evidence to show that the imposing ban on export of iron ore was taken unilaterally by the Chief Minister on 26.7.2010. He 232 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J further argued that M/s. JSW Ltd., (A8) is a major consumer of iron ore fines and the evidence available on record goes to show that the said order of banning export of iron ore has benefited accused No.8 and as a quid-pro-quo accused No.7 purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 at an inflated price of Rs.20 crores from Accused No.2 to 4. Thus, he argued that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant to favour M/s. JSWSL (A8) and to obtain pecuniary advantage for his kins.
151. On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused No.1 argued that the Govt. was forced to impose ban on export of iron ore to prevent illegal mining activities and illegal export of iron ore, which was rampantly going on without any check. He further argued that in the report of Lokayuktha marked at Ex.D40, it was suggested to impose ban on export of iron ore to curb illegal mining activities and illegal export of iron ore. He further argued that 233 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J imposing of ban on export of iron ore was a decision taken by the Govt. to conserve the mineral wealth of the State. In this connection, the learned advocate for accused No.1 drew my attention to the evidence of PW.64, 67, 79, 86 and 96 and also drew my attention to the documents marked at Ex.D40, 41, 42, Ex.P.309 P346 and 539.
152. The learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 argued that the order imposing ban on export of iron ore was taken by Govt. to prevent illegal mining activities. The ban on export of iron ore was a temporary measure till export of iron ore was streamlined by bringing a system in place to prevent illegal mining and export of iron ore. He further argued that ban on export has been challenged by the many vested interest persons before the High Court of Karnataka and that the Division Bench has upheld order of ban on export of iron ore in its elaborate judgment marked at Ex.D43. He further argued that 234 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the Govt. order itself spells out the reasons for ban on export. The prosecution case proceeds on the footing that the ban was permanent. Whereas, the G.O., was only to impose ban temporarily to regularize mining and export of iron ore. He further argued that the Division Bench has considered all the points urged before it and found that G.O., banning export of iron ore was found to be legal. Thus, he argued that this court cannot sit over judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so as to held that ban on export was for extraneous consideration as made out in the prosecution case.
153. It is made out in the prosecution case that accused No.8 is the main recipient of iron ore fines in the domestic market and that accused No.8 is in a position to fix the price of iron ore for its advantage however he argued that there is not even a suggestion by the prosecution that accused No.8 is a major 235 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J recipient of iron ore fines and accused No.8 was in a position to fix the price of iron ore for its advantage to any of the prosecution witnesses and none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that Accused No.8 was benefited from the order of imposing ban on export of iron ore. On the other hand, he argued that prosecution case itself reveal that there was no immediate drop in the price of iron ore fines after ban on export of iron ore. He further argued that the decision of taking ban on export has been taken by the Govt. in accordance with Karnataka Govt. (Transaction of Business), Rules 1977. All the witnesses who are involved in making decision are cited as witnesses not as accomplices of accused No.1. When the decision is valid and based on valid reasons, it militates against the prosecution story. The allegation of conspiracy with regard ban on export is inherently bad and no evidence is lead to show that the price of iron ore was reduced after ban and at what rate accused No.8 236 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J purchased iron ore fines after the ban. He further argued that coincidents are not an incriminating circumstance in law. He further argued that absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the purchase of land was for the purpose of influencing the Govt. to take decision on export of ban. He further argued that at no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the purchase of land was for the purpose of influencing the Govt. to take decision on export of ban. In this connection, learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 drew my attention to the evidence of PW.64, 67, 86, 96, 115, 123 and also drew my attention to the documents marked at Ex.D28, D39, Ex.P.309(k), 309(a) and Ex.D43. Thus, he argued that there is no nexus between ban on export of iron ore and purchase of land by accused No.7 from accused No.2 to 4 much less the conspiracy as made out by the prosecution.
154. Now, I would like to appreciate whether order of ban on export of iron ore was passed by 237 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J accused No.1 by abusing his position as a public servant in furtherance of conspiracy so as to favour accused No.8 and to cause pecuniary gain to accused No.8 and in turn accused No.8 as a quid-pro-quo for the same got purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village at an exorbitant price of Rs.20 crores through accused No.7 from accused No.2 to 4, while prevailing market value of the land was not above Rs.5.22 crores. I would also like to appreciate whether accused No.2 to 4 received gratification in the form of exorbitant sale consideration, as a motive or reward for inducing accused No.1, by the exercise of personal influence, to show favour to accused No.8.
155. The prosecution examined PW.64, 67, 79, 86 and 96 in support of its case. PW.64 deposed in his evidence that he produced four files under Ex.P.308 letter. He further deposed that Ex.P.309 file is pertaining to ban of export of iron ore. He further deposed that beginning note was put up by him based 238 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J on the letter of Govt. of India dated 9.6.2010 marked at Ex.P309(a). In his cross-examination admitted that Ex.D28 is the letter of Director, Mines & Geology dated 26.7.2010 addressed to the Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department. He further admitted that Ex.P.309(f) is the letter dated 11.8.2010 is written by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, the then Chief Minister to Minister of Mines, Govt. of India explaining the steps taken for curbing the illegal mining activities in the State of Karnataka. He further admitted in his cross- examination, the steps taken by Govt. of Karnataka to prevent illegal mining included setting up of check posts, cancellation of permits to stock yards, creation of special cells headed by Director of Mines & Geology Department. He further admitted that Govt. of Karnataka framed the rules named as "Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules 2011 and gazette notification was issued. He further admitted that 239 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D29 is the Govt. Order dated 26.7.2010 is issued by PWD, Port & Inland Water Transport Department, Banning of export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka with effect from the date of order. Thus, nothing is elicited in the evidence of PW.64 to prove that ban on export of iron ore was for the reasons made out in the case of the prosecution on the other hand, the evidence of PW64 goes to prove that the ban on export was imposed to prevent illegal mining and export of iron ore.
156. The prosecution examined the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka as PW.67. PW.67 deposed in his evidence that on 26.7.2010, Director, Mines & Geology requested the Govt. of Karnataka for temporary banning of export of iron ore and on his request letter file was built up to take action on the issue. He further deposed that on 26.7.2010 there was a meeting. In the said meeting, decision was taken for banning of export of iron ore and accordingly they were 240 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J instructed to take further action in the matter and he further deposed that in the meeting of 27.7.2010 decision was taken for banning of export of iron ore from all the ports from which the iron ore of Karnataka was exported. He further deposed that being aggrieved by the order of banning on export of iron ore from Karnataka some mine owners had preferred the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In his cross-examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor PW.67 admitted that on the verbal order of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, the then Chief Minister, he instructed Sri. B.S. Ramprasad, Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department to take action in the matter. Further admitted that before communication of the oral order made by the Chief Minister to him there was no meeting held in the matter by the Chief Minister and other officers. The learned Special Public Prosecutor heavily relied on these admissions of PW.67 to urge that ban on export of iron ore was the individual 241 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J decision of the Chief Minister and that there was no meeting held by the Chief Minister before taking decision of ban on export. Thus, he argued that accused No.1 has taken decision to ban export of iron ore to favour accused No.8 as made out in the case of prosecution.
157. Whereas PW.67 in his cross-examination by accused No.1 admitted that before taking decision for banning of export of iron ore, several circumstances weighed in the mind of Govt. and few of them being to prevent illegal mining in the State, order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Karwar banning of export of iron ore from port of Belikere and the Director of Dept. of Mines & Geology. PW.67 further admitted that Hon'ble Lokayuktha suggested the State Govt., for banning of export of iron ore in his report marked at Ex.D40. He also admitted that before taking decision for banning of export of iron ore from the State, the Govt. of India repeatedly enquiring the State of 242 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Karnataka regarding the steps taken by the Govt. of Karnataka for prevention of illegal mining in the State. He further admitted that Ex.D41 is the letter dated 3.7.2010 written by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Govt. of India wherein he has suggested to the Hon'ble Prime Minister regarding an urgent need to put in place a comprehensive policy to ban export of iron ore and to make it mandatory that iron ore and other such precious minerals are utilized for value addition within the country itself. He further admitted that Ex.D42 is the letter dated 13.7.2010 written by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, the then Chief Minister to the Hon'ble Minister of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Govt. of India, New Delhi suggesting for banning of export of iron ore in the context of the need for increasing the value addition to the iron ore within the country. PW.67 further admitted that Ex.D43 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the 243 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Writ Petition No.24103/2010 (GM-MMS) dated 19.11.2010. Ex.D43 reveal that several mine owners have filed Writ Petitions before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the ban on export of iron ore on number of grounds. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its elaborate judgment after considering all the contentions raised by the petitioners held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Govt. of Karnataka banning export of iron ore and upheld the Govt. Orders dated 26.7.2010 and 28.7.2010. Thus, the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the decision to ban export of iron ore was an individual decision of Accused No.1 to favour accused No.8 is only a stint of imagination without any base.
158. PW.79 admitted that Ex.P.346 is the file pertaining to ban on export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka and further admitted that he has put up the note in Ex.P.346 on the D.O., letter of Secretary, 244 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Commerce & Industries and letter of Director of Ports, Karwar. He further admitted that after his note, the Secretary put up his note and forwarded the file to Chief Secretary. Chief Secretary submitted the file to the Chief Minister, then Govt. Order was issued on 26.7.2010. PW.79 admitted in his cross-examination that the issue of illegal mining and export of iron ore was on hot discussion in the floor of Legislative Assembly and Council in the State of Karnataka. He further admitted that the Members of Legislative Assembly & Council have unanimously opined to curb the illegal mining immediately and to ban export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka. He further admitted that Director of Ports, Karwar under his letter dated 26.7.2010 requested the Govt. of Karnataka for banning of the export of iron ore from the ports of Karnataka. He further admitted that Secretary of Commerce & Industries Department, forwarded the letter of Mines & Geology mentioning the D.C.F., of 245 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Karwar banning of export of iron ore from the port of Karwar w.e.f. 24.7.2010, further admitted that the Dept. of Ports, Inland Water Transport and Dept. of Mining opined on 26.7.2010 that the banning of export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka is the only option to prevent the illegal mining in the State. Further admitted that Chief Secretary of the State was of the same opinion to ban the export of iron ore. He further admits that PWD was also of the same opinion. Further admitted that Chief Minister has approved the banning of iron ore from the State of Karnataka as suggested by all the Departments and Chief Secretary of the State.
159. PW.86 has served as the Director of Mines & Geology during the relevant period. He deposed in his evidence that the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Karwar seized 8 lakhs metric tones of iron ore at Belikere Port. Inspite of seizure of iron ore, the concerned Port Authorities allowed export of 6 lakhs metric tones of 246 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J iron ore from the Belikere port. Then the Deputy Conservator of Forest passed an order for banning of export of iron ore from Belikere, Karwar and Mangalore Ports. After passing the said order, he came to know about the same and as per the direction of the Secretary, Commerce & Industries he wrote a letter to the Govt. of Karnataka for ban of export of iron ore from all the ports of State of Karnataka on 26.7.2010. He further admitted that Ex.D28 was written by him on 26.7.2010 and on the said request letter, Secretary, Commerce & Industries, Govt. of Karnataka wrote a letter to the Secretary, PWD and Ports for banning of export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka. He admitted in his cross-examination that there were several circumstances that weighed in the mind of the Govt. for taking decision for banning of export. He further admitted that all the Legislators were of the unanimous opinion for banning of export of iron ore to prevent illegal mining activity. He further admitted 247 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J that Hon'ble Lokayuktha also recommended to the Govt. of Karnataka for banning of export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka. He further admitted that the Mines & Geology Department and Secretary, Commerce & Industries have also recommended for ban of export and all these circumstances weighed in the mind of Govt. of Karnataka for ban of export of iron ore.
160. PW.96 has served as Secretary, Commerce & Industries during the relevant period. PW.96 in his chief-examination deposed that a decision was taken by the Chief Minister that the export of iron ore shall be banned from the State of Karnataka, the decision was communicated to him by the then Prl. Secretary to Chief Minister. On the same day, Director of Mines & Geology addressed a letter requesting for ban on export of iron ore temporarily for a period of 3 months from the ports of Karnataka stating that the quantity of iron ore exported and consumed locally was much more 248 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J than the actual production, indicating huge illegal mining and illegal export. Then he received a direction from Chief Minister's Secretary that in order to effectively control export of iron ore, there was a need to stop forthwith issue of permits for the purpose of exports of iron ore. Next day, a meeting was held chaired by Chief Minister attended by Advocate General, himself, Director of Mines & Geology and Prl. Secretary to Chief Minister. In the meeting it was decided banning of export from the State of Karnataka by denying the permits as a temporary measure and it was also decided that urgent steps should be taken to control illegal mining by establishing additional check post, modernizing the check post and streamlining by issue of permits. Accordingly, in consultation with the Advocate General, he prepared the draft order for banning of export of iron ore, then he personally took the file to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for his approval and he approved it and the necessary order was 249 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J issued. He further deposed that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the Govt. Orders banning export of iron ore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also granted some time to finalise some rules and accordingly the Govt. finalized the rules and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP as infructuous.
161. PW.123 is the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination at para-90 pleads ignorance when asked whether Accused No.8 M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., has influenced the Govt. of Karnataka for banning of export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka.
162. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence of PW.64, 67, 79, 86 and 96, it is very much clear that ban on export of iron ore was the decision taken by the Govt. of Karnataka in view of the compelling circumstances prevailed at that time. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses goes to show that ban on 250 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J export of iron ore was imposed to prevent illegal mining and illegal export of iron ore fines from our State.
163. Ex.D41 letter dated 30.10.2010 written by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, the then Chief Minister to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Govt. of India suggesting the urgent need to put in place a comprehensive policy to ban export of iron ore and to make it mandatory that the iron ore mines of the country should be utilized for value addition within the country itself. So also, Ex.D42 is the letter dt. 13.7.2010 written by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, the then Chief Minister to the Hon'ble Minister of Heavy Industries to prevent illegal mining activities and to place certain curbs on export of iron ore.
164. The contents of Ex.D41 and 42 reveal the grounds as to why the accused No.1 as a Chief Minister of State of Karnataka wanted to impose ban on export of iron ore in the State of Karnataka. It is manifest in Ex.D41 and D42 that accused No.1 wanted 251 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J to curb illegal mining activities and illegal export of iron ore, with an intention to utilize such precious minerals for value addition within the country itself.
165. Ex.D40 is the report of Lokayuktha, which also suggested to ban export of iron ore mine to prevent the illegal activities. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the Govt. Order dated 26.7.2010 and 28.7.2010 banning export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka and dispatch of permits for export of iron ore. Ex.P.309(a) is the communication of Secretary of Govt. of India to Secretary of Govt. of Karnataka enquiring about the missing of seized iron ore at Belikere Port.
166. Ex.P.309(f) is the letter dt. 11.8.2010 written by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) to Hon'ble Minister of Mines, Govt. of India, informing him the various steps taken by the Govt. of Karnataka to curb the menace of illegal iron ore mining. Ex.P.309(f) is a self-explanatory letter which reveal the reasons for banning of export 252 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J and also the various steps taken by the State Govt. to curb the illegal mining of iron ore. Accused No.1 has stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of PW.61 and PW.96 that the decision to impose ban on export of iron ore fines was the collective decision taken in the meeting presided by him to prevent illegal mining activities, in the light of unanimous opinion of all the Members of Assembly and Council and in the light of public opinion and also in the light of recommendation of Lokayuktha and at the pressure of Central Govt.
167. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that there was a hot discussion in the floor of Assembly, Council and all the Legislators had unanimously opined to ban export of iron ore. However, the Investigating Officer inspite of overwhelming evidence available on record seized by him during investigation did not take pain to find out 253 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the reasons as to why the decision was taken by the Govt. of Karnataka to ban export of iron ore. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer suspected that the decision of export of iron ore was taken by Accused No.1 with an ulterior motive to favour Accused No.8, since the incident of agreement to sell of 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village by accused No.2 to 4 in favour of Accused No.7 was in close proximity of time with the incident of banning of export of iron ore, on the ground that such ban would have potentially benefited M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (A8), who is one of the largest buyers of iron ore in the State of Karnataka, due to drop in the market price of the iron ore. The prosecution case itself reveal that after the ban there was no immediate drop in the price of iron ore, but however made out a case that the benefit of the ban could be availed by the companies like M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., over a period of time. The case of the prosecution proceeded on the footing that the ban of 254 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J export is permanent. On the other hand, the Govt. Order dated 26.7.2010 marked at Ex.P.309(g) and the Govt. Order dated 28.7.2010 marked at Ex.P.309(i) reveal that the decision to ban export of iron ore mine and ban of issuing permit for export of iron ore mine have been taken as a temporary measure till bringing a system in place to curb the illegal mining, transportation and export of iron ore mine. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., could avail the benefit of ban over a period of time is baseless and unfounded.
168. Moreover, the prosecution has not adduced evidence to prove that the prices of iron ore fines has been dropped on account of ban on export of iron ore. So also, prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that what is the total quantity of iron ore purchased by accused No.8 after ban and what was the benefit availed by accused No.8 after the ban of export of iron ore. On the other hand, PW.123 in his cross-
255 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J examination admitted that the international price of iron ore was not affected by banning of export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka. Though he disputed that the domestic market price of iron ore is not linked to the international price, however no evidence is adduced to show that there was a drop in the market price of the iron ore after the ban and that accused No.8 has availed benefit of the ban of export of iron ore as a quid-pro-quo for having purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 at an inflated price of Rs.20 crores. PW.123 also admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot say that accused No.8 M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., has influenced Govt. of Karnataka for banning of export of iron ore from the State. When it is the case of the prosecution that there was conspiracy between accused No.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 in respect of taking decision on ban on export so as to provide an advantage for accused No.8 to fix the prices of domestic iron ore, the ignorance pleaded by PW.123 that he 256 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J cannot say whether Accused No.8 M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., has influenced the Govt. of Karnataka for banning of iron ore cuts the case of the prosecution at its roots.
169. Thus, the case of the prosecution that there was a conspiracy between accused No.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 to impose ban on export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka so as to favour Accused No.8 and as a quid- pro-quo for the same Accused No.7 purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village from accused No.2 to 4 at an exorbitant price of Rs.20 crores to cover up receipt of bribe, remained in the realm of suspicion. So also there is no iota of evidence to prove that accused No.2 to 4 have induced accused No.1, by exercising their personal influence, to pass order of ban on export of iron ore to favour Accused No.8.
170. In this connection, I would like to rely on the ruling reported in 1995(3) SCC 333 wherein it is held as under: -
257 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J "It is true that there is no absolute standard of proof in a criminal trial and the court should not nurture fanciful doubts by exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt, but in a case of circumstantial evidence all the links in the chain of events from which irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged can be drawn, must be established beyond pale of reasonable doubt.
The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof. Conviction cannot be based on circumstances indicating that the prosecution case is quite likely to be true.
For basing the conviction in a case governed by circumstantial evidence, the facts established must rule out any likelihood of innocence of the accused.
So long the possibility of some other conclusion cannot be fully ruled out, the prosecution case remains in the realm of probability."
By applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case even has not remained in the realm of probability. The circumstances brought on record do not warrant an irresistible conclusion about the guilt of accused. On the other hand, there is a overwhelming evidence on record to hold that the order passed by accused 258 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J No.1 to ban export of iron ore was a collective decision of the Govt. taken to prevent illegal mining and export of iron ore mines from the State. Absolutely, there is no iota of evidence to prove that accused No.1 took the decision of banning of export of iron ore for extraneous reasons as stated in the case of prosecution thereby prosecution has miserably failed to prove case made out by it.
REGARDING PURCHASE OF 1 ACRE OF LAND IN SY. NO. 55/2 OF RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE IN THE YEAR 2010 AT INFLATED PRICE BY ACCUSED NO.7:
171. The case made out by the prosecution is that the decision to impose ban on export of iron ore from the State of Karnataka was taken by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) as a Chief Minister himself and this decision coincides with the date on which accused No.2, 3 and 4 had entered into an agreement to sell the denotified land at exorbitant cost to M/s. Jindal Group Company viz., M/s. South West Mining Ltd. (A7).
259 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that as a quid- pro-quo for the ban on export of iron ore, M/s. South West Mining Ltd., (A7) purchased the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village totally measuring 1 acre under two sale deeds dated 22.11.2010 from accused No.2, 3 and 4 for a sum of Rs.20 crores at a highly inflated rate which was not based on the prevailing market price which was not more than Rs.5,22,72,000/- for 1 acre converted land in Rachenahalli village. Thus, it is alleged that the sale of the land at a huge price was intended to cover up receipt of bribe.
172. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued in support of the prosecution case that the market value of the residentially converted land at Rachenahalli village was not more than Rs.5.22 crores for One acre in the year 2010. In support of his argument, he relied on the evidence of PW.6 and the certified copy of the Karnataka State Gazette dated 260 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 17.4.2007 marked at Ex.P.26 and the true copy of the market value of Rachenahalli village fixed by the Central Valuation Committee for the 2007 which is enclosed to Ex.P.26. He drew my attention to the evidence of PW.10 wherein he has deposed that the Govt. Guidance Value of converted land was Rs.1.5 crores per acre in the year 2010 when Ex.P44 and 45 the sale deeds of accused No.2 to 4 came to be registered. He also drew my attention to the evidence of PW.26 and the documents marked at Ex.P.27 & 28 which are the attested copies of the Transaction Index of Rachenahalli village from June 2010 to March 2011 and from 1.4.2010 to 21.6.2012 respectively to show that value of the property at Rachenahalli village was not more than Rs.5.22 crores. He also drew my attention to the evidence of PW.19 and the documents got marked through him at Ex.P.59 to 65 to prove that the market value of the lands at Rachenahalli village was not more than Rs.5.22 crores for 1 acre converted 261 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J land in the year 2010. He also drew my attention to the evidence of PW.21 and PW.23 to show that the value of the land at Rachenahalli village was not more than Rs.1000/- per sq. ft., during the year 2010-11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied upon the evidence of PW.35, the Tahsildar, K.R. Puram, in whose presence the District Evaluation Officer took the measurement of the land and prepared the mahazar Ex.P.98 for the valuation of the land Sy. No.55/2 identified by him, Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant.
173. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that the valuation reports prepared by PW.11 and 39 marked at Ex.P.48 and P102 respectively are obtained at inflated rate by accused No.10 to cover up receipt of bribe. He further argued that PW.39 prepared the second valuation report at the inflated rate and obtained signature of PW.11 on Ex.P.48 without his knowledge. He further argued that 262 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Accused No.10 obtained the valuation report at inflated rate from PW.11 and PW.39 marked at Ex.P.48 and Ex.P.102 in furtherance of the conspiracy to cover up the receipt of bribe by the kins of accused No.1. He further argued that the professional fees to be paid to PW.39 for having done the valuation of the said property should have been paid through cheque. On the other hand, payment was made through cash and receipts marked at Ex.P.103 and 104 have been obtained. Accused No.7 is a private limited company. Payment of professional fees could not have been paid by cash. Therefore, it can be inferred that the valuation reports are antedated and created subsequently to cover up inflated price paid by the company to accused No.2 to 4 as a consideration for sale of the property in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy.
174. He also drew my attention to the admission of PW.39 in the cross-examination wherein he has 263 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J admitted that at the request of the officials of Jindal Company he has given the valuation report at inflated price since it was told that the valuation report was required for internal purpose. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on ruling reported in (1980)1 SCC 30 in the matter of Syed Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka in support of his argument that the evidence of PW.39 cannot be discarded in toto. Thus, he argued that it is stood proved that accused No.7 obtained the valuation of the property at inflated rate. The purpose of obtaining valuation of the property at inflated rate would goes to prove that the amount of consideration of Rs.20 crores in all paid to accused No.2, 3 and 4 for purchasing 1 acre converted land was only intended to cover up receipt of bribe.
175. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied on the evidence of PW.112 and PW.119 to prove that accused No.10 obtained two valuation reports from M/s. Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., 264 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Bengaluru through dubious means by showing the property as commercial land and informing that M/s. Manyatha Infrastructure Developers have agreed to extend 60 feet with approach road to the said property to get an inflated valuation report to cover up the receipt of bribe amount by kins of accused No.1.
176. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW.122, the District Valuation Officer to prove that the value of 1 acre of land at Rachenahalli village in the year 2010 was Rs.5.22 crores and got the valuation report prepared by PW.122 at Ex.P.410. Relying on the evidence PW.122, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that since there was no approach road, water supply and other facilities to the said property, the valuation report prepared by PW.122 is just and proper. On the other hand, he argued that valuation report prepared by PW.11 and 39 marked at Ex.P.48 and 102 are exorbitant and which goes to prove that the said 265 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J valuation reports have been obtained at inflated price to cover up receipt of bribe in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
177. On the other hand, the learned senior advocate for accused No.1 to 5 and senior advocate appearing for accused No.7 to 13 have argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the prevailing market price per acre of land at Rachenahalli village was Rs.5.22 crores only during the year 2010. They further argued that the guidance value upon which the prosecution is relying is fixed only to recover stamp duty on such value, even if the property is under valued. In this connection, they drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.1, 6 and 10 wherein they have admitted that the guidance value is only for the purpose of stamp duty. They further argued that the prosecution has taken objection for the valuation of the residentially converted land in dispute on the basis of square feet by PW.11 and 39. On the other hand, the 266 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J prosecution witness PW.122 himself assessed the value of the land in dispute on the basis of square feet. Hence, they argued that there is no force in the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the valuation done on the basis of square feet is not proper. Further, the learned advocates for accused tried to demonstrate that the valuation report marked at Ex.P.410 prepared by PW.122 is not reliable and it is liable to be rejected. In this connection, they drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.122 wherein he has admitted that he has not prepared the sketch map of the property and he has not produced the certified copies of the sale deeds obtained by him from the office of Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram for purpose of comparable sale instances in that area. Further, they argued that Ex.P.410 does not disclose the fact of PW.122 observing location and situation of the properties. The relevant consideration for assessing the value is not forthcoming in the valuation report.
267 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J The burden is on the prosecution to prove the value of the land was Rs.5.22 crores during the year 2010. Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely on the valuation got done by the accused to prove it is over valued. Even if it is proved that the value of the property as stated by accused is proved to be wrong, then what is the actual market value of the property remains to be proved by prosecution. Therefore, the charge that the price of the land was inflated to cover up the receipt of bribe has to fail.
178. On the other hand, they argued that in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accused were able to demonstrate that the value of the residentially converted land at Rachenahalli village during the year 2010 was between Rs.17 crores to 23 crores per acre. They further argued that even though the prosecution treated PW.39 hostile, no suggestion was made to prove the value of the property was Rs.5.22 crores per acre at Rachenahalli village in the 268 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J year 2010. The learned advocate for accused argued that the BDA map marked at Ex.P.86(b) reveal 60 feet road passing nearby R.S.No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was proposed in the plan in the year 2007. He further relied on Ex.D11 and 12 to show that in the map prepared by Tahsildar, K.R. Puram in the year 2009, the proposed road is shown. They further argued that while assessing the value of the land the important considerations are potentiality for development and that land is abutting 60 feet proposed road. R.S. No.55/2 is a part of BBMP and hence civic amenities have to be provided by Corporation, this factor is also going to contribute to the potentiality of the land. Since 1 acre land was purchased as one unit, the floor area ratio is also going to substantially contribute for the potentiality of the land. They further argued that the value of the land depends on the need of the buyer and need of the seller. The fact of need of the land for accused No.7 South-West Mining Ltd., for 269 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J construction of office and guesthouse for the company is recorded in Ex.P263 extract of board meeting dated 28.7.2010 and also deposed by PW.14 in his chief- examination. The need of accused No.7 South-West Mining Ltd., cannot be doubted since Jindal Group of Companies are extensively carrying out the business activities in the Karnataka State. The learned advocate for accused further argued that though the land was mainly converted for residential purpose, it does not exclude commercial use. He further argued that the location of the land nearby Manyatha Tech Park is also one of the important factor which contributed for the potentiality of the land. In reply to the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the value of the smaller plots cannot be compared with large land, it was argued that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of smaller plot is less but FAR for larger land is more. As such, the value of the land having more floor area ratio would be much more than a smaller plot. Thus, the learned 270 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J advocate for accused submitted that arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor does not hold any water. On the other hand, the learned advocates for the accused argued that the documents marked at Ex.D2 to D9 contained in the attested copies of Transaction Index of Rachenahalli village marked at Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.29 for the period from June 2010 to March 2011 and from 1.4.2010 to 21.6.2012 respectively goes to show the comparable prices during that period. Therefore, the price of Rs.20 crores paid by South West Mining Ltd., company was a fair value and not exorbitant. He further argued that there is no basis for prosecution to contend that the value of the property is exorbitant. On the other hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the value of the land was less than Rs.5.22 crores as made out in the case of prosecution. The learned advocate for accused drew my attention to the cross-examination of PW.123 the Investigating Officer at para No.87 wherein he has 271 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J admitted that the land bearing Sy. No.2/2 of Rachenahalli village measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was sold for a consideration of Rs.35 crores on 15.7.2010 as per Ex.D5 and further admitted that as per Ex.D2 4000 sq. ft., site bearing No.E116 of Manyatha Residency in Rachenahalli village has been sold for consideration of Rs.2,60,00,000/- on 2.7.2011.
179. Keeping in mind the rival contentions urged by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and Advocates for accused, I would like to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution to consider whether the prevailing market price of the 1 acre of converted land in Rachenahalli village, Bengaluru was not more than Rs.5.22 crores, therefore, the sale of the land at huge price was intended to cover up the receipt of bribe as a quid-pro- quo for ban of export of iron ore.
180. The prosecution examined PW.6 Smt. Bharathi A.N., Senior Sub-Registrar and got marked 272 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J attested copy of gazette dated 17.4.2007 marked at Ex.P.26 and attested copies of Transaction Index of Rachenahalli village during June 2010 to March 2011 and from 1.4.2010 to 21.6.2012 at Ex.P.27 and P28 respectively. The prosecution tried to prove that in Ex.P.27, the highest market value shown, in the document pertaining to Sy. No.68 of Rachenahalli village, was Rs.12,50,000/- per gunta. Whereas, the value of the property in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village has been shown as Rs.50 lakhs per gunta.
181. PW.6 in her cross-examination admitted that the transaction dated 2.7.2011 pertaining to Sy. No. E116 located in Rachenahalli village was in respect of a site measuring 50 x 80 sq. ft., and it was sold for a consideration of Rs.2,60,00,000/-. The said transaction in the index is marked at Ex.D2. The value of the site at that rate for 1 acre comes to Rs.28.31 crores. So also, PW.6 admitted that the transaction marked at Ex.D5 is pertaining to 2 acres 5 guntas of 273 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J agricultural land in Sy. No.2/2 of Rachenahalli village dated 15.7.2010 for Rs.35 crores. She further admitted that, the transaction marked at Ex.D6 is pertaining to site No.F-69 of Rachenahalli village dated 28.4.2011 measuring 2700 sq. ft., for consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. As per the said value, the value of 1 acre land would come to Rs.20,16,66,666/-. PW.6 also admitted that the document at Sl. No.1 of Ex.P25 marked at Ex.D10 is a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 2.6.2010, the value of the said property per acre comes to Rs.17,20,07,550/-. Thus, the effort made by the prosecution to show that the highest market value amongst the properties shown in Ex.P27 is of the property bearing Sy. No. 68 of Rachenahalli village, is proved to be false by the admissions of PW6 in her cross-examination.
182. The prosecution examined PW.10, the Senior Sub-Registrar to prove that in the year 2010, the Govt. Guidance Value of converted land was Rs.1.25 crores 274 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J per acre. However, PW.10 admitted in his cross- examination that the Guidance value of the Government is fixed only to prevent the buyers or sellers from evading the payment of minimum stamp duty and registration charges on the document. He further admitted that the guidance value issued by the Government cannot be the market value of the property and further admitted that the market value of the property depends on the situation and locality of the property and willingness of the buyer and seller. Thus, on appreciating the evidence of PW.10 it becomes clear that the guidance value fixed by the Govt. is not the real market value of the property and that value of the property depends on the potentiality for development of the area wherein the property is situated.
183. PW.19 was examined to prove that the lands purchased by Manyatha Promoters Pvt. Ltd., at Rachenahalli village was not exceeding Rs.3 to 4 crores 275 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J per acre for converted land in the year 2010. The prosecution got marked the true copies of the sale deeds at Ex.P.59 to 65 in respect of the properties purchased by Manyatha Promoters Pvt. Ltd., at Rachenahalli village during the year 2010 and 2011. PW.19 deposed in his cross-examination that the properties purchased by their company as per Ex.P.59 to P65 were consisting of some agricultural lands and some converted lands. Only after conversion, they got executed the registered sale deeds from the respective owners as per the purchases made by the company during 2010. PW.19 further deposed that the value of 1 acre of residentially converted land was Rs.3 to 4 crores. However, PW.19 in his cross-examination admitted that their company had entered into an agreement with the land owners during 2003 for purchase of lands covered under Ex.P.59 to P65. He further admitted that the lands were purchased from the owners as per the market price prevailing during 276 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J that year. He further admitted that after entering into an agreement with the owners, they got converted the land at their cost and then got executed registered sale deeds from the respective owners. He further admitted that from the date of agreement till the execution of the sale deeds, much time was spent for conversion and consolidation of lands. He further admitted that after formation of Manyatha Tech Park and formation of the residential layout by their company, the price of the land of their company as well as the surrounding lands at Rachenahalli village were steeply increased. PW.19 further admitted that, after purchasing the agricultural land from the previous owners, they got converted the land at their cost and thereafter they formed Manyatha Tech Park and a residential layout. He further admitted that the price of the land of their company as well as the surrounding lands have been steeply increased. He further admitted that their company formed 100 feet main road in their layout in the year 277 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 2004 to reach their project property and they have also formed 40 feet and 60 feet wide road for projects and further admitted that the roads formed by them in their project was public road for the use of public.
184. PW.19 further admitted in his cross- examination that the letter dated 5.6.2004 was submitted by him to the Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Karnataka, Bengaluru requesting for denotification of 125 acres 28 guntas of land under acquisition by BDA to establish a software park by their Manyatha Tech Park by enclosing the list of properties sought for denotification pertaining to Dasarahalli and Rachenahalli villages to the letter Ex.D20. Further admitted that the list of land of Rachenahalli is marked at Ex.D20(c) and further admitted that when he submitted application as per Ex.D20, the lands were in their possession pursuant to the agreement of sale and further admitted that as per their request, the Govt. denotified the lands as 278 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J requested in their letters and mentioned in the list. He further admitted that R.S. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village is in their Manyatha residential area.
185. PW.19 further admitted that by 2010, in Manyatha Tech Park about 30 to 40 Multinational Software Companies were established and around 40,000 to 50,000 people were working. Further admitted that Manyatha Tech Park is the biggest IT Park in India as well as in Asia. PW.19 admitted that the 9 photographs marked at Ex.D16 shown to him are the photographs pertaining to Manyatha Tech Park and residential layout formed by their company.
186. On perusal of the above said photographs marked at Ex.D16, it can be seen that a number of huge multistoried buildings have come up in the said Manyatha Tech Park. The said photographs also reveal that 80 feet wide road and 50 feet wide roads have been laid in the said park. PW.19 denied that the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village is at a distance of 3 279 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J to 4 kilometers from the Manyatha Tech Park. On the other hand he has volunteered that it is within one kilometer and it is in their proposed new layout.
187. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence of PW.19, it becomes clear that the value for which the M/s. Manyatha Promoters have purchased the lands under Ex.P.59 to P65 was not the market value of the lands during the year 2010 but it was value of the agricultural lands during 2003-04, during which period M/s. Manyatha Promoters have entered into an agreement with the owners of the land for purchase of the said lands. Therefore, the effort made by the prosecution to prove that the value of the residentially converted land at Rachenahalli village during the year 2010 was around 3 to 4 crores per acre is proved to be incorrect on appreciation of the evidence of PW19.
188. On the other hand, the above stated admissions of PW.19 in his cross-examination goes to prove that the price of the land of their company as 280 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J well as surrounding lands at Rachenahalli were steeply increased after formation of Manyatha Tech Park and after formation of residential layout. The admission of PW.19 goes to prove that the value of the residential plot in Rachenahalli area during 2010 was Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. The above admissions of PW.19 and that R.S. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village is situated in their Manyatha Residential Layout makes the defence of the accused that the price paid by Accused No.7 for purchasing 1 acre residentially converted land in R.S.No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village for Rs.20 crores appears to be fair and not exorbitant.
189. It is not suggested in the cross-examination of PW.19 that the buildings found in Ex.D16 are recently constructed. On the other hand, it was suggested that the said photographs are the recent photographs which was admitted by PW19. The admission of PW.19 that the photographs marked at Ex.D16 are the recent photographs does not prove that 281 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the buildings found in the said photographs are also built recently. On the other hand PW.19 in his cross- examination at para-19 clearly admitted that by 2010 in Manyatha Tech Park about 30 to 40 Multinational Companies were established. Therefore, it can be inferred that the buildings found in Ex.D16 were in existence in the year 2010 itself.
190. The prosecution examined PW.21 to prove that he has purchased 17 guntas of converted land in R.S. No.100/2 of Rachenahalli village in the year 2010 for a consideration of Rs.1,27,41,000/-and further to prove that at that time, the price of the converted land was Rs.750/- to Rs.1000/- per sq. ft. However,PW21 in his cross-examination admitted that he entered into an agreement of sale in the year 2008 and he paid the consideration amount in that year. Therefore, the evidence of PW.21 would be of no help for prosecution to prove the value of the land in the year 2010, in view of admission of PW.19 that the value of land in 282 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Rachenahalli village steeply increased after they formed Manyatha Tech Park and residential layout.
191. The prosecution examined PW.23 to prove that he purchased 13.36 guntas of converted land in R.S. No.85/3B of Rachenahalli village for consideration of Rs.78,30,000/- and to prove the market value of converted land at Rachenahalli village during 2010-11 was Rs.3 to 4 crores per acre. Whereas PW.23 admitted in his cross-examination that he entered into an agreement of sale in the year 2009 and got executed the registered sale deed on 30.3.2011 after rectification and confirmation deed were got executed from the children of original owners. He further admitted that he had no occasion to enquire the prices of land prevailing in the neighbourhood. He further admitted that he has approximately stated the price of the land prevailing in that area. Therefore, the value for which PW.23 purchased the land does not indicate the true 283 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J market value of the lands in Rachenahalli village in the year 2010.
192. The prosecution examined PW.39 to prove that the valuation report submitted by him marked at Ex.P.102 is got created at inflated price by putting antedate. PW.39 was treated hostile and cross- examined by Special Public Prosecutor. Though PW.39 admitted in his cross-examination that he was asked to give valuation report for Rs.23 to 24 crores and that he was told that the valuation report was for private use, therefore he has not considered some parameters for preparing valuation report, however PW.39 denied that one Charan asked him to give the valuation report for Rs.23 to 24 crores as they have already purchased the property. PW.39 admitted the suggestion that Charan told him to give report antedated accordingly he gave his report. He further admitted that he gave another report by putting antedate on second occasion. Whereas in his further cross-examination PW.39 284 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J denied the suggestion that the valuation report dated 9.6.2010 was given after coming to know that the property was already purchased about 6 to 8 months prior to his report. At one breath, PW.39 denies the suggestion of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that at the time when he gave valuation report, the property had already been purchased about 6 to 8 months prior to his report. At another breath this witness deposed that he gave valuation report antedated for Rs.19,60,00,000/- and gave another report by putting antedate on second occasion also further admitted that he has given valuation report for more value. Whereas in his cross-examination by the defence counsel, this witness admits the suggestion that he has given the correct valuation report without agreeing either for hiking or for reduction of the value. Thus, there is inconsistency in the evidence of this witness as to when the valuation report was prepared by him and also as to whether the valuation report was 285 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J inflated at the request of officials of accused No.7 or the valuation report represents true market value of the property based on the factors to be considered for assessing the value.
193. The learned advocate for accused relied on a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter between C. Muniyappa and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Crl. A. No. 127-130/2008 with Crl. A. Nos.1632-1634/2010 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1482-184/2008] wherein their Lordships held as under:
"69. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."
194. Based on the principle laid down in the above said rulings, the learned advocate argued that if 286 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW.39 and his valuation report marked at Ex.P.102 cannot be relied upon to hold that the market value of the property was around Rs.20 crores during 2010, however the prosecution has to still adduce evidence to prove that the value of the said land was less than Rs.5.22 crores during the year 2010.
195. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied ruling (1980)1 SCC 30 wherein their Lordships have held laid down the principle:
"Criminal Trial - Witness - Hostile witness - Prosecution witness declared hostile and examined by the prosecution -
Creditworthiness of his testimony, held, depends on how much, on facts, he stands discredited - Each instance to be decided on its own facts - No general rule that testimony of witness declared hostile is washed off the record altogether.
The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale, merely on the ground that the prosecution had dubbed him 'hostile' and had cross-examined him. the judge must on the facts of each case determine whether the witness after the cross- examination stands discredited or not."
287 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Thus, on perusal of the principles laid down in the above said rulings relied by learned advocate for accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor, it becomes clear that the evidence of the prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution choose to treat him hostile and cross- examined him but the same can be accepted to the extent that his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny of his evidence.
196. On appreciation of the evidence of PW.39, I find there is inconsistency in his evidence whether the valuation report submitted by him was issued at the instance of the officials of accused No.7 at inflated rate or his valuation report was based on the factors to be considered for assessing value of the property. Therefore, the evidence of PW.39 being inconsistent on important aspect and that it is not possible to extricate the truth from falsity, hence his evidence is liable to be 288 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J rejected in toto as not reliable. However, the burden still remains on the prosecution to prove that the value of the one acre of land in R.S. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was not more than 5.22 crores during the year 2010. Even after treating PW.39 as a hostile witness, the prosecution did not choose to suggest that the value of the property was Rs.5.22 crores as assessed by PW.122 as per the valuation report marked at Ex.P.410.
197. The prosecution examined PW.11 to prove that the valuation report marked at Ex.P.48 dated 21.06.2010 is also got created at the inflated rate. PW.11 deposed in his evidence that PW.39 has valued the property and on his request he has put his signature on the report. He further deposed that PW.39 told him that the 2nd valuation report is required for M/s. South West Mining Ltd., accordingly obtained his signature. He further deposed that by reposing confidence in him, he put his signature on Ex.P.48.
289 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
198. In view of my finding above, wherein I have held that the evidence of PW.39 cannot be relied upon as there is inconsistency in his evidence, truth and falsity are inextricably mixed up as such his evidence cannot be relied upon to held that the valuation report submitted by him in respect of the value of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, as such Ex.P.48 also cannot be relied upon for the said purpose since PW.11 admitted that PW.39 has prepared Ex.P.48 valuation report and he put his signature on his request.
199. The prosecution examined PW.92 to prove that he was also present along with Charan at the time of valuing the property by PW.39. However, PW.92 stated that he had not gone for valuation of the said property and he do not know during which year, the valuation report of this case was given by the valuator. As such he has been treated hostile. PW.92 denied the suggestions made to him in the cross-examination to 290 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J elicit from his mouth that he was also present along with Charan at the time of making valuation of the property and that PW.39 has given valuation report at inflated rate at the request of Charan in order to prove the allegations made in the prosecution case. Thus, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness by the prosecution to prove that the valuation report submitted by PW.39 marked at Ex.P.102 and the valuation report marked at Ex.P.48 are got created at inflated rate. The evidence of this witness has become inconsequential in view of the fact that Ex.P.48 and 102 are held to be not reliable for the reasons already assigned.
200. The prosecution examined PW.122, the District Valuation Officer IT Department, Bengaluru, PW.122 deposed in his evidence that he visited land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village along with his staff, revenue officials and CBI Officers. The revenue officials shown the property to him, he 291 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J inspected the property, measured the property and he assessed the value of the property at the rate of Rs.1200/- per sq. ft. For 1 acre of land, the value comes to Rs.5,22,72,000/- and submitted report as per Ex.P.410. He further deposed that there were no approach roads, drainage, water supply and other facilities to the said property, he made local enquiries and went to the Sub-Registrar's office on the same day and ascertained the comparable sale instances in that area and assessed the value of the property as stated above and submitted report as Ex.P410. However, in the cross-examination by advocate for accused No.1, he admitted that while valuating the immovable property under the Income Tax Act, he has to follow the guidelines prescribed by Central Govt., for valuation of immovable properties. Further admitted that there is a format for preparing the valuation report in the guidelines. Further admitted that, he prepared draft notes at the time of his inspection and on that 292 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J basis prepared the final valuation report. Further admitted that he has not given the draft notes prepared by him to the Investigating Officer and that he has not mentioned the details of the property No., date of transaction, consideration paid for the transaction which was obtained by him from the Sub-Registrar's office in his valuation report. Further admitted that he has not enclosed the certified copies of the sale deeds along with valuation report, which was obtained by him. Further admitted that there was no impediment whatsoever to enclose the documents obtained by him along with the valuation report. He further admitted in the cross-examination that the property was a single unit and further admitted that availability of floor area ratio is an important factor that should be taken into consideration while valuing the property. Further admitted that if availability of floor area is more, then the value of the property will be more. He further admitted that 18 meters wide road passing abutting 293 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village is shown in Ex.D86(b) the map of the properties of Rachenahalli village. Further admitted that to determine the value of the vacant land, it is not necessary to take into consideration, the drainage, water supply and electricity supply to the said property. He further admitted that he has not approached BBMP or the Village Panchayath to ascertain whether they will form a road or not in that area in terms of CDP. Further admitted that it is the responsibility of the Civil Authority to form the road to provide access to the property.
201. PW.122 admitted that to determine the valuation of the vacant land, it is not necessary to take into consideration the drainage, water supply and electricity supply to the said property. However, in his chief examination he has deposed that there is no drainage, water supply to the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli. Thus, it appears that PW.122 has 294 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J valued the property keeping those factors in mind which are not relevant for valuing the open land.
202. The learned advocate for accused argued that the valuation report prepared by PW.122 marked at Ex.P.410 is only an expert opinion. In the absence of evidence to show the comparable sale instances in that area relied upon by this witness and the factors upon which he has arrived at the market value of the property, the valuation report submitted by this witness being in the form of an expert opinion, it is unsafe to accept the same. In support of his argument, he relied on the rulings reported in (1977) 2 SCC 210 (Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab). Wherein their Lordships have held as under:
"It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of 295 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P, that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction."
"We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself from the basis for a conviction."
203. He relied on another ruling reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168 (Spl.LAO vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari). Wherein their Lordships have held as under:
16.Therefore, when the valuation report of an acquired land is made by an export on the basis of prices fetched or to be fetched by sale deeds or agreements to sell relating to the very acquired lands or the lands in the vicinity, need arises for the court to examine and be satisfied about the authenticity of such documents and the truth of their contents and the normal circumstances in which they had come into existence and further the correct method adopted in preparation of that report, before acting on such report for determining the market value of the acquired land. The opinion expressed in the report that the author of the report has made the valuation of the acquired lands on the basis of his past experience of valuation of such lands should never weigh with the court in the matter of determination of market value of the acquired 296 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J lands, for such assertions by themselves cannot be substitutes for evidence on which it ought to be based and the method of valuation adoptable in such report.
17. Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the court giving the market value of the acquired lands, the court may choose to act upon report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct.
204. As per the principle laid down in the above said ruling, that the expert opinion must always be received with great caution and it is unsafe to base the conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration and it is further held that opinion evidence by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction.
205. Thus, on proper appreciation of evidence of PW.122 and the admissions given by him in his cross- examination, the prosecution has not made available the comparable sale instances taken into consideration 297 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J by this witness at the time of valuing the property. Admittedly, PW.122 had no impediment to produce the certified copies of the sale deeds obtained by him from the office of Sub-Registrar. Prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why the comparable sale instances referred by this witness are not produced before this court for consideration. In the absence of production of certified copies of the sale deeds obtained by PW.122 as a comparable sale instances to arrive at the market value of the property, this court would not be in a position to know the method of valuation adopted therein is correct and the market value assessed by this witness is based on comparable sale instances in that area. As such, the valuation report submitted by PW.122 marked at Ex.P.410 cannot be relied upon to hold that the value of the 1 acre of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was Rs.5.22 crores in the year 2010.
298 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
206. M/s. Cushman & Wakefield Pvt. Ltd., was requested to value the land in the month of July 2011. As per the case of prosecution, accused No.1 to 13 entered into a criminal conspiracy during 2006 to 2010 at Bengaluru, Bellary and other places. Therefore, valuation reports marked at Ex.P.379 and 452 given by M/s. Cushman & Wakefield Pvt. Ltd., as per the request of accused No.10 in the month of July 2011 subsequent to the alleged date of conspiracy has no significance. However, PW.112 denied the suggestion of learned Special Public Prosecutor in the cross- examination that they have prepared draft valuation report and final valuation report on the information that the land is for commercial use. PW.112 further admitted in the cross-examination that the land in question is situated near Manyatha Tech Park and Manyatha Residency, therefore it has high development potential value. PW.112 also admitted that taking into consideration the fact of 60 feet proposed road passing 299 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J by the side of Sy. No.55 of Rachenahalli village, they have arrived at the valuation of the land in question. It is not suggested to this witness in the cross- examination that the value of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 does not exceed Rs.5.22 crores. PW.119 admitted in his cross-examination that accused No.10 requested in the e-mail correspondence to assess fair value of the property. Further admitted that he has never met Mr. Vikas Sharma and there was no telephonic conversation between him and Vikas Sharma at any point of time. Further admitted that Vikas Sharma (A10) never influenced their company to prepare any favourable report. So also PW.112 admitted that accused No.10 never told her to give a false or incorrect valuation report. Thus, the evidence of PW.112 and 119 is of no help for prosecution to prove that accused No.10 tried to obtain valuation report by a dubious means on the basis of wrong information.
300 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
207. Admittedly, the market value of the immovable property is fluctuating on account of demand and supply and the market value depends on the location of the property, size of the property, need of the buyer and seller and also availability of floor area and potentiality for development. While appreciating the evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution, I found that the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 is situated in Manyatha residential area and in the year 2010 the said Manyatha residential area was fully developed. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the market value of the residentially converted land in Rachenahalli village was ranging from Rs.17 crores to 20 crores per acre during the year 2010 even after eschewing the valuation reports marked at Ex.P48 and P102. Thus, one acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village purchased by accused No.7 from accused No.2 to 4 for Rs.20 crores in the year 2010 appears to be fair and not exorbitant. Thus, the 301 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J prosecution has failed to prove that the land Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was purchased by Accused No.7 at inflated rate to cover up the receipt of bribe.
208. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on rulings reported in (2001)1 SCC 691 (M. Narasinga Rao vs. State of A.P.), AIR 1964 SC 575 (Dhanvantri Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharastra), (2004)6 SCC 488 (State of A.P. vs. V.R. Jeevarathnam), (2014) SCC On line Megh 137 (L.R. Mitran vs. CBI), (1981)2 SCC 443 (Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra), in support of his argument that presumption u/s 20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires to be raised in this case against Accused No.1 since it is proved that accused person has accepted gratification (other than legal remuneration) for accused No.2 to 4 as a motive or reward for showing official favour to accused No.8.
302 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
209. On the other hand, the advocate for accused No.1 vehemently argued that when the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 abused his official position to show favour to accused No.8 and when it is established in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that accused No.1 has not abused his official position to show favour to accused No.8, the question of raising presumption u/s 20(1) of PC Act does not arise. He further argued that in order to raise the presumption u/s 20(1) of PC Act, the prosecution requires to prove the demand. In the absence of proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Sec. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution. In support of his argument relied on the rulings reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305 (P. Venkata Subba Rao vs. State by 303 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J A.P.), 2016 SCC Online SC 356 (V. Sejappa vs. State).
PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE RULINGS RELIED BY PROSECUTION:
210. In the ruling reported in (2001)1 SCC 691, it is held as under: -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - S.20(1) - Presumption - Where receipt of gratification was proved, held, the court was under a legal obligation to presume that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty."
211. In another ruling reported in AIR 1964 SC 575, it is held as under: -
"if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any gratification (other than legal gratification) or any valuable thing is proved to have been received by an accused person the court is required to draw a presumption that the person received that thing as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 IPC."
212. In another ruling reported in (2004) 6 SCC 488, it is held as under: -
304 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J "This Court then analysed the law on the subject and held that the term "shall be presumed" in Section 20(1) showed that courts had to compulsorily draw a presumption. It held that the only condition for drawing the presumption is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. It is held that the condition need not be satisfied only through direct evidence. It is held that proof did not mean direct proof as that would be impossible but the proof must be one which would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion."
213. In another ruling reported in 2014 SCC Online Megh 137, it is held as under: -
"From the Sub-section (1) of Section 20 quoted above, it is clear that once it is proved in trial relating to offence punishable under Section 11 that the accused has accepted any valuable thing, it shall be presumed that such person has accepted it as a motive or reward, unless contrary is proved."
214. In another ruling reported in (1981)2 SCC 443, it is held as under: -
"Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-A and 120-B - Agreement between accused for commission of the illegal act may be implicit.
Held:
For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the 305 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J perpetrators expressly agreed to do and/or caused to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do and/or caused to be done the said illegal act, for, without such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time."
PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE RULINGS RELIED BY DEFENCE:
215. In the ruling reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305, it is held as under: -
"24. Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved."
216. In another ruling reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 356, it is held as under: -
"It is well settled that the initial burden of proving that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the prosecution. It is only when this initial burden regarding demand and 306 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution, then the burden of proving the defence shifts upon the accused and a presumption would arise under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act."
217. In the discussions made earlier, I have already held that the accused No.1 has not abused his official position either in the matter of fixation of premium on IOF or in the matter of imposing ban on export of iron ore and it is also held that prosecution failed to prove the alleged loss suffered by MML or Accused No.1 caused delay in fixation of premium on iron ore fines payable to MML. In the above discussion, I have already held that accused No.1 has not shown any favour to accused No.8 either in the matter of fixation of premium on iron ore or in the matter of imposition of ban on export. Therefore, the question of accused No.1 demanding and accepting the illegal gratification to show official favour to accused No.8 would not at all arise for consideration. So also, 307 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the question of accused No.2 to 4 either inducing accused No.1 by exercising their personal influence to show favour to accused No.8 or accused No.2 to 4 abetting accused No.1 to obtain illegal gratification for them, by showing official favour to accused No.8 in exercise of his official function would not arise in this case. Neither there is a demand nor acceptance of illegal gratification by accused No.1 as such the question of raising presumption u/s 20(1) of PC Act against accused No.1 does not at all arise in this case.
218. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has made a feeble effort to make out a case of demand of bribe amount in the form of donation to accused No.5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the request for donation by accused No.5 to accused No.8 company has to be treated as a demand by accused No.1 to show official favour to accused No.8. I am unable to fall in line with the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor that request for donation by 308 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J accused No.5 can be treated as a demand by accused No.1. Sec.7 or 13 of PC Act would contemplate the demand by the public servant himself as a motive or reward to show favour in the exercise of his official functions. Therefore, demand by third party cannot be termed as a demand by the public servant. Moreover, request for donation by accused No.5 cannot at any stretch of imagination be termed as a demand by accused No.1 as a public servant as a motive or reward to show favour in the exercise of his official functions. Accused No.5 being a registered trust, imparting education which is included in the definition of charitable purpose u/s 2(15) of Income Tax, 1961, it is entitled to seek donation to achieve the objects of the trust. Therefore, request for donation by accused No.5 to accused No.8 cannot be treated as a demand for and on behalf of accused No.1. Thus, the principles laid down in the rulings relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be made applicable to the 309 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J present case, since the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of gratification. On the other hand, the principle laid down in the ruling reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305 (V. Venkata Subba Rao vs. State), that presumption u/s 20 of PC Act cannot be raised when demand by accused is not proved is squarely applicable to the present case.
219. The learned advocate for accused relied on a ruling (2009)8 SCC 617 (State of M.P. vs. Sheetla Sahai and others) in support of his argument that the collective decision taken by the Govt. in the exigency of the situation cannot be treated as a decision taken for wrongful gain for themselves or to a third party or for causing wrongful loss to the State. The following is the principle laid down in the above said ruling.
"We would proceed on the basis that two divergent opinions on the construction of the contract in the light of the stand taken by World Bank as also the earlier decision taken by the State were possible. That, however, would not mean that a fresh decision could not have been taken keeping in view the exigencies 310 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J of the situation. A decision to that effect was not taken only by one officer or one authority. Each one of the authorities was ad idem in their view in the decision-making process. Even the Financial Adviser who was an independent person and who had nothing to do with the implementation of the Project made recommendations in favour of the contractors stating that if not in law but in equity they were entitled to the additional amount. From the materials available on record, it is crystal clear that the decision taken was a collective one. The decision was required to be taken in the exigency of the situation. It may be an error of judgment but then no material has been brought on record to show that they did so for causing any wrongful gain to themselves or to a third party or for causing wrongful loss to the State."
In the earlier discussion, I have already held that in the matter of fixation of premium on iron ore fines and in the matter of imposition of ban on export of iron ore, a collective decision was taken by the bureaucrats right from Under Secretary till the Chief Secretary of the State in the matter of recommending with regard to fixation of premium on iron ore and in the matter of imposition of ban on export of iron ore, which recommendations have been approved by accused No.1 311 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J as a Chief Minister of the State. Thus, both the decisions taken by accused No.1 are the collective decisions taken by the Govt. Therefore, the said decisions cannot be treated as one taken fraudulently or dishonestly by accused No.1 for wrongful gain to himself or to a third party or for causing wrongful loss to the State.
220. The learned advocate for accused relied on a ruling reported in AIR 1980 SC 1008 (Kewal Krishna vs. State of Punjab) in support of his argument, the word quid-pro-quo does not find place in the PC Act, 1988 and the said term has been used by the prosecution in this case to mean that accused No.1 has obtained pecuniary advantage for accused No.2 to 4 by showing official favour to accused No.8 in discharging of his official functions. Whereas in the ruling referred above, the meaning of quid-pro-quo has been defined to be a fee charged for a special service rendered to individual by some Governmental Agency. Thus, he 312 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J argued that the prosecution has failed to prove offences u/s 7 and 13 of PC Act. It is already held by me that the price of Rs.20 crores paid by accused No.7 for purchasing of 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village was a fair market price in the year 2010, and that the donation of Rs.20 crores given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to accused No.5 being an educational and social trust has been utilized for achievements of the objects of the trust. Further held that prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 to 4 have siphoned of the amount of donation given to accused No.5 for their individual gain therefore it cannot be held that the accused No.1 has shown official favour as a quid-pro-quo for purchasing the land at inflated price and donating a sum of Rs.20 crores to accused No.5.
221. The advocate for accused No.7 to 13 relied upon a ruling reported in AIR 2012 SC 1185 in the matter of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. 313 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Manmohan Singh and another in support of his argument that having regard to the very nature of the office held by accused No.1 as a Chief Minister and having regard to the burden of his very onerous office, has to depend upon the officers advising him. It is true that the Chief Minister being head of the Govt. is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every matter having regard to the burden of his very onerous office but has to depend on the officers advising him. In this case also, the accused No.1 approved the recommendations placed before him in the matter of fixation of premium on iron ore and imposition of ban on export of iron ore. Therefore, it can be held that accused No.1 has acted on the advise of his officers in the above said two decisions. As such, the accused No.1 cannot be imputed with the dishonest intention in the matter of taking the said decisions.
314 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
222. So also absolutely there is no evidence to prove that accused No.2 to 4 have induced accused No.1 by the exercise of personal influence, to show favour to accused No.8, in exercise of the official functions as such public servant. The prosecution has not elicited evidence through any of its witnesses or even made a suggestion in the cross-examination of witnesses who have been treated hostile to prove that accused No.2 to 4 have induced accused No.1, by the exercise of personal influence, to show favour to accused No.8, in the exercise of the official functions as a public servant. Therefore, consideration received by accused No.2 to 4 by sale of 1 acre of land in R.S. No.55/2 or the amount of donation received by accused No.5 cannot be termed as a gratification received by them as a motive or reward for inducing accused No.1. Hence, I answer point No.7 to 10 in the negative.
315 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
223. POINT NO.1: - The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 to 13 have entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during 2006 to 2010 at Bangalore, Bellary and other places to cheat the Govt. of Karnataka by favouring M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., (A8) and in pursuance of that conspiracy Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa (A1) denotified land bearing Sy. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village measuring 1 acre 12 guntas out of which accused No.2 to 4 have purchased 1 acre of land from Accused No.6 Krishnaiah Setty though it was notified for acquisition by the Govt. It is further alleged in the case of prosecution that Accused No.1 in furtherance of alleged conspiracy fixed premium on iron ore payable to MML at 50% instead of 60%. As a quid-pro-quo, for the favour shown, Accused No.8 advised Accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to donate a sum of Rs.20 crores to Accused No.5 Prerana Trust run by Accused No.2 and 3 and it is further alleged in the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 in furtherance of 316 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J conspiracy imposed ban on export of iron ore and JSWSL (A8) being the largest buyers of iron ore fines in the State of Karnataka could have potentially benefited from the drop in the price and as a quid-pro-quo for imposing ban on export accused No.7 purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village by paying inflated price of Rs.20 crores. Thus, the prosecution has made out a case against Accused No.1 to 13 that they have entered into a criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act or to do an act which is not illegal by illegal means among themselves during 2006 to 2010.
224. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that there are two parts of the conspiracy. First part of the conspiracy is between Accused No.1 to 6 and second part of the conspiracy is between Accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13. He further argued that the first part of the conspiracy between Accused No.1 to 6 was to denotify the land Sy. No.55/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of land in Rachenahalli village which was 317 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J notified for acquisition by BDA and to convert the said land into non-agriculture in violation of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. The second part of the conspiracy between accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13 include abuse of official position by accused No.1 to favour Accused No.8 in the matter of fixation of premium of iron ore and also in the matter of imposing ban on export of iron ore and as a quid-pro-quo for the favour shown by accused No.1, accused No.8 advised accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to donate a sum of Rs.20 crores to accused No.5 Prerana Trust run by accused No.2 and 3 and accused No.7 purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 at inflated price of Rs.20 crores to cover up receipt of bribe by the kins of accused No.1. Thus, it is alleged that accused No.1 in furtherance of conspiracy, by abusing his official position as a public servant, illegally denotified the land Sy. No. 55/2, to obtain pecuniary advantage to his kins and fixed premium of iron ore at 50% and suppressed the loss 318 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J suffered by MML and also imposed ban on export of iron ore to favour accused No.8 and in turn obtained a pecuniary advantage to his kins as a quid-pro-quo from accused No.7 and 11 to 13 in the form of inflated sale price and in the form of donation to accused No.5.
225. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on ruling reported in (2001)7 SCC 596 (Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala), (1980)2 SCC 465 (Shivanarayan Lakshminarayan Joshi vs. State of Maharastra), (2014)12 SCC 336 (D.A. Modar vs. State of Rajasthan), AIR 1957 SC 340 (S. Swamirathnam vs. State of Madras) in support of his argument what constitutes criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of his argument that it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy and also in support of his argument that 319 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J conspiracy can be proved even by circumstantial evidence.
226. On perusal of the above said rulings, the following principles can be culled out: -
(1) to constitute the conspiracy two elements are necessary viz., intend to agree and intend to promote the unlawful objectives of the conspiracy.
(2) that conspiracy can be established on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and that the lack of direct evidence in respect of conspiracy has no consequence.
(3) where the charge, as framed, discloses one single conspiracy, although spread over several years, there is only one object of the conspiracy and that is to cheat members of the public, the fact that in the course of years others joined the conspiracy or that several incidents of cheating took place in pursuance of the conspiracy does not change the conspiracy and 320 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J does not split up a single conspiracy into several conspiracies.
227. On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused relied on ruling reported in (1970)1 SCC 152 (Lennart Schussler vs. Director of Enforcement), (1977)4 SCC 540 (Yashpal Mittal vs. State of Punjab), (1988)3 SCC 609 (Kehar Singh Vs. State), Judgment in Appeal No.495/2004 dated 25.10.2005 of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of K.R. Purushotham vs. State of Kerala. In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala = 1995 SCC (1) 142. Another judgment of the Apex Court in Appeal (Cri) 699/98 between Saju Vs. State of Kerala. Another judgment of the Apex Court in Appeal (Cri) 1363/2003 between Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.
228. The principles laid down in the above said ruling are as under: -
321 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
(i) There must be a meeting of mind in the doing of the illegal act or the doing of a legal act by illegal means. If in the furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy or the plot they cannot be held to be conspirators, though they may guilty of an offence pertaining to the specific unlawful act.
(ii) It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-
participators in the main object of the conspiracy.
(iii) The court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is further held that the relative acts or conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of 322 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence.
(iv) The suspicion cannot take the place of a legal proof and prosecution would be required to prove each and every circumstances in the chain of circumstances so as to complete the chain.
(v) An offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent evidence.
(vi) It is to be established that accused charged with the criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew leading to the commission of a crime by one or more persons to the agreement, of that offence.
(vii) It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of mind, a conscientious to affect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirators should have been in communication with others.
323 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
229. Thus, on perusal of the above principles, it is clear that the suspicion cannot take the place of a legal proof and an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences without there being a cogent evidence. It also becomes clear that there must be a meeting of mind in the doing of the illegal act or the doing of a legal act by illegal means. If in the furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy or the plot they cannot be held to be conspirators.
230. Relying on the principles laid down in the above said rulings, the learned advocate for accused No.7 to 13 argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a meeting of mind between accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13 and that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 knew the dominant object of the conspiracy. Thus, he argued that accused No.7 cannot 324 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J be held to be a conspirator since accused No.7 company is not concerned with fixation of premium on iron ore fines and it is nothing to do with imposition of ban on export of iron ore. Accused No.7 has purchased 1 acre of land in Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village for a fair market price looking to the potentiality of the land for development and accused No.7 and 11 to 13 as a corporate social responsibility have donated the amount of Rs.20 crores to accused No.5. Thus, the learned advocate for Accused No.7 to 13 argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.7 and 11 to 13 have participated in the alleged conspiracy. He further argued that the overt acts alleged against accused No.9 are that he participated in the agreement for the purchase of land and advised to obtain a inflated valuation report of the land Sy. No.55/2. The overt act attributed against accused No.10 is that he gave a representation to the accused No.1 Chief Minister to 325 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J interfere in the matter to advise MML to adhere to the MOU entered into between MML and JSWSL and another overt act attributed to accused No.10 that he has advised group companies of accused No.8 to donate to accused No.5.
231. By applying the principles laid down in the above said ruling, my findings on Point No.2 to 10, that prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 abused his official position in denotifying the land Sy. No.55/2 for obtaining a pecuniary advantage to his kins and also that the prosecution has failed to prove the abuse of official position by accused No.1 to show favour to accused No.8 either in fixing of premium on iron ore fines, suppression of loss suffered by MML or in the matter of imposition of ban on export of iron ore, and that the prosecution also failed to prove that accused No.7 South-West Mining Company Limited has purchased land in Sy.No.55/2 at inflated price to cover up the receipt of bribe and also failed to prove 326 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J that donation given by accused No.7 and 11 to 13 to accused No.5 was a bribe in disguise are found to be justifiable. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence I have already held while discussing on Point No.2 to 10 that there was no illegality in denotification of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village and the accused No.1 has not abused his official position in any manner to show favour to accused No.8 either in the matter of fixation of premium on iron ore fines, not insisting for recovery of loss suffered by MML or in the matter of imposition of ban on export of the iron ore and alleged conspiracy is only a suspicion of the prosecution. On the other hand, the decisions of accused No.1 in the matter of denotification of land, fixation of premium on iron ore and imposition of ban on the export of iron ore are found to be collective decision taken by the Govt. on valid reasons. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove either the first part of the alleged conspiracy between accused No.1 to 6 or second part of the conspiracy 327 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J between accused No.1 to 5 and 7 to 13. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
232. POINT NO.11: - The charges leveled against accused No.2 to 5 is that they have abetted accused No.1 to commit an offence and as a result of abetment accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.
233. Absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record to prove that accused No.2 to 5 have abetted accused No.1 to commit the offences punishable u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. When the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant in the matters of denotification of the land, fixation of premium on iron ore fines, not insisting for recovery of loss suffered by MML, imposing ban on export of iron ore fines, as per my findings on Point No.2 to 6 and 7 to 10, therefore the question of accused No.2 to 5 abetting accused No.1 to commit offences u/s 7, 11, 328 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 13(1)(d) r/w sec. 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 would not at all arise. Hence, I answer Point No11 in the negative.
234. POINT NO.12: - The charges leveled against accused No.6 are that he has abetted accused No.1 to commit an offence punishable u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and abetted accused No.2 to 4 to commit offences u/s 468 and 471 of IPC.
235. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the confession statement of accused No.6 is proved by examining the 17th Addl. CMM Magistrate as PW.124 who recorded the statement of accused No.6 u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. Thus, he argued that accused No.6 has committed the offences leveled against him. In support of his argument, learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the ruling reported in (2002)7 SCC 334 (Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal). On the other hand, the learned advocate for accused No.6 argued that the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., marked at Ex.P.587 is not a confession 329 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J statement admitting his guilt but it is a statement which narrated the true facts. There is nothing in the statement containing admission of guilt. Therefore, he submitted that the offences leveled against accused No.6 have not been proved.
236. In the ruling reported (2002)7 SCC 334 (Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal) relied upon by learned Special Public Prosecutor it is held as under: -
"Confession of co-accused, even without corroboration, can be taken into consideration."
"Evidence act, 1872 - S.30 - Scope and effect - Confessional statement of accused affecting himself and co-accused - When can court take into consideration such confession against the co- accused - Conditions for applicability of S.30 - Such confession must be a confession in proper sense containing admission of guilt made voluntarily by the accused when jointly tried with the co-accused for the same offence and must be true and trustworthy so as to be itself sufficient to justify his conviction - Such confession cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of S.3 against the co-accused and as such it is not obligatory on the court to take it into account - It can be used against the co-accused as a 330 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J corroborative material in support of other evidence connecting him with crime and cannot be made the foundation of conviction."
On perusal of the above principle, it becomes very clear that it should be a statement containing an admission of guilt. It is only when a person admits guilt to the fullest extent there is a guarantee for his truth.
237. On perusal of the statement of accused No.6 u/s 164 Cr.P.C., marked at Ex.P.587, I find nothing in the statement containing an admission of guilt by accused No.6 so as to consider the confessional statement of accused No.6 as a evidence against co- accused. Therefore, the confession statement marked at Ex.P.587 is of no use for the prosecution to prove the offences leveled against accused No.6 and other co- accused.
238. Absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record to prove that accused No.6 has abetted accused No.1 to commit offences punishable u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. When the prosecution has 331 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J failed to prove that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant in the matters of de-notification of land Sy. No. 55/2 of Rachenahalli village and while discussing on Point No.2 to 6, I have already held that order of de-notification of land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village by accused No.1 was only a superfluous since the said land had already been denotified by the then Chief Minister Sri. S.M. Krishna in the year 2004 itself. Therefore the question of accused No.6 abetting accused No.1 to commit offences u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w sec. 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 would not at all arise.
239. While discussing about the allegation of using NOC marked at Ex.P.99 as a genuine document knowing it to be a forged one by accused No.2 and 4 for registration of sale deeds Ex.P.371 and Ex.P.374, I have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that Ex.P.99 is a forged document. So also I held that the accused No.2 to 4 were not under the legal 332 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J obligation to produce NOC from BDA in view of Notification dated 10.5.1999 marked at Ex.P.87(b). Thus, I held that the production of NOC marked at Ex.P.99 before PW.90 Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram to register the sale deeds at Ex.P.371 and 374 would be in consequential. When prosecution has failed to prove that Ex.P.99 is a forged document, therefore question of accused No.2 and 4 using it as a genuine knowing it to be a forged one does not at all arise.
240. Moreover, there is nothing in the confessional statement of accused No.6 admitting his guilt of abetting accused No.2 and 4 for forgery of NOC marked at Ex.P.99. In view of the principle laid down in the ruling referred above, the confession statement of accused No.6 is also of no avail for prosecution to prove that accused No.2 and 4 have used the Ex.P.99 NOC as a genuine document knowing it to be forged. Thus, the charge leveled against accused No.6 that he has abetted accused No.2 to 4 to create a forged NOC 333 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P.99 has to fail in view of fact that prosecution has failed to prove that Ex.P99 NOC is a forged document. Accordingly, I answer Point No.12 in the negative.
241. POINT NO.13: - The charges leveled against accused No.7 to 13 is that they have abetted accused No.2 to 5 to exercise their personal influence over accused No.1 to do an official favour to accused No.8 and abetted accused No.1 for abuse of his official position, in exercise of the official functions to show favour to accused No.8.
242. Absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record to prove that accused No.7 to 13 have induced accused No.2 to 5, to exercise their personal influence over accused No.1, to do an official favour to accused No.8 and so also absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that accused No.7 to 13 have abetted accused No.1 for abuse of his official position in exercise of his official functions to show favour to accused No.8.
334 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 243. In order to hold that accused No.7 to 13 have induced accused No.2 to 5 to commit the above said offences, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable u/s 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. While discussing on Point No.2 to 6 and 7 to 10, I have already held that accused No.1 has not abused his official position either in the matter of fixation of premium on iron ore, causing delay in fixation of premium or in the matter of imposition of ban on export of iron ore. So also, I have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that MML has suffered loss. Therefore, the question of accused No. 7 to 13 abetting/inducing accused No.2 to 5 to exercise their personal influence over accused No.1, to do an official favour to accused No.8 or abetting accused No.1 for abuse of his official position in exercise of his official function to show favour to accused No.8 does not arise at all. Hence, I answer Point No13 in the negative.
335 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
244. POINT NO.14 - While giving finding on Point No.7 to 10, after elaborate discussion of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution to show that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant in the matter of fixing of premium on iron ore at 50% instead of 60% and imposing ban on export of iron ore, I have already held that absolutely there is no iota of evidence to prove that accused No.1 has abused his official position as a public servant in the said matters and also in the matter of denotifying the land bearing Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village. Therefore, the question of accused No.1 cheating the Govt. of Karnataka with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the State and to make a wrongful gain to his kins does not arise at all. On the other hand, there is ample evidence on record to show that after fixing the premium of iron ore fines at 50%, the MML Ltd., company has started making huge profit compared to 336 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J previous years. The Govt. of Karnataka cannot be said to have sustained any wrongful loss on account of denotification of Sy. No.55/2 of Rachenahalli village, since the denotification of the said land is found to be valid for the discussions made above. Therefore, I answer this point in the negative.
245. POINT NO.15: - For the aforesaid discussions on point No.1 to 14, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged conspiracy between accused No.1 to 13 for commission of the offences alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 13 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 420, 109, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.7, 9, 11, 12, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.9 r/w Sec. 4 of Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.
337 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J The bail bonds of all the accused stands discharged.
M.Os.1 to 6 being the office and officers seals of the BDA, shall be returned to an authorized person of the BDA after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Judgment-Writer directly to type on the computer, typed by him, corrected by me, print out was taken and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 26th day of October 2016) (R.B. Dharmagoudar) XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 G.D. Sheshadri
P.W.2 Balappa Handigund
P.W.3 G.R. Huche Gowda
P.W.4 Smt. G. Leelavathi
P.W.5 G.H. Srinivasappa
P.W.6 Bharathi A.N.
P.W.7 B. Venkatesh
P.W.8 D. Putte Gowda
P.W.9 R.B. Deepak
PW.10 M.K. Shantha Murthy
PW.11 Balemoole Venkatramana Bhat
PW.12 B. Udaya Kumar Reddy
PW.13 B. Nanjundeshwara
PW.14 H.B. Charanraj
338 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
PW.15 P. Krishne Gowda
PW.16 Rajiv Srinivas
PW.17 R. Jagannatha
PW.18 N. Venkatanarayana
PW.19 Reddy Veeranna
PW.20 B.M. Chikkaiah
PW.21 I.K. Venugopala Reddy
PW.22 N. Chandrashekar
PW.23 C. Sridhar
PW.24 K. Gavisiddaiah
PW.25 K. Diwakar
PW.26 Siddaiah
PW.27 K.M. Megharaja
PW.28 M. Panduranga
PW.29 R. Somashekar
PW.30 M.S. Premachandra
PW.31 K. Jothiramalingam
PW.32 Narasimha Raju
PW.33 Channabasappa
PW.34 S. Chandrappa
PW.35 Shiv Kumar C.L.
PW.36 B.G. Nanda Kumar
PW.37 Puttalingaiah
PW.38 B.R. Krishnan
PW.39 Chinnaswamy Ethiraj
PW.40 N. Gangadhar
PW.41 Raju. B
PW.42 Narayana P
PW.43 Gururaj P.R.
PW.44 Srinivasa Rao K
PW.45 C.G. Raikar
PW.46 Jannappa
PW.47 Subramanya Shagrithaya P
PW.48 P.S. Venkatakrishna
PW.49 N.A. Ramesh
PW.50 V. Ashwath
PW.51 Y.R. Gurumurthy Jois
339 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
PW.52 Sunil Kumar Khare
PW.53 N. Giridhar Rao
PW.54 P.G. Anantha Narayan
PW.55 S. Santhosh Kumar
PW.56 Dr. S.S. Gupta
PW.57 P.M. Rajendran
PW.58 Nijaguni C. Paloti
PW.59 K. Yuvaraj
PW.60 B. Kamalaksha Shetty
PW.61 C.R. Anjaneyalu
PW.62 Har Ravindra Lal
PW.63 K.H. Shivakumar
PW.64 S.R. Shivashankar
PW.65 Chandrashekar
PW.66 M. Vasudev Murthy
PW.67 S.V. Ranganath
PW.68 Sarbesh Kumar Das
PW.69 Bala Ravi
PW.70 Dr. Shinde Bhimsen Rao H
PW.71 M. Raju
PW.72 M.S. Rajesh Kannan
PW.73 M. Rudrappa
PW.74 C. Basavaraju
PW.75 Jayatheertha P. Galagali
PW.76 B.C. Vishwanath
PW.77 Nilesh A. Pradhan
PW.78 F. Thomas
PW.79 S. Thippeswamy
PW.80 Manjunath S
PW.81 H.R. Shetty
PW.82 V.P. Singh
PW.83 N.L. Nanda
PW.84 Ganesh Babu
PW.85 Raghavendra A. Choudhari
PW.86 M.E Shivalinga Murthy
PW.87 Boraiah
PW.88 M.S. Jagadish
340 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
PW.89 V. Jagadishwara
PW.90 R. Lakshmana Prasad
PW.91 R. Srinivasa
PW.92 Paramesha B.R.
PW.93 Binay Prakash Pandey
PW.94 Manoj Kumar Mahto
PW.95 N. Sriraman
PW.96 B.S. Rama Prasad
PW.97 M.S. Suresh Chandra
PW.98 Harshavardhana
PW.99 N. Ramachandra
PW.100 Girish Kamath
PW.101 K. Parashivaiah
PW.102 S. Munirajappa
PW.103 N. Satish
PW.104 M.S. Nagaraja Rao
PW.105 Pujari Ramaiah
PW.106 N. Kumar
PW.107 B.V. Ravindranath
PW.108 Hiremath Maheshwar
PW.109 C. Gangachikkaiah
PW.110 B.S. Ramachandra
PW.111 Lakshmanan S
PW.112 Ms. Bhawana Khetan
PW.113 T. Ramesh Shetty
PW.114 Nagaraja Aithal
PW.115 Uday Shankar
PW.116 Arun Kalgujjikar
PW.117 Ananaswamy Ravi
PW.118 Rajashekar S.M.
PW.119 Somy Thomas
PW.120 G.C. Vrusabendra Murthy
PW.121 Jaboy K.R.
PW.122 S. Rabhu Babu
PW.123 Biswajit Das
PW.124 Smt. S. Nagashree
PW.125 R.K. Shivanna
341 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Covering letter dt. 23.5.2012 of Sr. Sub-
Registrar, Peenya Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the partition deed dt. 22.2.1969 pertaining to Sy. No.65/2, Rachenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.3 Seizure Memo dt. 23.5.2012 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.125 Ex.P.4 Computerised RTC for the period 2001-02 to 2011-12 in respect of Sy. No. 55/2 Rachenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli - 11 sheets Ex.P.5 Attested copies of Manual RTC for the period 1970-71 to 2001-02 in respect of Sy. No. 55/2 Rachenahalli village - 7 sheets Ex.P.6 Attested copy of Mutation of property Sy. No. 55/2 Rachenahalli village - 7 sheets Ex.P.7 Original affidavit of Smt. Gowramma and Leelavathi rep. by GPA Holder S.N. Krishnaiah Setty Ex.P.7(a) & (b) Signatures of Purchasers Ex.P.7(c) Signature of G.P.A. Holder of seller 342 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P.8 Original Affidavit of R.N. Sohan Kumar & Vijayendra Ex.P8(a) & (b) Signatures of purchasers Ex.P8(c) Signature of PW.90 Ex.P9 Form No.81-A dt. 22.3.2006 Ex.P9(a) & (b) Signature of Purchasers Ex.P9(c) Signature of PW.90 Ex.P10 Original affidavit of M. Panduranga & others Ex.P10(a) Signature of purchaser B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P10(b) Signature of G.P.A. Holder of Sellers (S.N. Krishnaiah Setty) Ex.P10(c) Signature of PW.90 Ex.P11 Original affidavit of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P11(a) & (b) Signature of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P11(c) Signature of PW.90 Ex.P12 Original Form No.81-A Ex.P12(a) Signature of B.Y. Raghavendra on the declaration Ex.P12(b) Signature of PW.90 Ex.P13 Original Seizure Memo dt. 26.5.2012 Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P14 Mutation Register of Rachenahalli village for the year 2005-06.
Ex.P15 Seizure Memo dt. 14.6.2012
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW.125
Ex.P16 Attested copy of Circular dt. 11.9.198
343 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J
Ex.P17 Attested copy of Circular dt. 13.2.2003
Ex.P18 Gazette Notification dt. 3.2.2003 of Govt. of
Karnataka (Preliminary Notification) 179 page Ex.P19 Gazette Notification dt. 23.2.2004 of Govt. of Karnataka (Final Notification) 126 page Ex.P20 One B.D.A. file pertaining to Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli village (M.R. No.550/12) 7 Note sheets 0 12 correspondence sheets Ex.P20(a) Note of PW.20 Ex.P20(b) Initials of PW.20 Ex.P20(c) Initials of Sheristedar Ex.P20(d) & (e) Notices Ex.P20(f) Unserved cover sent by post Ex.P20(g) Sketch Ex.P20(h) Mahazar Ex.P20(i) Award (not signed) Ex.P20(j) Signature of PW.28 of his letter addressed to ALAO, BDA, Bengaluru sheet no.34 in Ex.P20 Ex.P20(k) & (l) Signature with seal of PW.40 in page 40 Ex.P20(m) Signature with seal of PW.40 on P20(h) Ex.P20(n) Mahazar dt. 16.6.2014 at page 23 Ex.P20(p) Sketch at page 24 Ex.P21 One BDA file pertaining to Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli village (total 18 sheets) Ex.P21(a) Relevant Note of PW.2 dt. 16.9.2005 Ex.P21(b) Initials of PW.2 Ex.P21(c) Letter of BDA dt. 24.9.2008 Ex.P21(d) Signature of Dy. Commissioner Ex.P21(e) Signature of PW.20 Ex.P22 Original agreement of sale deed dated 344 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J 26.4.2003 between PW.4 Smt. Gowramma in favour of S.N. Krishnaiah Setty Ex.P22(a) Signature of Smt. Gowramma Ex.P22(b) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P22(c) Signature of S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (purchaser) Ex.P23 Certified copy of GPA dt. 26.4.2003 - 4 sheets Ex.P24 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW4-
CW8 Ex.P25 Seizure Memo dt. 19.6.2012 Ex.P25(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P25(b) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P26 Attested copy of the Gazette Notification dt.
17.4.2007 and enclosures - 6 sheets Ex.P27 Statement of properties registered at higher value in Rachenahalli village during June 2010 to March 2011 in SRO, Banaswadi - 1 sheet Ex.P28 Covering letter dt. 23.6.2010 of Sr. Sub-
Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P29 Attested copies of Index for the period 1.4.2010 to 21.6.2012 of Rachenahalli village (838 sheets) Ex.P30 Report of Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk dt. 2.3.2009 Ex.P30(a) Signature of PW.7 345 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P31 Report of Revenue Inspector, Bengaluru East Taluk dt. 28.2.2009 - 1 sheet Ex.P31(a) Signature of PW.78 Ex.P32 Mahazar dt. 28.2.2009 Ex.P32(a) Signature of PW.78 Ex.P33 Attested copy of Karnataka Govt. Gazette Notification dt. 7.6.1999 - 10 sheets Ex.P34 Seizure Memo dt. 18.6.2012 Ex.P34(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P34(b) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P35 Attested copy of Govt. of Karnataka Letter No. RD/100/LGP/2009 DT. 18.2.2010 - 1 sheet Ex.P36 Office file No. ALN(E) SR(KH)208/2008-09 maintained in Office of D.C., Bengaluru District in respect of conversion of land Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli (80 sheets) Ex.P36(a) Note of PW.8 Ex.P36(b) Signature/Initial of PW.8 Ex.P36(c) Signature of PW.13 Ex.P36(d) Signature of PW.88 at para-5 of the Note sheet (page 2 of the W/S) Ex.P36(e) Signature of PW.85 at Note sheet para 10. Ex.P36(f) Note and signature of PW.88 at para 14 of Note sheets Ex.P36(g) Para No.4 of the Note sheets Ex.P36(h) Intimation Letter dt. 6.3.2009 issued to R.B. Deepak, By Spl.D.C., P.W.D. (page No.60 of Ex.P36) Ex.P36(i) Initial of PW.88 in Ex.P36(h) Ex.P36(j) Conversion order dt. 7.3.2009 issued by 346 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Spl.D.C., Bengaluru Urban District (page 68 & 67 of Ex.P36) Ex.P36(k) Signature PW.102 (after para 4) Ex.P36(l) Para No.9 of Note sheets Ex.P36(m) Signature of PW.102 (after para 9) Ex.P36(n) Para No.13 of the Note sheets Ex.P36(o) Signature of PW.102 (after para No.13) Ex.P37 Letter dt. 7.3.2009 of R.B. Deepak to the Spl. D.C., Bengaluru District.
Ex.P37(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P38 Challan dt. 6.3.2009 for Rs.55/2 Ex.P38(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P39 Challan dt. 6.3.2009 for Rs.54,450/- Ex.P39(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P40 Annexure-I dt. 12.2.2009 of PW.9 addressed to Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk - 1 sheet Ex.P40(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P41 Another Annexure-I dt. 12.2.2009 of PW.9 addressed to Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk - 1 sheet Ex.P41(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P42 Original Agreement in Annexure-IV dt. 6.3.2009 Ex.P42(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P43 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.9/CW14 Ex.P44 Original Registered sale deed dt.22.11.2010 executed in favour of M/s. South West Mining Ltd., 347 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P44(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P44(b) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P44(c) Signature of authorized signatory of M/s.
South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P44(d) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P44(e) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P45 Original registered sale deed dt. 22.11.2010 executed in favour of M/s. South West Mining Ltd., Ex.P45(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P45(b) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P45(c) Signature of authorized signatory of M/s. South West Mining Ltd.
Ex.P45(d) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P45(e) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P46 Registered Special Power of Attorney dt.
21.11.2010 by A2 & A4 in favour of Udaya Kumar Reddy - 6 sheets Ex.P46(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P46(b) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P46(c) Signature of B.Y. Vijayendra Ex.P46(d) Signature of Sohan Kumar Ex.P47 Regd. SPA dt. 21.11.2010 by A3 in favour of Udayakumar Reddy Ex.P47(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P47(b) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P47(c) Signature of A3 Ex.P48 Valuation report dt. 21.6.2010 of Shreeshaila Consulting Engineers (II valuation report) 4 sheets Ex.P48(a) Signature of PW.11 Ex.P49 Rectification Deed dt. 15.12.2010 between 348 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J PW.12 (GPA holder) and South West Mining Ltd., - 3 sheets Ex.P49(a) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P49(b) Signature of Rep. of M/s. South West Mining Ltd.
Ex.P50 Another Rectification Deed dt. 15.12.2010 between PW.12 & M/s. South West Mining Ltd., - 4 sheets Ex.P50(a) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P50(b) Signature of reg. of M/s. South West Mining Ltd.
Ex.P51 & 52 Relevant portions of Statement of PW.12 Ex.P53 Specimen Handwriting of Harshavardhana Ex.P53(a) & (b) Signature of PW.17 Ex.P54 Specimen Handwriting of Mohan Prasad Ex.P54(a) & (b) Signature of PW.17 Ex.P55 Specimen Handwriting of A.M. Siddaraju Ex.P55(a) & (b) Signature of PW.17 Ex.P56 Specimen Handwriting of Ramesh Babu Ex.P56(a) & (b) Signature of PW.17 Ex.P57 Specimen Handwriting/Signature of B.Y. Vijayendra Ex.P57(a) & (b) Signature of PW.18 Ex.P58 Specimen Handwriting/Signature of R.N. Sohan Kumar Ex.P58(a) & (b) Signature of PW.18 Ex.P59 True copy of the sale deed dt. 6.7.2010 349 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Developers.
Ex.P60 True copy of the sale deed dt. 21.7.2010 executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Realty. Ex.P61 True copy of the sale deed dt. 27.7.2010 executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Realty. Ex.P62 True copy of the sale deed dt. 27.7.2010 executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Realty. Ex.P63 True copy of the sale deed dt. 2.8.2010 executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Realty. Ex.P64 True copy of the sale deed dt. 13.8.2010 executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Realty. Ex.P65 True copy of the sale deed dt. 30.3.2011 executed in favour of M/s. Manyatha Realty. Ex.P66 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.19/ CW35 Ex.P67 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.19/ CW35 Ex.P68 One photograph in Ex.D16 (available in Ex.D16) Ex.P69 True copy of the registered sale deed dt.
29.7.2010 in favour of Prakruthi Shelters Ex.P70 Seizure Memo dt. 18.7.2012 Ex.P70(a) Signature of PW.22 Ex.P70(b) Signature of PW.125 350 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P71 Outward Register maintained in the office of Addl. Land Acquisition Officer for the period 19.11.2003 to 28.2.2006.
Ex.P71(a) & (b) Relevant pages at page No.70 & 71 Ex.P72 Letter dt. 18.7.2012 of Addl. Land Acquisition Officer to CBI - 1 sheet Ex.P73 True copy of the registered sale deed dt.
30.3.2011 executed in favour of M/s. N.R. Green Wood Constructions Pvt., Ltd., Ex.P74 Seizure Memo dt. 18.7.2012 Ex.P74(a) Signature of PW.24 Ex.P74(b) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P75 Award Register for the period 21.6.2004 to 6.2.2007 of the Office of DC, (Land Acquisition), BDA Ex.P76 Letter d5. 29.5.2012 of I.T.O., Ward 9(2), Bengaluru to CBI Ex.P76(a) Signature of PW.25 Ex.P77 Certified copy of I.T. returns filed by A6 for the Block Period 1.4.1996 to 26.11.2012 - 29 sheets Ex.P78 Certified copy of I.T. returns for the Annual Year 2003-04 in respect of A6 - 3 sheets Ex.P79 Letter of BDA dt. 24.9.2008 addressed to the Prl. Secretary to Govt., UDD - 1 sheet Ex.P79(a) Initials of PW.29 Ex.P80 Seizure Memo dt. 22.5.2012 Ex.P80(a) Signature of PW.27 351 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P80(b) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P81 Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.
22.3.2006 executed in favour of Vijayendra & R.N. Sohan Kumar - 6 sheets Ex.P82 Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.
21.4.2006 executed in favour of B.Y. Raghavendra - 9 sheets Ex.P83 Certified copy of GPA dt. 26.4.2003 executed in favour of S.N. Krishnaiah Setty - 5 sheets Ex.P84 File No. U.DD/374/BenBhuSwa/2008 pertaining to de-notification of Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli village Ex.P84(a) Application of GPA holder of Smt. Gowramma & Panduranga came along with Ex.P79 Ex.P84(b) Note of PW.29 at para 403 Ex.P84(c) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P84(d) Note (Tippani) dt. 18.10.2008 of Sri. B.G. Nanda Kumar.
Ex.P84(e) Note of Sri. B .S. Yeddyurappa Ex.P84(f) Signature of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa Ex.P84(g) Gazette Notification No. UDD/374/MNX/2008, Bengaluru dated 3.11.2008 in respect of deletion of land Sy. No.55/2 Rachenahalli from Notification. Ex.P84(h) Note at para-4 of PW.30 Ex.P84(i) Signature of PW.30 Ex.P84(j) Endorsement of PW.31 in Ex.P84(a) Ex.P84(k) Signature of PW.31 in Ex.P84(d) Ex.P84(l) Note of PW.31 in Note sheets Ex.P84(m) Signature of PW.31 in Note sheets Ex.P85 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.29 352 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J (CW49) Ex.P86 Letter dt. 22.5.2012 of A.C.I.T to CBI Ex.P86(a) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P87 Copies of I.T. returns for the Annual Year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2009-10 to 2010-11 of R.N. Sohan Kumar - 2 sheets Ex.P88 Seizure Memo dt. 5.6.2012 Ex.P88(a) Signature of PW.33 Ex.P88(b) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P89 One file bearing No. UDD/676/Ben.Bhu.Swa (MNX)2002 pertaining to creation of De- notification Committee.
Ex.P90 Copy of attendance sheet for the month of October 2008 of Urban Development Dept., UDD (B.D.A. Section) 2 sheets Ex.P91 Letter No. UDD274 MNX 2012 dt. 4.6.2012 to CBI Ex.P91(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P92 Letter dt. 3.9.2012 of the Under Secretary, UDD, G.O.K to CBI Ex.P92(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P93 Original file No. UDD 193 MNX for formation of Arkavathi Layout.
Ex.P93(a) Letter dt. 13.2.2004 of BDA to the Prl.
Secretary, U.D.D., Bengaluru.
Ex.P94 Original File No. UDD 193 MNX 2004 (P3) for formation of Arkavathi Layout.
Ex.P94(a) Gazette Notification 21.2.2004 353 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P94(b) Gazette Notification No. UDD 193 MNX 2004 dt. 21.2.2004 Ex.P95 Letter No. UDD 274 MNX 2012 dt. 2 8.09.2012 Ex.P95(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P96 Letter No. UDD 274 MNX 2012 dt. 18.9.2012 of Prl. Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka Ex.P96(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P97 Letter dt. 12.7.2012 of PW.34 Chandrappa Ex.P97(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P98 Proceedings dt. 19.6.2012 drawn at Sy. No.55/2, Rachenahalli village Ex.P98(a) Signature of PW.35 Ex.P98(b) Signature of PW.122 Ex.P98(c) Signature of Shivashankar Ex.P99 Letter dt. 29.3.2006 of BDA addressed to Smt.Gowramma and Smt. G. Leelavathi Ex.P99(a) Initials of PW.90 Ex.P100 Specimen handwritings of G.H. Puttahalagaiah Ex.P100(a) Signature of PW.113 on 1st page Ex.P101 Specimen Handwritings of R.R. Krishnan PW.38 10 sheets (S-80 to 89) Ex.P101(a) Signature of PW.113 Ex.P102 Original Valuation Report Ex.P102(a) Signature of PW.39 Ex.P103 Original Receipt/Bill dt. 11.6.2010 given by C.Ethiraj 354 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P104 Original Bill dt. 25.6.2010 signed by PW.11 authorised signatory of M/s. Shreeshaila Consulting.
Ex.P105 Specimen Signature of PW.39 C. Ethiraj Ex.P106 Relevant portion of 164 statement of C. Ethiraj Ex.P107 Seizure Memo dt. 18.6.2012 Ex.P107(a) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P107(b) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P108 Original dispatch Register pertaining to the office of Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru.
Ex.P109 Original Unofficial Note dt. 15.6.2012 of SLAO Ex.P110 Another original unofficial Note dt.
15.6.2012 of ALAO.
Ex.P111 Specimen Rubber Stamp seal impressions of ALAO, BDA, Bengaluru - 2 sheets Ex.P111(a) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P112 Specimen round seal impressions of BDA Ex.P112(a) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P113 Letter dt. 18.6.2012 signed by the Commissioner, BDA Ex.P114 Seizure Memo dt. 22.5.2012 Ex.P114(a) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P114(b) Signature of PW.125 355 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P115 One BDA file bearing No. LAC-95/2003-04 contains attested second copies of documents.
Ex.P116 One BDA file containing attested scanned copies of documents.
Ex.P117 Letter dt. 4.6.2012 from the A.C.T.O., Circle-
1, Shimoga.
Ex.P117(a) Signature of PW.109 Ex.P118 I.T. Returns of B.N. Raghavendra Ex.P119 I.T. Returns of B.Y. Vijayendra Ex.P120 Letter dt. 23.5.2012 of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Shimoga.
Ex.P120(a) Signature of PW.109 Ex.P121 I.T. Returns of A2 & A3 for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11.
Ex.P122 Letter dt. 25/5/2012 of Dy. Inspector General of Registration (one sheet only) Ex.P123 Certified copy of the trust deed dt. 28.8.2006 in the name of Prerana Educational & Social Trust.
Ex.P123(a) Signature of PW.45 Ex.P124 Letter dt. 22.5.2012 from the District Registrar, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru. Ex.P125 Letter dt. 23.5.2012 of SBM, CCPC, Bengaluru.
Ex.P125(a) Signature of A.G.M. 356 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P126 S.B.M., Toranagallu Cheque No.2418 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- favouring B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P126(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P126(b) Signature of P.M. Rajendran Ex.P127 S.B.M. Cheque No.4367 for Rs.2,50,00,000/- favouring B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P127(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P127(b) Signature of Warrier Ex.P128 S.B.M. Cheque No.4442 for Rs.2,50,00,000/- in favour of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P128(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P128(b) Signature of Warrier Ex.P129 S.B.M. Cheque No.4368 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of A3 Ex.P129(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P129(b) Signature of P.M. Rajendran Ex.P130 S.B.M. Cheque No.4443 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of A2 Ex.P130(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P130(b) Signature of P.M. Rajendran Ex.P131 S.B.M. Cheque No.2420 for Rs.2.5 crores In favour of A4 Ex.P131(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P131(b) Signature of P.M. Rajendran Ex.P132 S.B.M. Cheque No.4369 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of A4 Ex.P132(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P132(b) Signature of Warrier 357 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P133 S.B.M. Cheque No.4444 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of A24 Ex.P133(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P133(b) Signature of P.M. Rajendran Ex.P134 S.B.M. Cheque No.2419 for Rs.2,50,00,000/- in favour of A2 Ex.P134(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P134(b) Signature of P.M. Rajendran Ex.P135 S.B.M. Cheque No.433037 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- In favour of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust Ex.P136 S.B.M. Cheque No.433553 for Rs.3,20,00,000/- In favour of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust Ex.P136(a) Signature of PW.52 Ex.P136(b) Signature of Thomas Nelli Ex.P137 Cheque No.433757 for Rs.3,40,00,000/- In favour of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust Ex.P137(a) Signature of PW.52 Ex.P137(b) Signature of Muralidhar Dash Ex.P138 SBM Cheque No.455364 for Rs.3,40,00,000/- in favour of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust Ex.P138(a) Signature of PW.52 Ex.P138(b) Signature of Vivekananda Kulakarni Ex.P139 Letter dt. 20.6.2012 of SBM Ex.P140 SBM DD No. 513628 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
358 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P141 SBM DD No. 513629 dt. 22.11.2010 for Rs.9,00,00,000/- in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P142 SBM DD No. 513630 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P143 SBM DD No. 513631 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P144 SBM DD No. 513632 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P145 SBM DD No. 513633 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P146 SBM DD No. 513634 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P147 SBM DD No. 513635 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P148 SBM DD No. 513636 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P149 SBM DD No. 513637 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P150 SBM DD No. 513638 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.Pl51 SBM DD No. 513639 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P152 SBM DD No. 513640 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
359 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P153 SBM Cheque No.433038 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- in favour of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust Ex.P153(a) Signature of PW.61 Ex.P154 Seizure Memo dt. 24.5.2012 Ex.P154(a) Signature of PW.48 Ex.P155 Account opened in the name of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust maintained in Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P155(a) Letter enclosed to account opening form Ex.P155(b) Resolution dated 22.4.2011 Ex.P156 Statement of account of M/s Prerana Education & Social Trust maintained in Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P156(a) Certificate Ex.P157 Seizure Memo dt. 25.5.2002 Ex.P157(a) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P157(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P158 Certified copy of statement of account in the name of M/s South-West Mining was held with SBM, Toranagallu Branch.
Ex.P158(a) Certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act Ex.P158(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P159 Seizure Memo dt. 31.5.2012 Ex.P159(a) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P159(b) Signature of PW.121 360 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P160 Statement of account of Real Technical Services maintained with SBM, Toranagallu Branch, Bellary.
Ex.P160(a) Certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act Ex.P160(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P161 Statement of account of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical maintained with SBM, Toranagallu Branch, Bellary.
Ex.P161(a) Certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act Ex.P161(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P161(c) Relevant entry for Rs.3,43,00,000/- Ex.P161(d) Relevant entry for Rs.3,43,00,000/- Ex.P162 Statement of account of M/s. Industrial Techno maintained with SBM, Toranagallu Branch, Bellary. (150 sheets) Ex.P162(a) Certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act Ex.P162(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P163 SBM Cheque No.69688 for Rs.52,96,615/-
in favour of M/s. South West Mining.
Ex.P164 SBM Pay-in-slip dt. 15.3.2010 for Rs.52,96,615/-
Ex.P165 SBM Cheque for Rs.33,35,957/- favouring South-West Mining Ex.P166 SBM Credit slip dt. 15.3.2010 for Rs.33,35,957/-
Ex.P167 SBM cheque for Rs.26 lakhs in favour of South West Mining Ltd., Ex.P168 SBM Credit slip for Rs.26,00,000/-
361 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P169 SBM Cheque No. 87924 for Rs.10,00,00,000/- in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P170 SBM Credit Slip for Rs. Ten crores dt.
12.8.10 Ex.P171 SBM Cheque for Rs.50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P172 SBM Credit Slip dt.12.8.2010 for Rs.50,00,000/-
Ex.P173 SBM Cheque No. 66066 for Rs.50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P174 SBM Credit Slip dt. 12.8.10 Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P175 SBM Credit Slip dt. 13.8.10 Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P176 SBM Credit Slip dt. 14.8.10 Rs.25,00,000/- Ex.P177 SBM Cheque No. 66255 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P178 SBM Credit Slip dated 31.8.2010 for Rs.5,00,00,000/-
Ex.P179 SBM Cheque No. 662381 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P180 SBM Credit Slip for Rs.3,00,00,000/-
dt.8.9.10 Ex.P181 SBM Credit Slip dated 22.6.2010 for 362 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Rs.11,91,24,000/-
Ex.P182 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print for transaction dt. 26.2.2010 for Rs.11,91,24,000/-
Ex.P182(a) Certificate Ex.P182(b) Signature on Ex.P182(a) Ex.P183 SBM Credit Slip dated 22.2.2010 for Rs.3,43,00,000/-
Ex.P184 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out for transaction dt. 22.2.2010 for Rs.3,43,00,000/-
Ex.P184(a) Certificate Ex.P184(b) Signature on Ex.P184(a) Ex.P185 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out for transaction dt. 22.2.2010 for Rs.3,43,00,000/-
Ex.P185(a) Certificate Ex.P185(b) Signature on Ex.P185(a) Ex.P186 SBM Credit Slip dated 22.2.2010 for Rs.3,43,00,000/-
Ex.P187 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out for transaction dt. 22.2.2010 for Rs.3,43,00,000/-
Ex.P187(a) Certificate Ex.P187(b) Signature on Ex.P187(a) Ex.P188 SBM Credit Slip dated 22.2.2010 for Rs.3,43,00,000/-
Ex.P189 Seizure Memo dt. 08.06.2012 Ex.P189(a) Signature of PW.50 363 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P189(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P190 Account opening form of M/s. Jai Bharath with SBM, Toranagallu with enclosures - 33 sheets Ex.P191 Letter dt. 22.11.2010 of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., to the Branch Manager, SBM, Toranagallu.
Ex.P192 Letter dt. 27.9.2006 of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., to the Branch Manager, SBM, Toranagallu for working capital.
Ex.P193 Letter dt. 12.8.2009 of M/s. South-West Mining for renewal of CC Limit of Rs. Five crores Ex.P194 Letter dt. 09.03.2011 of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., to the Branch Manager, SBM, Toranagallu requesting for renewal of working capital.
Ex.P195 SBM Cheque No.69543 for Rs.2,50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P196 Credit Slip dt. 27.2.2010 for Rs.2,50,00,000/-
Ex.P197 SBM Cheque No.69545 for Rs.50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P198 Credit Slip dt. 2.3.2010 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P199 SBM Cheque No.69570 for Rs.1,15,92,038/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P200 Credit Slip dt. 4.3.2010 for Rs.1,15,92,038/-
364 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P201 SBM Cheque No.69114 for Rs.50 lakhs in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P202 Credit Slip dt. 5.3.2010 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P203 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out for transaction of Rs.50,00,000/- to the account of M/s. South-West Mining Ex.P203(a) Certificate Ex.P203(b) Signature Ex.P204 Credit Slip for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P205 SBM Cheque No.69622 for Rs.50,01,469/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P206 SBM Credit Slip for Rs.50,01,469/- Ex.P207 SBM Cheque No.69629 for Rs.50,92,653/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ex.P208 Original Credit Slip for Rs.50,92,653/- Ex.P209 SBM Cheque No.73007 for Rs.3,50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P210 SBM Credit Slip dt. 11.3.2010 for Rs.3,50,00,000/- in favour of South-West Mining Ltd.
Ex.P211 SBM Cheque No.268783 for Rs.50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P212 Credit Slip for Rs.50,00,000/-
365 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P213 SBM Cheque No.268789 for Rs.60,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P214 Credit Slip dt. 18.3.2010 for Rs.60,00,000=00 Ex.P215 SBM Cheque No.69725 for Rs.1,50,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P216 Credit Slip for Rs.1,50,00,000/- Ex.P217 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out for Credit of Rs.24,00,000/- to the account of M/s. South-West Mining Ex.P217(a) Certificate Ex.P217(b) Signature on P217(a) Ex.P218 Credit slip dt. 19.3.2010 for Rs.24,00,000/- Ex.P219 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out to the account of M/s. South-West Mining Ex.P219(a) Certificate Ex.P219(b) Signature on certificate Ex.P220 & 221 Two Credit Slips dt. 23.3.2010 Ex.P222 Certified copy of Sareen Shot Print out for Credit of Rs.31,29,683/- to the account of M/s. South-West Mining Ex.P222(a) Certificate Ex.P222(b) Signature on Ex.P222(a) Ex.P223 Credit Slip for Rs.31,29,683/- dt. 25.3.2010 Ex.P224 SBM Cheque No.73098 for Rs.25,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., 366 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P225 Credit Slip dt. 25.3.2010 Ex.P226 SBM Cheque No.73097 for Rs.49,35,425/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P227 Credit Slip for Rs.25,00,000/- dt. 26.3.2010 Ex.P228 SBM Cheque No.66254 for Rs.30,00,000/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P229 Credit Slip for Rs.49,35,425/- Ex.P230 SBM Cheque No.87986 for Rs.32,14,344/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P231 Credit Slip for Rs.30,00,000/- dt. 31.8.2010 Ex.P232 SBM Cheque No.66355 for Rs.50,06,052/-
in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P233 Credit Slip dt. 31.8.2010 for Rs.32,14,344/- Ex.P234 SBM Cheque No.2197 for Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P235 Credit Slip dated 8.9.2010 for Rs.50,06,052/-
Ex.P236 SBM Cheque No.2199 for Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of South-West Mining Ltd., Ex.P237 Credit Slip dt. 8.9.2010 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P238 Credit Slip dt. 8.9.2010 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P239 Seizure Memo dt. 28.5.2012 Ex.P239(a) Signature of PW.51 367 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P240 One file containing Account Opening form of M/s. Prerana Education & Social Trust Ex.P241 Statement of account of M/s. Prerana Education & Social Trust - 48 sheets Ex.P241(a) Certificate Ex.P241(b) Signature of Ex.P241(a) Ex.P242 Seizure Memo dated 1.6.2012 Ex.P242(a) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P252(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P243 Account opening form and enclosure of M/s.
Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, Shikaripura.
Ex.P244 Statement of account of M/s. Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, Shikaripura. Ex.P244(a) Certificate Ex.P244(b) Signature Ex.P245 SBM, Vinoba Nagar Branch, Shimoga Ch.
No.50674 for Rs.4,00,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, Shikaripura.
Ex.P246 Seizure Memo dt. 26.5.2012 Ex.P246(a) Signature of PW.54 Ex.P247 One file containing letter dt. 25.5.2012 of M/s. Prerana Trust and documents mentioned in the letter (total 84 sheets) Ex.P248 Seizure Memo dt. 5.6.2012 Ex.P248(a) Signature of PW.54 Ex.P248(b) Signature of PW.121 368 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P249 One file containing certified print out copies of Journal Register of M/s. Prerana Trust Ex.P249(a) Certificate u/s 65 B I.E. Act Ex.P249(b) Signature of PW.54 on 249(a) Ex.P250 Seizure Memo dt. 14.6.2012 Ex.P250(a) Signature of PW.54 Ex.P250(b) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P251 Original registered sale deed dt. 4.10.2011 executed in favour of M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust - 6 sheets Ex.P252 Original registered GPA dt. 3.10.2011 executed in favour of B.Y. Raghavendra by the A1 Ex.P253 Letter dt. 14.6.2012 of M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust to CBI Ex.P254 True copy of the Deed of Variation dt. 25.6.2007 - 9 sheets Ex.P255 Letter dt. 6.6.2012 of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services to the CBI Ex.P256 File containing Financial Statements of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Service Ex.P256(a) Relevant entry at page 28 Ex.P257 Certified copy of Ledger Account for the period 9.2.2010 to 25.2.2010 of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services Ex.P257(a) Certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act Ex.P257(b) Signature of PW.55 369 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P258 File containing original work orders/ cancellation letter etc., in respect of Jai Bharath Ex.P259 Minutes of Board Meeting of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services for the financial year 2009-10 Ex.P260 Minutes of Board Meeting of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services for the financial year 2010-11 Ex.P261 One file containing list of Directors of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services. Ex.P262 Original agreement to sell between Vijayendra, R.N. Sohan Kumar and M/s. South West Mining Ltd., dt. 28.7.2010. Ex.P262(a) Signature of PW.57 Ex.P262(b) Signature of Vikash Sharma Ex.P263 Extracts of Board Meeting dt. 28.7.2010 of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd.
Ex.P264 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.57/CW.86 Ex.P265 Letter dt. 6.6.2012 of District Registrar, Dept. of Stamps Ex.P265(a) Signature of District Registrar Ex.P266 Certified copy of Trust Deed dt. 30.8.1996 of M/s. Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. Ex.P267 Certified copy of Supplementary Deed of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe, Shikaripura 370 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P268 Letter dt. 6.6.2012 of M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply Ex.P268(a) Signature of the Director Ex.P269 Certified extract of Books of Accounts of M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply Ex.P269(a) Certificate u/s 65-B Ex.P269(b) Signature of PW.59 Ex.P270 File containing certified financial statement (Auditor's Report) of Industrial Techno - 68 sheets Ex.P271 One file containing work orders/ cancellation letters etc., of M/s. Industrial Techno - 7 sheets Ex.P272 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.59/CW83.
Ex.P273 Seizure Memo dt. 29.5.2012 Ex.P274 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.59/CW83 Ex.P275 Minutes of Board Meeting of M/s. Industrial Techno for financial year 2009-10 - 8 sheets Ex.P276 Minutes of Board Meeting of M/s. Industrial Techno for financial year 2010-11 - 4 sheets Ex.P277 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.59/CW83 Ex.P278 Seizure Memo dt. 18.6.2012 Ex.P278(a) Signature of PW.60 Ex.P278(b) Signature of PW.121 371 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P279 Certified copy of Current Account opening form in the name of Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd., and enclosure bearing A/c. No. 039500300000001 at Vijaya Bank, Toranagallu Branch - 6 sheets Ex.P280 Certified copy of Statement of account of JVSL for the period 1.1.2010 to 30.9.2011 (85 sheets) Ex.P280(a) Certificate u/s 2A BBE Act Ex.P280(b) Signature of PW.60 Ex.P281 Certified copy of account opening form in the name of JVSL bearing A/c No. 139500300000366 at Vijaya Bank - 8 sheets Ex.P282 Certified copy of statement of account in A/c No. 139500300000366 of JVSL for the period 1.1.2010 to 30.9.2010 Ex.P282(a) Certificate U/s 2A BBE Act Ex.P282(b) Signature of PW.60 Ex.P283 Certified copy of Account opening form in the A/c. No. 39500301000052 of JVSL at Vijaya Bank, Toranagallu Branch - 20 sheets Ex.P284 Certified copy of statement of Account of JSWL at Vijaya Bank, Toranagallu (229 sheets) Ex.P285 Cheque No. 66875 for Rs.3,43,00,000/- in favour of Real Technical Services of M/s. JSW Steels Ex.P286 Cheque No. 66874 for Rs.3,43,00,000/- in 372 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J favour of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical of M/s. JSW Steels Ex.P287 Cheque No. 66876 for Rs.3,43,00,000/- in favour of M/s Industrial Techno Firm of M/s. JSW Steels Ex.P288 Certified copy of cheque for Rs.11,91,24,000/- in favour of South-West Mining and enclosures Ex.P289 Cheque No. 66970 for Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of South - West Mining from M/s. J.S.W. Steels Ex.P290 Cheque No. 64130 for Rs.11,71,113/- in favour of South - West Mining from M/s. J.S.W. Steels Ex.P291 Cheque No. 64169 for Rs.64,03,077/- in favour of South - West Mining of M/s. J.S.W. Steels Ex.P292 Cheque No. 77406 for Rs.31,29,683/- of M/s. J.S.W. Steels in favour of South - West Mining Ex.P293 Cheque No. 77404 for Rs.22,22,843/- in favour of South - West Mining from M/s. J.S.W. Steels Ex.P294 Cheque No. 92310 from M/s. J.S.W. Steels for Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of South - West Mining Ltd., Ex.P295 Letter dt. 26.6.2012 of PW.62 to CBI Ex.P295(a) Signature of PW.62 373 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P296 Service & Salary particulars of S.K. Khare, Anjaneyalu and 2 others Ex.P296(a) Signature of PW.62 Ex.P297 Letter dt. 9.7.2012 of the Investigating Officer Ex.P297(a) Signature of PW.62 Ex.P298 Service & Salary particulars of Suresh Pandey and Thomas Nelli Ex.P298(a) Signature of PW.62 Ex.P299 Letter dt. 7.7.2012 of Tahsildar, Shikaripura Ex.P299(a) Signature of PW.63 Ex.P300 Attested copy of the extract of Electoral Roll of the Election Commission, Shikaripura Assembly Ex.P301 Attested copy of Genealogy Tree of B.S. Yeddyurappa and his family members. Ex.P302 to 303 Ration Card details of A2 and A3 Ex.P304 Seizure Memo dated 20.7.2012 Ex.P304(a) Signature of PW.63 Ex.P304(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P305 Original Mahazar dt. 6.7.2012 prepared by the Revenue Inspector, Shikaripura Taluk Ex.P306 Letter dt. 3.7.2012 of Tahsildar, Shikaripura Taluk Ex.P306(a) Signature of PW.63 Ex.P307 Attested copy of the Electoral Roll in respect of Shikaripura Assembly Constituency 374 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P307(a) Certificate u/s 65B I.E. Act Ex.P307(b) Signature of PW.63 in Ex.P307(a) Ex.P308 Letter dt. 22.5.2002 of the Under Secretary, Dept. of CBI Ex.P308(a) Signature of the Under Secretary Ex.P309 One file of Dept. of Commerce & Industries pertaining to ban of export of Iron one. Ex.P309(a) Letter dt. 9.6.2010 of Govt. of India (at page No.6) Ex.P309(b) 1st Note of PW.64 in the Note sheets Ex.P309(c) Initials of PW.64 at page-1 of the Note sheets Ex.P309(d) Note and signature of the then C.M. B.S. Yeddyurappa in the Note sheets Ex.P309(e) Govt. Order dt. 28.7.2010 regarding ban of export of iron ore (at pages 75 to 77) Ex.P309(f) Letter dt. 11.8.2010 of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa to the Minister of Mines, Govt. of India for steps taken to curbing illegal mining activities at pages (153 to 157) Ex.P309(g) Govt. order dt. 26.7.2010 at page Nos.103 to 90 Ex.P309(h) Govt. Order dt. 28.7.2010 at page Nos. 117 to 114 Ex.P309(i) Govt. Order dt. 28.7.2010 at page Nos. 90 to 88 Ex.P309(j) Signature of PW.86 Ex.P309(k) Letter dt. 26.7.2010 of Sri. B.S. Ramaprasad, IAS, Secretary, C & I, Govt. of Karnataka to Secretary, PWD, Ports Ex.P309(l) Para Nos.15 to 21 of Note sheets in Ex.P309 Ex.P309(m) Signature of Joint Secretary Ex.P309(n) Signature of PW.96 Ex.P310 File No. CI/37/CMC/2007 (Computer 375 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J No.37364) of Mines Department.
Ex.P310(a) Note dt. 11.8.1999 at para-73 of PW.66 at page No.19 Ex.P310(b) Signature of PW.66 (at page No.19 of N/S in Ex.P310) Ex.P310(c) Note at para 118 of the then C.M. (at page 32 of N/S) Ex.P310(d) Signature of B.S. Yeddyurappa (at page No.32 of N/S) Ex.P310(e) Letter dt. 17.3.2010 to M.D., MML at page No.376-375 Ex.P310(f) JSW Letter dated 22.1.2010 from Sri. Sajjan Jindal, CMD of M/s. JSW to the Chief Minister Ex.P310(g) Endorsement with signature in Ex.P310(f) Ex.P310(h) Original letter dt. 28.7.2009 of MML to Secretary to Govt. at page Nos. 139 to 137 Ex.P310(i) Signature of PW.95 in Ex.P310(h) Ex.P310(j) Letter dt. 8.2.2010 of JSW to MD, MML at page No.333 & 332 Ex.P310(k) Initials of PW.96 in Ex.D31 at page No.151 Ex.P310(l) Fax copy of Ex.P310(f) at page Nos. 296 to 294 Ex.P310(m) Initials of PW.96 in Ex.P310(l) Ex.P310(n) Initials of PW.96 in Ex.P310(f) Ex.P310(o) Note sheets at para 110 to 116 of PW.96 Ex.P310(p) Signature of PW.96 Ex.P310(q) Signature of Chief Secretary Ex.P311 Seizure Memo dt. 11.7.2012 Ex.P311(a) Signature of PW.65 Ex.P312 One booklet of M/s. MML reg. Note on the status of exploitation of iron ore reserves of T.I.O.M. through Joint Venture.
Ex.P312(a) Attested copy of letter dt. 17.3.2010 of Govt.
of Karnataka to M.D., MML.
376 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P313 One MML file No. MML/HKJ/JW/JSW/569/ 06-07 (Volume-I) Ex.P313(a) Proceedings dt. 20.11.2009 of MML Director at page No.421 to 417 - 5 sheets Ex.P313(b) Proceedings dt. 17.2.2010 of Meeting regarding review of M.O.U. at page Nos. 480 to 477 Ex.P314 M.O.U. dt. 17.1.1997 between M/s. MML and M/s. JVSL (original) Ex.P315 Statement of details of sales realization in respect of T.I.O. for the period from 2000-01 to 2009-10 with details of premium - 11 sheets Ex.P316 Seizure Memo dt. 7.8.2012 Ex.P316(a) Signature of PW.71 Ex.P317 Attested copy of partnership dt. 21.10.1996 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products - 5 sheets Ex.P318 Attested copy of instrument of partnership dt. 16.10.2004 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products.
Ex.P319 I.T. Returns with P & L A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2001-02 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products.
Ex.P320 I.T. Returns with Assessment Order, P & L A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2002-03 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products. Ex.P321 I.T. Returns with Assessment Order, P & L 377 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2003-04 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products. Ex.P322 I.T. Returns with Assessment Order, P & L A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2004-05 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products. Ex.P323 I.T. Returns with Assessment Order, P & L A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2005-06 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products. Ex.P324 I.T. Returns with Assessment Order, P & L A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2006-07 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products. Ex.P325 I.T. Returns with Assessment Order, P & L A/c and balance sheet for the annual year 2007-08 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products. Ex.P326 Attested copies of statement of Income, balance sheet etc., for the annual year 2005- 06 and 2007-08 of M/s. J.A.M.Pipes.
Ex.P327 Attested copy of Instrument of Partnership dt. 16.4.2010 of M/s. J.A.M.Pipes.
Ex.P328 Seizure Memo dt. 8.8.2012 Ex.P328(a) Signature of PW.72 Ex.P329 I.T. returns with P & L A/c, M & T A/c, balance sheet for the year 2005-06 of M/s. J.A.M.Pipes Ex.P330 I.T. returns with P & L A/c, M & T A/c, for the year 2006-07 of M/s. J.A.M.Pipes Ex.P331 I.T. returns with P & L A/c, M & T A/c, 378 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J balance sheet for the year 2007-08 of M/s. J.A.M. Pipes Ex.P332 Letter dt. 21.6.2012 of PW.73 to the Commissioner, I.T. Ex.P332(a) Signature of PW.73 Ex.P333 Letter dt. 21.6.2012 of Dy. Commissioner, I.T., to the Commissioner of I.T. Bengaluru. Ex.P334 Letter dt. 21.6.2012 of Addl. Commissioner of I.T., Rang-II Bengaluru to the Commissioner of I.T. Bengaluru.
Ex.P335 The Karnataka Govt. (transaction of business) Rules, 1977 - 1 Book.
Ex.P336 Govt. Order No. Na.Aa.Ee/854/BenBhuSwa/ 2010 dt. 29.10.2010 (for re-constitution of de-notification committee) Ex.P337 Relevant portion of 161 statement given by the PW.74/CW124.
Ex.P338 Letter dt. 3.8.2012 of PW.75 Ex.P338(a) Signature of PW.75 Ex.P339 Copy of "who is who" details Ex.P340 Attested copy of Election Certificate in respect of A6 Ex.P341 Original account opening form of Sri. Vijayendra maintained in Karnataka Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and enclosure (A/c. No.514001) Ex.P342 Certified copy of statement of A/c pertaining 379 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J to B.Y. Vijayendra maintained in Karnataka Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Bengaluru with certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act Ex.P342(a) Certification u/s 2A of BBE Act. Ex.P343 Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Form No.32, Articles of Associations etc., (34 sheets) in respect of Industrial Techno. Ex.P344 Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Form No.32, Articles of Association etc., pertaining to M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services - 29 sheets Ex.P345 Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Form No.32, Articles of Association etc., pertaining to M/s. Real Technical Solutions Pvt., Ltd., - 30 sheets Ex.P346 File No. PWD/186/PSP/2000 pertaining to ban of export of iron ore from Karnataka State Ex.P346(a) Note Para No.5 in Note sheets Ex.P346(b) Signature of PW.79 Ex.P346(c) Note and signature of Secretary Ex.P346(d) Govt. Order dt. 26.7.2010 (at page Nos. 42 to 39) signed by PW.79 regarding ban on export of iron ore Ex.P346(e) Note and signature of Port Minister at Note No.13 Ex.P346(f) Signature of Chief Minister at Note No.14 Ex.P347 Receipt Memo dated 25.5.2012 Ex.P347(a) Signature of Addl. Secretary to the Govt. Ex.P348 Seizure Memo dt. 21.8.2012 380 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P348(a) Signature of PW.80 Ex.P348(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P349 Original Minutes/Resolution Book of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe Trust Ex.P349(a) Signature of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa Ex.P349(b) Signature of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P349(c) Signature of Vijayendra Ex.P349(d) Signature of M.B. Shivakumar Ex.P349(e) Signature of Smt. Tejaswini Raghavendra Ex.P350 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.80/ CW135 Ex.P351 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.80/ CW135 Ex.P352 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.80/ CW135 Ex.P353 Search List dt. 16.5.2012 Ex.P353(a) Signature of PW.82 Ex.P353(b) Signature of Sri. K. Venkatesha Ex.P354 Search List dt. 16.5.2012 Ex.P354(a) Signature of PW.83 Ex.P354(b) Signature of Sajjan Rao Ex.P355 One bunch of papers (14 sheets) seized from the residence of A9 Ex.P355(a) Signature of PW.83 Ex.P355(b) Signature of Sajjan Rao Ex.P356 Search List dt. 16.5.2012 Ex.P356(a) Signature of PW.84 Ex.P356(b) Signature of CW147 Thirumalachar Ex.P356(c) Signature of PW.123 381 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P357 One spiral binded book captioned as "Dept. of Mines & Geology"
Ex.P357(a) Signature of PW.84 Ex.P357(b) Signature of Thirumalachar (CW147) Ex.P358 Search List dt. 16.5.2012 Ex.P358(a) Signature of PW.85 Ex.P358(b) Signature of CW.150 Ex.P358(c) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P359 One file contains copy of trust deed dt.
28.8.2006 and other papers seized from the office of M/s. Prerana Trust - 30 sheets Ex.P359(a) Signature of PW.85 Ex.P359(b) Signature of V.S. Shetkar Ex.P360 One file seized from the o/o M/s. Prerana Trust - 34 sheets Ex.P360(a) Signature of PW.85 Ex.P360(b) Signature of V.S. Shetkar Ex.P361 Receipt Book of M/s. Prerana Trust Ex.P361(a) Signature of PW.85 Ex.P361(b) Signature of V.S. Shetkar Ex.P362 Minutes Register of M/s. Prerana Trust Ex.P362(a) Signature of PW.85 Ex.P362(b) Signature of V.S. Shetkar Ex.P363 One file seized from the office of M/s.
Prerana Trust - 15 sheets Ex.P363(a) Signature of PW.85 Ex.P363(b) Signature of V.S. Shetkar Ex.P364 Letter dated 31.3.2010 of M/s. JSW to the Director, Mines & Geology
382 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P364(a) Signature and endorsement of PW.86 Ex.P365 Letter dt. 19.4.2010 of PW.86 to Secretary, Commerce & Industries, Govt. of Karnataka regarding status of cases.
Ex.P365(a) Signature of PW.86.
Ex.P366 Letter dt. 31.3.2010 of M/s. South West Mining Ltd., to the Director, Dept. of Mines & Geology, along with copy of the letter dt. 23.3.2010 of Govt. of India to Govt. of Karnataka Ex.P366(a) Endorsement and signature of PW.86 Ex.P367 Letter dt. 23.4.2010 of Director, Mines & Geology to the Secretary to Govt. of Commerce & Industries, Govt. of Karnataka.
Ex.P367(a) Signature of PW.86 Ex.P368 Letter dt. 9.8.2010 of the Director, Mines & Geology to Secretary, C & I, GOK, regarding status of cases pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Ex.P368(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P369 One file containing I-Form, Check List, Form-21 affidavit etc., in respect of Sy. No.55/2 Rachenahalli village - 6 sheets Ex.P369(a) I-Form Ex.P369(b) Form No.21 Ex.P369(c) Check List Ex.P369(d) Declaration in Form 81-A Ex.P369(e) Copy of the affidavit of Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Leelavathi Ex.P369(f) Copy of the affidavit of R.N. Sohan Kumar 383 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J and B.Y. Vijayendra Ex.P369(g) Signature of PW.87 in Ex.P369(a) Ex.P369(h) V.A. Shara in Ex.P369(b) Ex.P369(i) Signature of Village Accountant in 369(b) Ex.P370 One file containing I-Form, Check List, Form-21 affidavit etc., in respect of Sy. No.55/2 Rachenahalli village - 14 sheets Ex.P370(a) I-Form Ex.P370(b) Form No.21 Ex.P370(c) Check List Ex.P370(d) Declaration in Form 81-A Ex.P370(e) Copy of the affidavit of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P370(f) Signature of PW.87 in Ex.P370(a) Ex.P370(g) Shara of Village Accountant in Ex.P370(b) Ex.P370(h) Signature of Village Accountant in 370(b) Ex.P371 Original Registered sale deed dt. 22.3.2006 executed by Smt. Gowramma and Smt. G. Leelavathi rep. by GPA Holder S.N. Krishnaiah Setty in favour of B.Y. Vijayendra and R.N. Sohan Kumar - 6 sheets Ex.P371(a) Signature of S.N. Krishnaiah Setty Ex.P371(b) Signature of B.Y. Vijayendra Ex.P371(c) Signature of R.N. Sohan Kumar Ex.P371(d) Signature of PW.90 for pending registration Ex.P371(e) Signature of PW.90 for registering the document.
Ex.P372 Original letter dt. Nil addressed to Sub-
Registrar, K.R. Puram from R. N. Sohan Kumar and B.Y. Vijayendra for pending registration Ex.P372(a) Initials of PW.90 Ex.P373 Letter dt. Nil from B.Y. Vijayendra and R.N. 384 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Sohan Kumar to the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, for production of NOC from BDA Ex.P373(a) Initial of PW.90 Ex.P374 Original Registered sale deed dt. 21.4.2006 executed by S.N. Krishnaiah Setty (GPA holder of H. Panduranga, P. Hari, Smt. Varalakshmi, Smt. B. Shashikala and Smt. Sulochana) in favour of Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra - 5 sheets Ex.P374(a) Signature of A6 S.N. Krishnaiah Setty Ex.P374(b) Signature of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P374(c) Signature of PW.90 Ex.P374(d) Signature of PW.90 for registration Ex.P375 & 376 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.92/CW31 Ex.P377 Letter dt. 22.5.2002 of South West Mining Ltd., to CBI for production of documents Ex.P377(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P378 Details of payments made for purchase of land situated at Rachenahalli of M/s. South West Mining Ltd.
Ex.P379 Valuation Report dt. 3.8.2011 of M/s. Cushman & Wakefield - 17 sheets Ex.P379(a) Relevant portion Ex.P380 Extracts of minutes of 105th meeting of Board of Directors of M/s. South-West Mining held on 29.1.2010 Ex.P381 Details of donations given to M/s. Prerana Education Trust by M/s. S-W Mines Ltd., Ex.P382 Engagement letter dt. 38.7.2011 of S-W 385 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Mining Ltd., engaging M/s. Cushman & Wakefield for valuation of property at Hebbal
- 6 sheets Ex.P382(a) Signature of PW.93 Ex.P382(b) Signature of one Sri. Nandini Ex.P383 & 384 Relevant portions of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.93/CW.95 Ex.P385 Seizure Memo dt. 5.7.2012 Ex.P385(a) Signature of PW.94 Ex.P385(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P386 Certified copy of Term Loan Agreement dt.
30.6.2010 between Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Pvt. Ltd., & South-West Mining Ltd., - 15 sheets Ex.P387 Certified copy of Ledger Extract of M/s.
South-West Mining Ltd., pertaining to Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Pvt. Ltd., - 5 sheets Ex.P388 Certified copy of Ledger Extract of M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., - 131 sheets Ex.P389 Certificate U/s 65-B of I.E. Act for Ex.P387 & 388 Ex.P389(a) Signature of PW.94 Ex.P390 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.94/CW96.
Ex.P391 Seizure Memo dt. 1.9.2012 Ex.P391(a) Signature of PW.99 Ex.P391(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P392 Letter dt. 2.3.2011 of Authorised Signatory, 386 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) Trust issued to PW.99 regarding appointment as an Auditor.
Ex.P393 Letter dt. 2.3.2011 of Prerana Education & Social Trust (R) issued to PW.99 for appointment as an Auditor.
Ex.P394 Auditors Report for the year 2010-2011 in respect of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) Trust - (15 sheets attested copies) Ex.P394(a) Relevant entries reg. receipt of donations Ex.P395 Details of donations received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe for the year 2010- 11 (24 sheets) attested copies.
Ex.P396 Seizure Memo dt. 25.6.2012 Ex.P396(a) Signature of PW.100 Ex.P396(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P397 One Book contains press release copies of M/s. Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. Ex.P398 Attested copies of financial statements for the years 2006-07 to 2009-10 of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe Ex.P399 Details of donations received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe from 30.11.2009 to 24.3.2011 Ex.P399(a) Certificate Ex.P399(b) Signature of PW.10 387 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P400 List of donations received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe for the year 2006-07 Ex.P401 List of donations received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe for the year 2007-08 Ex.P402 List of donations received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe for the year 2008-09 Ex.P402(a) Certificate Ex.P402(b) Signature of PW.100 Ex.P403 List of donations received by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe for the year 2009-10 Ex.P403(a) Certificate Ex.P403(b) Signature of PW.100 Ex.P404 Details of I.T. returns for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 filed by Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe Ex.P405 List of employees of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe Ex.P406 Details of Trustees Governing Council and other office bearers of Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe. Attested copies.
Ex.P407 List of Institutions running under Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe Trust Ex.P408 Details of expenditure of M/s Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe - 2 sheets 388 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P409 Letter dt. 24.7.2012 of PW.101 to CBI forwarding Valuation Report Ex.P409(a) Signature of PW.101 Ex.P410 Valuation Report dt. 22.6.2012 of S. Raghu Babu, Dist - Valuation Report.
Ex.P410(a) Signature of PW.122 Ex.P411 Attested copies of 278th Board Agenda & Resolution held on 26.2.2010 Ex.P411(a) Certified copy of Ex.P411 Ex.P412 Seizure Memo dt. 16.7.2012 Ex.P412(a) Signature of PW.103 Ex.P412(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P413 SBM, Vinobanagar Branch, cheque for Rs.14,00,000/- issued by M/s. Technoart Ex.P413(a) Signature of the Director Ex.P414 SBM, Vinobanagar Branch, cheque for Rs.2,70,000/- issued by M/s. Technoart Ex.P414(a) Signature of the Director Ex.P415 Self cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- issued by M/s. Technoart Ex.P415(a) Signature of PW.104 Ex.P416 Self cheque for Rs.16,00,000/- issued by M/s. Technoart Ex.P416(a) Signature of PW.104 Ex.P417 Self cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- issued by M/s. Techmart Ex.P417(a) Signature of Director Ex.P418 Self cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by 389 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J M/s. Technoart Ex.P418(a) Signature of PW.104 Ex.P419 R.T.G.S., application form dated 31.7.2010 for RTGS Transfer of Rs.13,00,000/- of SBM, Vinobanagar Branch in favour of M/s Techno Art Ex.P420 DD Application dt. 16.4.2010 for Rs.15,80,000/- in favour of M/s. Apex Traders Ex.P421 DD Application dt. 16.4.2010 for Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Maruthi Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.P422 Seizure Memo dt. 27.6.2012 Ex.P422(a) Signature of PW.104 Ex.P422(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P423 One file pertaining to construction of P.E.S. Engineering College, Shimoga contains copies of bills, estimate, payments received, tender letters etc. Ex.P424 One file pertaining to construction of Residential School and Hostel at Shimoga contains copies of bills, estimate, payment details etc. Ex.P425 One file pertaining to construction of Civil & Mechanical Block for PES College at Shimoga contains copies of tender letter bills etc. Ex.P426 One file pertaining to construction of 390 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Nursing College Hostel for Swamy Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) Trust at Shimoga contains copies of bills, etc. Ex.P427 Original Search List dated 16.5.2012 Ex.P427(a) Signature of PW.106 Ex.P427(b) Signature of K.S. Nagendra Ex.P427(c) Signature of B.S. Yeddyurappa Ex.P427 Statement of account in respect of Techno Art maintained with Bank of Maharashtra for the period 1.4.2009 to 1.10.2009 with certificates Ex.P427(a) Certificate u/s 2A of I.E. Act Ex.P427(b) Signature in Ex.P472(a) Ex.P428 Statement of account in respect of Techno Art maintained with Bank of Maharashtra for the period 22.11.2010 to 30.10.2010 with certificates Ex.P428(a) Signature of PW.105 Ex.P428(b) & (d) Certificate Ex.P428(c) & (e) Signature of PW.105 on Ex.P428(b) &
(d) Ex.P429 Seizure Memo dt. 26.6.2012 Ex.P429(a) Signature of N. Laxma Reddy, Chief Manager Ex.P429(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P430 Original Account Opening Form dt. 5.1.2004 of M/s. Techno art constructions Pvt. Ltd., with Bank of Maharashtra Ex.P428 One Plastic file seized from the residential premises of A1 B.S. Yeddyurappa Ex.P428(a) Signature of PW.106 391 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P428(b) Signature of K.S. Nagendra Ex.P428(c) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(d) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(e) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(f) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(g) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(h) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(i) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(j) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(k) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(l) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(m) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(n) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(o) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(p) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(q) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(r) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(s) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(t) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(u) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(v) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P428(w) Initial of PW.106 Ex.P428(x) Initial of K.S .Nagendra Ex.P429 Letter dt. 26.5.2012 of PW.108 to CBI Ex.P429(a) Signature of PW.108 Ex.P430 Letter dt. 13.6.2012 of M.R. Hiremath (PW.108) to CBI Ex.P430(a) Signature of PW.108 Ex.P431 Corporation Bank Deposit Ledger as on 22.5.2012 pertaining to M/s. Prerana Education & Social Trust.
Ex.P432 True copy of Screenshot Print Out of 392 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J transaction dt. 23.9.2010 for Rs.2,00,00,000=00 with certificate - 2 sheets Ex.P433 Certified copy of statement of account in the name of B.S. Yeddyurappa maintained at Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch with certificate - 21 sheets Ex.P434 Certified copy of statement of account in the name of B.Y. Raghavendra maintained at Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch with certificate - 21 sheets Ex.P435 Certified copy of statement of account in the name of R.N. Sohan Kumar maintained with Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch with certificate - 2 sheets Ex.P436 Copy of the letter dt. 4.4.2012 of Sri. H.R. Shetty, Dy. A.G. to M.D., MML with draft note - 3 sheets Ex.P437 E-mail dt.15.6.2012 from Prl. Secretary to Ms.Anitha Pattanayak, along with D.O. Letter dt. 16.6.2012 and draft paragraph - 5 sheets Ex.P438 Copy of the reply submitted by MML to the draft note of Dy.A.G. with enclosures - 36 sheets Ex.P439 Copy of the reply submitted by MML to Draft paragraph reg. loss of revenue to the MML - 52 sheets Ex.P440 Copy of the draft Inspection Report on the 393 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J accounts of MML for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11 - 50 sheets Ex.P441 System generated I.T. returns and certified copy of I.T. returns of R.N. Sohan Kumar - 32 sheets Ex.P442 Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation, form-32, Memo & Articles of Association etc., in respect of Industrial Techno Manpower Supply Pvt. Ltd., - 33 sheets Ex.P443 Seizure Memo dt. 29.5.2012 Ex.P443(a) Signature of PW.109 Ex.P443(b) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P444 One file containing certified copies of Assessment Orders, IT returns etc. Ex.P444(a) Copy of the Assessment Order in respect of B.Y. Raghavendra Ex.P444(b) Copy of Assessment Order in respect of B.Y. Vijayendra Ex.P445 Seizure Memo dt. 27.6.2012 Ex.P445(a) Signature of PW.110 Ex.P445(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P446 Statement of account in respect of Jindal Praxair Oxygen Ltd., maintained with Karnataka Bank, Overseas Bank for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.5.2011 - 37 sheets Ex.P446(a) Certificate u/s 2A of BBE Act Ex.P446(b) Certificate Ex.P447 Certified print out of letter of Jindal Praxair requesting for transfer of 20 crores to South- West Ltd., along with certificate - 2 sheets 394 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P447(a) Certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act. Ex.P447(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P448 Specimen signature of Prashanth Reddy Ex.P448(a) Signature of PW.110 Ex.P449 Copy of the letter dt. 5.6.2012 of Karnataka Bank, overseas Bank to CBI.
Ex.P449(a) Signature of PW.110 Ex.P450 Seizure Memo dt. 11.7.2002 Ex.P450(a) Signature of PW.111 Ex.P450(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P451 One file containing certified printouts of tally ledger extract of Bank Books Ex.P451(a) Certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act Ex.P451(b) Signature of PW.110 Ex.P452 Draft Valuation Report dt. 3.8.2011 of M/s.
Cushman & Wakefield to Sri. Vikash Sharma Ex.P452(a) Signature of PW.119 Ex.P453 E-mail correspondences made between M/s.
Bushan & Wakefield (I) Pvt. Ld., and Smt. Vikash Sharma of JSW with 65-B I.E. Act Ex.P453(a) Certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act Ex.P453(b) Signature on Ex.P453(a) Ex.P454 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.112/CW25.
Ex.P455 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW.112/CW25 Ex.P456 Specimen handwritings of B.R. Krishnan 395 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P457 Seizure Memo dt. 18.6.2012 Ex.P457(a) Signature of Jitnesh Joshi Ex.P457(b) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P458 Letter dt. 15.9.2012 of PW.115 to CBI Ex.P458(a) Signature of PW.115 Ex.P459 Statement showing details of iron ore fines production in various places from 2009-10 to 2011-12 - 5 sheets Ex.P459(a) Signature of PW.115 Ex.P460 Statement showing the details of Domestic Consumption for 2009-10 to 11-12 - 28 sheets Ex.P460(a) Signature of PW.115 Ex.P461 Details of Major buyers of iron ore fines including quantities purchased for the year 2009-10 - 32 sheets Ex.P461(a) Signature of PW.115 Ex.P462 Details of Major buyers of iron ore fines including quantities purchased for the year 2010-11 - 34 sheets Ex.P462(a) Signature of PW.115 Ex.P463 Details of Major buyers of iron ore fines including quantities purchased for the year 2011-11 - 39 sheets Ex.P463(a) Signature of PW.115 Ex.P464 Letter dt. 23.7.2012 of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimoga Ex.P464(a) Signature of Joint Commissioner Ex.P465 Letter dt. 23.7.2012 of Income Tax Officer to 396 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Ex.P465(a) Signature of Income Tax Officer Ex.P466 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the year 2007-08 in respect of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P467 True copies of I.T. Returns of M/s. JAM Pipes and enclosure for the annual year 2008-09 Ex.P468 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2009-10 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P469 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2010-11 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P470 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2011-12 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P471 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2001-02 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P472 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2001-02 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P473 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2002-03 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P474 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2003-04 of M/s. JAM Pipes Ex.P475 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2006-07 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P476 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for 397 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J the annual year 2007-08 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P477 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2008-09 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P478 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2009-10 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P479 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2010-11 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P480 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2011-12 of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P481 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2008-09 of M/s. Mylari Motors Ex.P482 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2009-10 of M/s. Mylari Motors Ex.P483 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2010-11 of M/s. Mylari Motors Ex.P484 True copies of I.T. Returns and enclosure for the annual year 2011-12 of M/s. Mylari Motors Ex.P485 Letter dt. 22.8.2012 from CFSL GEQD Director to I.P. CBI/ACB/BLR - 2 sheets 398 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P486 Another letter dt. 22.8.2012 from CFSL/GEQD to CBI Ex.P487 GEQD Report dt. 7.8.2012 - 9 sheets Ex.P488 Supplementary report dt. 17.8.2012 of GEQD - 4 sheets Ex.P489 Specimen handwritings/signature of Sri. R.B. Deepak - 10 sheets (S43 to S52) Ex.P490 Specimen handwritings/signature of C.Y. Umadevi - 8 sheets (S53 to S60) Ex.P491 Specimen handwritings of G.S. Shivakumar (S98 to 106) Ex.P492 Specimen handwritings of H. Prashanth Reddy (S125 to 131) 7 sheets Ex.P493 Letter dt. 4.9.2012 of CBI to GEQD - 4 sheets Ex.P494 Specimen Handwritings of R. Lakshman Prasad S. 142 to 171 Ex.P495 Letter dt. 30.5.2013 of Director, CFSL to SP, CBI/ACB/BLR Ex.P496 Supplementary opinion of GEQD dt.
10.5.2013 along with reasons - 3 sheets Ex.P497 Letter dt. 24.8.2012 of A.C. of Commercial Tax, Hospet to CBI - 3 sheets Ex.P497(a) Signature of Asst. Commr. Commr.Tax.
399 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P498 VAT returns for the tax period from April 2010 to March 2012 in respect of JSW Steels
- 72 sheets Ex.P499 Seizure Memo dt. 28.6.2012 Ex.P499(a) Signature of PW.119 Ex.P499(b) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P500 E-mail correspondences with certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act.
Ex.P500(a) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P500(b) Signature of PW.119 Ex.P501 Certified copy of the C.E.C. Report dt. 20.4.2012 with annexures Ex.P502 Letter dt. 14.5.2012 of the Member Secretary, C.E.C. New Delhi with enclosures. Ex.P503 Seizure Memo dt. 29.5.2012 Ex.P503(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P504 Seizure Memo dt. 29.5.2012 Ex.P504(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P505 Seizure Memo dt. 30.5.2012 Ex.P505(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P506 Pay-in-slip dt. 23.10.2010 for Rs.3,20,000/-
of Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch. Ex.P507 Pay-in-slip dt. 15.03.2010 for Rs.3,40,000/-
of Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch. Ex.P508 Pay-in-slip dt. 15.03.2010 for Rs.5,00,000/-
of Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch.
400 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P509 Pay-in-slip dt. 24.02.2010 for Rs.3,40,000/-
of Corporation Bank, S.S. Nagar Branch. Ex.P510 Original cheque dt. 4.10.2011 for Rs.22,51,000/- issued in favour of A1 by M/s. Prerana Educational Trust.
Ex.P511 Letter dt. 29.5.2012 of Sr. Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar, Bengaluru to CBI.
Ex.P511(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P512 Letter dt. 6.6.2012 from the Director, M/s. Real Technical Solutions to CBI Ex.P512(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P513 One file containing financial statements for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 of M/s. Real Tech Solutions (48 pages) Ex.P514 One file of M/s. Real Tech Solutions containing work order/ calculation of work order etc Ex.P515 Minutes of Board Meeting for the financial year 2009-10 of M/s. Real Technical Solutions.
Ex.P516 Minutes of Board Meeting for the financial year 2010-11 of M/s. Real Technical Solutions.
Ex.P517 One file of M/s. Real Technical Solutions containing list of Directors.
Ex.P518 Certified extract of Books of Accounts for the period 18.2.201 to 4.3.2010 of M/s. Real Technical Solutions along with certificate 401 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P518(a) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P519 Seizure Memo dt. 12.6.2012 Ex.P519(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P520 Minutes of Board Meeting of Directors of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., for the period 3.3.2009 to 28.5.2011 33 sheets Ex.P521 Seizure Memo dt. 19.6.2012 Ex.P521(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P522 One file of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., contains extra-ordinary General Meeting dt. 24.2.2010 Memorandum of Articles of Association etc., 118 sheets Ex.P523 Seizure Memo dt. 2.7.2012 Ex.P523(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P524 One JSW Steels file contains correspondences etc., with M/s. Real Technical Solutions Ex.P525 One JSW Steels file contains correspondences etc., with M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services Ex.P526 One JSW Steels file contains correspondences etc., with M/s. Industrial Techno Manpower Supply & Services Ltd. Ex.P527 Letter dt. 12.7.2012 from SBM, Treasury Branch, Bengaluru to CBI Ex.P527(a) Signature of PW.121 Ex.P528 One D.D. dt. 22.11.10 for Rs.8,72,000=00 402 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J issued in favour of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi.
Ex.P529 Letter dt. 16.8.2012 of Canara Bank, Vijayanagar Branch to CBI Ex.P530 Canara bank, Cheque dt. 22.3.2006 for Rs.10,00,000=00 issued in favour of A6 Ex.P531 I.C.I.C.I Bank letter dt. 24.8.2012 to CBI Ex.P532 Attested copies of Account opening form and enclosure of ICICI Bank in the name of IVSL Ex.P533 Original F.I.R.
Ex.P533(a) Signature of S.P. Ex.P534 Copy of the order dt. 11.5.2012 in W.P. (Civil) No.562/2009 of Hon'ble Supreme Court (37 sheets) Ex.P535 Receipt Memo dt. 21.5.2012 Ex.P535(a) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P536 Letter dt. 22.5.2012 of S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha to CBI with list - 4 sheets Ex.P537 Letter dt. 23.5.2012 of Asst. Registrar of Companies to CBI Ex.P538 Certified copies of Memorandum of Association, P & L A/c., Balance sheet of V.M.P.L. annexed to Ex.P537 (580 pages) Ex.P539 Letter dt. 7.6.2011 of A9 addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 3 sheets 403 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P540 Seizure Memo dt. 14.6.2012 Ex.P540(a) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P541 List of applications for de-notification from 23.2.2004 to 24.9.2008 and details of action taken - 13 sheets Ex.P542 Letter dt. 15.9.2011 written by Commissioner, BDA to Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Ex.P543 Letter dt. 15.6.2012 from MML to CBI Ex.P544 Statement showing details indicating anticipated premium revenue at 60y etc., for the year 2000-11 Ex.P545 Letter dt. 14.6.2012 from the Chief Secretary, G.O.K. to CBI Ex.P546 Details of portfolio held by B.S. Yeddyurappa Ex.P547 Details of portfolio held by B.S. Yeddyurappa as Deputy C.M. with family details Ex.P.548 Letter dt. 13.6.2012 of Asst. Registrar, Enq-
II of Karnataka Lokayuktha to CBI Ex.P549 & 550 Two BDA files captioned as Sy. No.56, Rachenahalli, Arkavathy Layout received through Ex.P548 Ex.P551 Letter dt.24-09-2011 of Dy. Commissioner (LA), BDA, BLR to S.P. Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex.P552 Enclosures to Ex.P.551 404 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P553 Letter dt.30-03-2011 of Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram to S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex.P554 Documents enclosed to Ex.P553 Ex.P555 Letter dt.24-09-2011 of Sr.Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram to Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex.P556 Letter dt.20-09-2011 from the Secretary, Legislative Assembly to Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex.P557 Copy of the Gazette Notification dt.27-05- 2008 pertaining to Election Commission. Ex.P558 Letter dt.20-09-2011 of Addl.D.C., Shimoga to Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex.P559 Attested copy of the certificate of Election Ex.P560 Letter dt.01-10-2011 from Addl.Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka to Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex.P561 Enclosures to Ex.P560 Ex.P562 Seizure Memo dt.21-06-2012 Ex.P562(a)Signature of PW.123.
Ex.P563 One file bearing No.CI/92/MMM/2007 reg.
grant of mining lease.
Ex.P564 One file bearing No.CI/92/MMM/2007 reg.
grant 405 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P565 One file containing letter dt. 31.10.2011 of AGM, Vijaya Bank, Toranagallu Branch along with statement of account, original cheque for Rs.11,91,24,000/- etc. Ex.P566 Letter dt. 29.3.2012 of SBM, JVSL Branch to SP, Karnataka Lokayuktha.
Ex.P566(a) List of Authorized Signatories - 2 sheets Ex.P567 One U.D.D. file containing circulars Ex.P568 Letter dt. 7.7.2012 from the Under Secretary, UDD, GOK to CBI Ex.P569 Letter dt. 17.7.2012 from Addl. Registrar (E-
I) Lokayuktha, Bengaluru to CBI Ex.P570 File No. 131/AGL/02 in respect of M/s.
JVSL received by CBI through Ex.P569 Ex.P571 Seizure Memo dated 17.7.2012 Ex.P571(a) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P572 Letter dt. 23.7.2012 from the Secretary (Mines), GOK to CBI Ex.P573 File No. CI/83/MMM/2010 in respect of grant of Mining Lease in Ramadurga Range Ex.P574 File No. CI/83/MMM/2010 pertaining to consideration of Mining Lease Ex.P575 Letter dt. 31.7.2012 of MML contractor of finance to CBI.
Ex.P576 Debit/Credit Notes of MML (2 sheets) 406 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P577 True copies of e-returns for the financial year 2007-08 in respect of Adithya Concrete Products (66 pages) Ex.P578 True copies of e-returns for the financial year 2008-09 in respect of M/s. Adithya Concrete Products Ex.P579 True copies of e-returns for the financial year 2009-10 in respect of M/s. Adithya Concrete Products Ex.P580 True copies of e-returns for the financial year 2001-02 in respect of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P581 True copies of e-returns for the financial year 2002-03 in respect of M/s. Bhadra Concrete Products Ex.P582 Letter dt. 12.7.2012 of SP, CBI to GEQD with enclosures.
Ex.P583 Seizure Memo dt. 16.8.2012 Ex.P583(a) Signature of PW.123 Ex.P584 Copy of Notification dt. 10.9.2012 of the Under Secretary, Govt. of India.
Ex.P585 Letter dt. 11.9.2012 of B.Y. Vijayendra with copies of Income Tax Returns.
Ex.P586 Report of Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG Report) Ex.P587 Original 164 Cr.P.C., statement of S.N. Krishnaiah settee (A6) Ex.P587(a) Signature of A6 407 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P587(b) Signature of PW.124 Ex.P588 Order sheets (2 sheets) for recording 164 statement of A6 Ex.P589 Covering letter dt. 7.7.2012 of XVII ACMM Ex.P589(a) Signature of PW.124 Ex.P590 Letter dt. 23.5.2012 of Sr. Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram to CBI - 8 sheets Ex.P590(a) Copy of the letter dt. 24.9.2011 of Karnataka Lokayukta to Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram Ex.P590(b) Copy of the letter dt. 24.9.2011 of Sr. Sub-
Registrar to Lokayuktha.
Ex.P591 One file containing letter dt. 16.6.2012 of Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk with enclosures - 42 sheets Ex.P592 Letter dt. 18.6.2012 of South-West Mining to CBI Ex.P593 Seizure Memo dt. 22.6.2012 Ex.P593(a) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P593(b) Signature of Smt. Leelavathi Ex.P594 Seizure Memo dt. 25.6.2012 Ex.P594(a) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P594(b) Signature of Anil Sood Ex.P595 Valuation report dt. 3.8.2011 of M/s.
Cushman & Wakefield in respect of Sy. No.55/4 of Rachenahalli village (19 sheets) Ex.P596 2 Invoices dt. 11.8.2011 & 10.8.2011 of Cushman & Wakefield - 2 sheets 408 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P597 Letter dt. 6.7.2012 of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., to CBI Ex.P598 Copy of Ledger extract with certificate -
46 sheets Ex.P598(a) Certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.P599 Seizure Memo dt. 17.8.2012 Ex.P599(a) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P599(b) Signature of Girish Kamath Ex.P600 Attested copies of Trust Meetings from January 2010 to December 2010 Ex.P601 Copy of Cabinet Note and enclosure for the formation of Arkavathi Layout - 24 sheets Ex.P602 Seizure Memo dt. 28.8.2012 Ex.P602(a) Signature of PW.125 Ex.P602(b) Signature of N. Devaraj Ex.P603 Certified copy of the sale deed dt.
12.10.2006 executed in favour of K.V. Madhusudhan & Smt. Sunitha K. Shetty - 6 sheets Ex.P604 I-Form, affidavit, RTC, Form No.61 etc., - 22 sheets Ex.P605 Corporation Bank, S.S.Nagar Branch letter dt. 17.8.2012 to CBI Ex.P606 Cheque dt. 21.4.2006 for Rs.20,00,000/-
issued in favour of A6 409 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.P607 Letter dt. 31.8.2012 of Vijaya Bank, M.G. Road Branch to CBI.
Ex.P608 Copy of the application dt. 20.6.2012 of CBI filed before the court of CCH-24 with list of documents - 2 sheets Ex.P.608(a) Copy of the list of documents. LIST OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 Relevant portion of 161 statement of P.W.4/CW-18 Ex.D2 Transaction entry dt. 2.7.2011 in respect of site No.E-116 available in page No.313 of Ex.P29 Ex.D3 Transaction entry pertaining to site No.F-91 available in page No.122 of Ex.P29 Ex.D4 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 2.7.2011 pertaining to Site No.E-116.
Ex.D5 Transaction entry dt. 15.7.2010 at page No.251 of P29.
Ex.D6 Transaction entry dt. 28.4.2011 in respect of site No.F69 available in page No.88 in Ex.P29 Ex.D7 Certified copy of the sale deed dt. 28.4.2011 pertaining to Ex.D6 Ex.D8 Transaction entry in respect of site No. F-55 dt. 16.4.2010 in page No.39 of Ex.P29 Ex.D9 Certified copy of the registered sale deed in respect of Ex.D8.
410 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D10 Certified copy of registered sale deed pertaining to Sl. No.1 of the document at Ex.P25.
Ex.D11 & D12 Two sketches (in Ex.P36) Ex.D13 Relevant portion of Ex.P31 Ex.D14 Endorsement letter of ALAO dt. 26.2.2009 (available in Ex.P36) Ex.D15 Conversion Order dt. 7.3.2009 available in Ex.P36 - 2 sheets Ex.D16 Nine photographs pertaining to Manyatha Tech Park & Layout.
Ex.D16(a) Photograph Ex.D17 Notice issued by BDA dt. 4.3.2003 (available in Ex.P70) Ex.D17(a) Endorsement with seal Ex.D18 Notice issued by BDA dt. 4.3.2003 available in Ex.P20) Ex.D18(a) Endorsement with seal Ex.D19 Letter dt. 15.7.2003 of PW.19 to the Secretary, GOK, Dept. of IT & BT with annexures Ex.D19(a) List enclosed to letter dt. 15.7.2003 Ex.D19(b) to (f) Relevant entries in Ex.P19(a) Ex.D20 Letter dt. 5.6.2004 of PW.19 to the Prl.
Secretary, Urban Development, GOK, Bengaluru for de-notification of 125 acres and 28 guntas with 2 lists.
Ex.D20(a) Signature of PW.19 411 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D20(b) List of lands in Dasarahalli village (page No.278 in D462) Ex.D20(c) List of lands in Rachenahalli village (page Nos. 277 to 273) Ex.D20(d) to (l)Relevant entries in Ex.P20(c).
Ex.D21 Map at page 148 in D467
Ex.D22 Village Map of Rachenahalli village (certified
copy, produced by the accused)
Ex.D23 Draft Notification dt. 18.5.2004 page No.246
to 229 in D-462
Ex.D23(a) Relevant entry at Sl. No.73 Ex.D23(b) Relevant entry at Sl. No.108 Ex.D23(b) Relevant entry at Sl. No.110 Ex.D24 S.B.M. Pay-in-slip dt. 17.3.2010 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- favouring M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust.
Ex.D25 Minutes of Board Meeting dt. 19.2.2010 of M/s. Jai Bharath Technical Services Ex.D26 Minutes of Board Meeting of South-West Mining Ltd., held on 28.7.2010.
Ex.D27 Minutes of Extra ordinary General Meeting of M/s. South-West Mining Ltd., held on 24.2.2010.
Ex.D28 Letter dt. 26.7.2010 of Director, Mines & Geology to the Secretary, Commerce & Industries (at pages 29 & 30) 412 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D29 Govt. Order dt. 26.7.2010 issued by PWD Ports & Inland Water Transport Dept., banning of export of iron ore.
Ex.D30 Copy of the order dt. 9.4.2011 in SLA No. 33522/10 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Ex.D31 Letter dt. 25.8.2009 of C.E.O., JSW Ltd. Ex.D32 Fax Letter dt. 22.1.2010 of JSW to Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, Chief Minister.
Ex.D33 Letter dt. 6.3.2010 of M/s. JSW to MD, MML.
Ex.D34 Letter dt. 18.12.2009 of C.E.O., JSW Steels to the MD, MML.
Ex.D35 Clause III of the MOU Ex.P314 at page-3. Ex.D36 Clause 5 of the MOU Ex.P314 at page-4. Ex.D37 Para Nos.29 & 30 of Note sheets in Ex.P93. Ex.D38 Cabinet approval sheet at page No... of Ex.P94 Ex.D39 Letter dt. 26.7.2010 of the Director, Ports & Inland Transport, Karwar at page Nos.3 to 1 in Ex.P346.
Ex.D40 Lokayuktha Report dt. 18.12.2008 Ex.D41 Letter dt. 03.07.2010 of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa to Prime Minister of India at page Nos. 72 to 70 in Ex.P309.
413 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D42 Copy of the letter dt. 13.7.2010 of Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa to the Minister of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises.
Ex.D43 Certified copy of order dt. 19.11.2010 in W.P.No.24103/2010 (GM-MMS) and connected W.P., passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Ex.D44 Certified copy of Writ Petitions in W.P.No. 4421/13 between M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., v/s State of Karnataka and others Ex.D45 Certified copy of order sheets in W.P. No.4421/13.
Ex.D46 Certified copy of the order sheets O.S.No. 7213/12 between JSW Steels Ltd., vs. MML Ex.D47 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.7213/12 Ex.D48 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No. 7213/12 Ex.D49 Circular published in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (at page 362) Ex.D50 Letter of Spl.D.C., Bengaluru Urban District to the Member of Town Planning Department dt. 4.3.2009 Ex.D51 Letter dt. 4.3.2009 of the Member, Town Planning Department, BDA to the Spl.D.C., BUD 414 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D52 Certified copy of Delivery Register for the year 2006-07 of office of the Sub-Registrar Office, K.R. Puram (pages 565 to 950) Ex.D52(a) Letter dt. 3.11.2015 of Public Information Officer, Office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru.
Ex.D52(b) Relevant entry at Sl. No.1343 Ex.D52(c) Relevant entry at Sl. No.2401 Ex.D52(d) Date mentioned next to D52(b) Ex.D53 Letter dt. 5.11.2015 of BSNL to Sri. Aruna Y.M. Ex.D54 Letter dt. 2.7.2008 of Sri. Balaji Krupa Enterprises till the Director, M/s. Dhavalagiri Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ex.D55 Certified copy of order dt. 5.1.2016 in W.P. Nos. 37347-37349/2009 (LR-RES) passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Ex.D56 Letter dt. 26.9.2007 of Sri. Mahendra Jain, CMD, MML to the Secretary, Commerce & Industries Dept., Govt. of Karnataka, Bengaluru (at page No.56 of Ex.P310) Ex.D57 Draft copy of share holders agreement for approval (enclosure to Ex.D56) (page No.55 to 24 of Ex.P310) Ex.D57(a) Clause 9.2 in Ex.D57.
Ex.D58 Para No.16 of Note sheet in Ex.P310 (page No.6 of Note sheet) Ex.D59 Copy of portion of proceedings of the 201st Board Meeting held on 21.11.1996 (at page Nos.131 and 130 in Ex.P310) 415 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D60 Copy of portion of proceedings of 203rd Board Meeting dated 10.1.1997 (at page Nos.129 and 128 in Ex.P310) Ex.D61 Extract of minutes of 203rd meeting of Board of Directors held on 10.1.1997 (at page No.127 of Ex.P310) Ex.D62 Letter dt. 25.6.2010 of M/s. JSW Ltd., to the MD, MML reg. non-accepting the proposal and offering a counter proposal at page Nos. 437 and 436 in Ex.P310.
Ex.D63 34th Annual Report for the year 1999-2000 of M/s. MML Ex.D63(a) Relevant para at page No.9 (Produced by the defence) Ex.D64 36th Annual Report for the year 2001-02 of M/s. MML.
Ex.D64(a) Relevant para at page No.15 (Produced by the defence) Ex.D65 Covering letter dated 24.2.2016 of Govt. of Karnataka (Produced by the defence) Ex.D66 Copy of Govt. Order dated 30.9.2003 for approving the proposal of privatization/ closure of M/s. MML.
(Produced by the defence) Ex.D67 Certified copy of the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 6982/2008 of M/s. JSW against Govt. of Karnataka, MML and another (Produced by the defence) 416 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D68 Certified copy of the objections statement of M/s. MML in W.P. No. 6982/2008 (Produced by the defence) Ex.D69 Letter dated 18.11.2006 of MML to MD, JSW Ltd., and MD, VMPL (4 sheets) (Produced by the defence) Ex.D70 Certified copy of the order dated 6.7.2011 in SLA No. 16409/2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Produced by the defence) Ex.D71 Certified copy of the minutes of 50th to 63rd meeting of Board of Directors of M/s. VMPL (Produced by the defence) Ex.D72 Copy of the letter dt. 5.7.1996 of Prl.
Secretary, Commerce & Industries Dept., Govt. of Karnataka, Bengaluru to Managing Director, M/s. MML. (At page No.136 of Ex.P310) Ex.D73 Copy of the record note of discussions of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Prl. Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka, Commerce & Industries Dept., on 4.9.1996 regarding allocation of iron ore mines to M/s. JVSL. (At page No.134 and 133 of Ex.P310) Ex.D74 Letter dt. 17.5.2012 of MD, M/s. MML to CBI reg. production of documents.
Ex.D75 Letter dt. 8.6.2012 of MD, M/s. MML to CBI reg. production of documents.
Ex.D76 Photograph of O.P. Jindal Block in M/s.
Prerana Educational & Social Trust.
417 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D77 Photograph of Girls Hostel of M/s. Prerana Educational & Social Trust.
Ex.D78 Copy of the Notification No. RD 56 MUNOSA 99 dt. 10.5.1999. Notification u/s 22A of Registration Act, 1908.
Ex.D79 Relevant portion written by PW.90 in Ex.P372.
Ex.D80 Signature of Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra in Ex.P372.
Ex.D81 Signature of Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar in Ex.P372.
Ex.D82 Signature of Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra in Ex.P373.
Ex.D83 Signature of Sri. R.N. Sohan Kumar in Ex.P373.
Ex.D84 Certified copy of final decree in O.S. No. 985/02 presented by S.N. Krishnaiah Setty for registration.
Ex.D85 Revised Master Plan 2015 Zoning Regulation
- Vol.II issued by BDA (one spiral binding book) Ex.D86 Revised Master Plan 2015 proposed land use plans - Vol.II of BDA (one big register) Ex.D86(a) Relevant sheet in Ex.D86 Ex.D86(b) Copy of Ex.D86(a) (one separate sheet) 418 Spl. C.C.207/2012 J Ex.D87 The Karnataka Registration Manual (one book) Ex.D87(a) Notification No. RD/80/ESM 93(P) dt.
14.2.1994 at page No.173 to 174.
Ex.D87(b) Notification No. RD/56/MUNOSA/99 dt.
10.5.1999.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION M.O.1 Original Rubber Stamp of Addl. Land Acquisition Officer, BDA (in Kannada Language) (Sl. No.1 of list of M.Os.) M.O.2 Big Size Round Seal (Sl. No.2 of list of M.Os) M.O.3 Medium Size Round Seal (Sl. No.2 of list of M.Os) M.O.4 Small Size Round Seal (Sl. No.2 of list of M.Os) M.O.5 One Round Seal of BDA (Sl. No.3 of list of M.Os) M.O.6 One Round Seal of BDA (Sl. No.4 of list of M.Os) (R.B. Dharmagoudar) XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.