Bangalore District Court
D Yathiraju Psi vs K Suni @ Sunil on 3 June, 2025
C.C.No.29313/2015
KABC030818852015
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 3rd day of June 2025
PRESENT : SRI.SAHEEL AHMED S. KUNNIBHAVI, B.Com., LL.B.
(Spl.)
II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.29313/2015 Date of commission of the
2. 07.01.2015 offences (As per F.I.R.) Banashankari Police Station,
3. Name of the complainant Bengaluru City
1. K.Suni @ Sunil. (Split-Up)
2. J.P.Prasanna, S/o Prabhakar, Aged about 28 years,
4. Name of the accused R/at No.58/A, Ranganath Nilaya, 2nd Cross, 1st Main, Kempegowda Nagar, T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru.
The offences complained Sections 468, 471 and 466 of
5.
of the Indian Penal Code 6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty 2 C.C.No.29313/2015 7. Final order Accused No.2 is acquitted 8. Date of order 03.06.2025
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru has filed Police Report against accused No.1 and 2 alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the Prosecution that Mr.B.Yathiraju, Traffic Police Sub-Inspector filed the information that on 07.01.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was regulating the traffic along with PC No.10830 and PC No.10965 this accused came by driving his Vinger Cab bearing its No.KA-30-B-3836 in a rash and negligent manner. He was requested to produce the DL and RC of the said vehicle. He has produced the xerox copy of the said documents. On verification they have found that these documents are forged by the accused. He was having driving license to drive motor cycles and LMV vehicle, but he was not having license to drive cab. He was taken to 3 C.C.No.29313/2015 the Police Station and lodged the information against this accused.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.6/2015 at Banashankari Police Station. Accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and produced before this Court and released on bail. Thereafter accused No.1 was absconding. Since the presence of accused No.1 could not be secured, hence as per order dated 20.07.2018 the case against him was ordered for Split Up. On completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against accused No.2. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to accused No.2. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to accused No.2 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that accused No.2 has committed the offences triable by this Court, charges for the offence has been framed and read over 4 C.C.No.29313/2015 to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against accused No.2, the Prosecution has produced PW1 to PW5 oral evidences and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documentary evidences. After completion of the prosecution evidences, for the purpose of enabling accused No.2 personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences of the Prosecution against him, examined accused No.2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has have submitted that he has no defense evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No.2. Perused the materials available on record.
6. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.2 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code?
5 C.C.No.29313/2015
2. What order or sentence?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 :- It is the case of the Prosecution that this accused was driving cab without any license and permit.
9. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW1/PW1 Yathiraj, wherein this witness has deposed that on 07.01.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was regulating the traffic along with PC No.10830 and PC No.10965, this accused came by driving his Vinger Cab bearing its No.KA-30-B-3836 in a rash and negligent manner. He was requested to produce the DL and RC of the said vehicle. He has produced the xerox copy of the said documents. On verification they have found that these documents are forged by the accused. He was having driving license to drive motor cycles and LMV vehicle, but he was not having license to drive cab. He was taken to the Police Station 6 C.C.No.29313/2015 and lodged the information against this accused. On the same day the Police have conducted panchanama as per Ex.P3.
10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW2/PW2 Hasan Sab, wherein this witness has deposed that on 07.01.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was regulating the traffic along with CW1 PSI Yathiraj and along with PC No.10965, this accused came by driving his Vinger Cab bearing its No.KA-30-B-3836 in a rash and negligent manner. He was requested to produce the DL and RC of the said vehicle. He has produced the xerox copy of the said documents. On verification they have found that these documents are forged by the accused. He was having driving license to drive motor cycles and LMV vehicle, but he was not having license to drive cab. He was taken to the Police Station and CW1 has lodged the information against this accused.
11. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW11/PW3 B.P.Manju who is an Investigation Officer has deposed that he has conducted the panchanama 7 C.C.No.29313/2015 on the same day. He has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 and as per his voluntary statement he had been to the office of the accused No.2 wherein the said DL and RC was created and forged by these accused. He has seized the Printer and computer systems by conducting the panchanama. He has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after due investigation he has lodged the Final Report against these accused.
12. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW6/PW4 Srinivas, who is a witness to the panchanama but turned hostile.
13. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW8/PW5 J.Hemanth Kumar, wherein this witness has deposed that as per the request of the Banashankari PS, he has received the documents in respect of DL No.20140005078. The said DL is belongs to Sunil K. and he was permitted to drive LMV vehicle. He has issued Certificate as per Ex.P9.
8 C.C.No.29313/2015
14. It is the case of the Prosecution that this accused was caught hold when he driving cab without any license and permit. The Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has relied the evidence of CW1 PSI who has lodged the information against the accused, CW2 Police Constable who was on duty along with CW1 and also CW11 who has filed the Final Report against the accused after due investigation. The Prosecution has contended that this accused was caught hold by CW1 and CW2 when the accused was driving the cab without any liense and permit. During the course of investigation these accused voluntarily have stated before the Investigation Officer that they have forged and created license and permit produced before CW1. The Prosecution further has argued that as per the voluntary statement of the accused, CW11 had been to the shop of the accused wherein they have created and forged the license and permit. The Investigation Officer has seized the printers and computer machines from the shop of the accused No.2. 9 C.C.No.29313/2015
15. The learned Senior APP has argued that these accused have committed the offences and number of cases is already pending against them. They are the habitual offenders and they shall be punished severally.
16. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the accused has argued that though it is alleged that the Investigation Officer has seized the computers and printer machine from accused No.2, But however the Prosecution has not produced any single evidence to show that accused No.2 was forging the license and permit at his shop by producing cogent and reliable evidence. The Prosecution even has not produced any document to show that the accused No.1 of having such kind of shop in his name. The Investigation Officer even has not taken any stress to send the computers and printers to the FSL to ascertain whether these materials were used to print the DL and RC. The fake case was registered against the accused only for their statics. The Prosecution even has not produced any document to show that the seized materials are belongs to the informant. the Prosecution has only 10 C.C.No.29313/2015 produced the printers and computers. But, there is no evidence to show that to whom the said materials are belongs. The only evidence available before this Court are the evidences of official witnesses and they are interested witnesses. These accused are innocent and for the sake of statics false case was registered against these accused. The only independent witness CW6 has turned hostile and categorically deposed that the Investigation Officer has not conducted any panchanama in his presence and has not seized any materials in his presence.
17. On perusal, the information was lodged during the year 2015. Since then, the accused were regular to the Court. The matter is pending since 10 years. The evidence available before this Court is the evidence of official witnesses. But, to corroborate the evidence of these official witnesses, the Prosecution even has not produced any document to show that these computers and printers were belongs to the accused and it was seized from the shop of accused No.2. Further, there is a base to the submission of the learned 11 C.C.No.29313/2015 Counsel for the accused that the Prosecution has not produced any document to show that the seized materials are belongs to the accused No.2. The Prosecution has produced only the computer and printer before this Court. But to whom the said computer and printer are belongs, there is no evidence. The Prosecution is able to examine only PW1 to PW5. But, in spite of sufficient opportunity the Prosecution even unable to secure the rest of the witness. My Predecessor after issuing summons, warrant and proclamation to secure the witnesses, dropped the remaining witnesses as the matter is pending since 10 years. Hence, there is no evidence available before this Court to prove the guilt of accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
18. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.2 for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused No.2 is not found guilty for the offences punishable 12 C.C.No.29313/2015 under Sections 468, 471 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond will be canceled after appeal period.
Office is hereby directed to keep the entire file with Split up Criminal Case of accused No.1 in C.C.No.20994/2018.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 03.06.2025) (SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI) II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Yathiraj,
13 C.C.No.29313/2015
PW2 : Hasan Sab,
PW3 : B.P.Manju,
PW4 : J.Srinivas,
PW5 : J.Hemanth Kumar.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information,
Ex.P1(a) : Signature,
Ex.P2 : Mahazar,
Ex.P2(a) & (b) : Signatures,
Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P3(a) : Signature,
Ex.P4 & 5 : Xerox copies of Display Card
and DL,
Ex.P6 : First Information Report,
Ex.P6(a) : Signature,
Ex.P7 : DL,
Ex.P8 : Seizure Mahazar,
Ex.P8(a) & (b) : Signatures,
Ex.P9 : DL related documents,
Ex.P9(a) : Signature,
Ex.P10 : Report of CW10,
Ex.P10(a) : Signature,
Ex.P11 : Covering Letter,
Ex.P11(a) : Signature.
14 C.C.No.29313/2015
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL II ACJM, Bengaluru City.