Bangalore District Court
And vs Defended By Sri.C. Praveen on 8 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
PRESENT : SRI SHIVASHANKAR B. AMARANNAVAR, B.Com. LL.M.,
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
SPL. C. No.76/2011
BETWEEN:
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
No.9/1, STATE BANK ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001. .. COMPLAINANT
AND
BILAL AHMED QUTA @ IMRAN JALAL
S/O SHAMSUDDIN
R/AT. NO.16, SABDARBAL
HAZARATHBAL, SRINAGAR
NEAR UNIVERSITY GATE
JAMMU & KASHMIR. .. ACCUSED
Date of offence & time 2001 to 2007
Date of report of offence 05.01.2007
Date of arrest of accused 07.07.2011
Date of release on bail Accused is in judicial custody
2 SPL.C.No.76/2011
Total period of custody 06 Years 05 Months 01 Day
Name of the complainant Sri.K.N.Jithendranath
Date of commencement of 29.3.2016
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 12.12.2017
Offence complained of Section 4 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty
State represented by Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri.C. Praveen, Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (H & B), N.T. Pet, Bangalore City - 2, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 including the present accused in Crime No.6/2007 of Yeshwanthpur police station, for offences punishable under Sections 121, 121(A), 122, 153(A), 120(B) IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 and Sections 25, 26 and 27 of Arms Act and Sections 10, 11, 13, 18, 20, 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. Since Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code is also a Scheduled Offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ('PML Act' for short), the Directorate of Enforcement had taken up this case for investigation under the PML Act and filed complaint before this court, which is numbered as Spl. C.C. No.76/2011. 3 SPL.C.No.76/2011
2) It is alleged in the charge sheet that the accused and others had entered into a conspiracy during the period 2001 to 2007 to wage war against the Government of India. The accused is a member of the Pakistan based Terrorist Organization namely, Lashkar e-Toiba. The accused was operating from Bangalore City and Hampi / Hospet, Bellary District, where he was residing under the camouflage of doing Handicraft business and taking a fictitious identity as "Imran Jalal".
3) It is alleged in the complaint that the real name of the accused is Bilal Ahmed Quta, son of Shamsuddin, but he assumed a fictitious identity as Imran Jalal and obtained purported identification documents and opened Savings Bank Account No. 5336 with Canara Bank, Main Road, Hampi and the accused had also opened an S.B. Account in his original name Bilal Ahmed Quta with Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Infantry Road, Bangalore. It is further alleged that the accused and others had hatched a conspiracy during the period 2001 to 2007 to wage war against the Government of India and in pursuance of said conspiracy the accused had received monetary consideration from the collaborators of the said crime to tune of Rs.5,63,200/- into the Canara Bank account and Rs.4,27,500/- into Jammu & 4 SPL.C.No.76/2011 Kashmir Bank Limited, aggregating to Rs.9,90,700/-, which had all the elements of proceeds of crime, as untainted property.
3) The accused faced the trial and he was defended by the Standing Counsel and after hearing, my learned predecessor has framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 4 of PML Act wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereafter the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and has got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and thereafter the statement u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence appearing against him and he did not choose to lead evidence on his behalf.
4) Heard the arguments.
5) The points for my consideration are;
Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves that during the period from 2001 to 2007, the accused along with others had hatched a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused had received the monetary consideration from the collaborators of 5 SPL.C.No.76/2011 the said crime and the accused directly attempted to indulge with the process of crime and collected totally Rs.9,90,700/-
to his bank accounts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of PML Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point No.2: What Order?
5) My answer to the above points is;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following;
REASONS
6) Point No.1: It is the case of the complainant that during the period from 2001 to 2007 the accused along with others had hatched a conspiracy to wage war against Government of India and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, he had received the monetary consideration from the collaborators of the said crime and accused directly attempted to indulge with the process of crime and collected totally Rs.9,90,700/- in his bank accounts and committed offences of money laundering punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.
6 SPL.C.No.76/2011
7) The offence of money laundering is defined in Section 3 of PML Act, which reads thus:
"3. Offence of money-laundering:
Whoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering."
8) In order to prove the offence of money laundering, the complainant has to prove that the accused was in possession of proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property. The proceeds of crime has been defined in Section 2(u) of PML Act, which reads thus:
"2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property;"
9) As per the said definition of proceeds of crime, the accused has derived the property or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. 7 SPL.C.No.76/2011 Scheduled offence has been defined in Section 2(y) of PML Act, which reads thus:
"2(y) 'scheduled offence' means -
(i) The offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or
(ii) The offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or
(iii) The offences specified under Part C of the Schedule;"
10) Therefore, the complainant has to prove that the accused has committed scheduled offence and derived property as proceeds of crime and projected it as untainted property to establish his guilt of offence of money laundering.
11) PW.1 is the complainant, who is the Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India. Ex.P1 is the complaint filed by PW.1. As per Ex.P1 complaint, a case has been registered against the accused in Crime No.6/2007 of Yeshwanthpura police station for offences under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 of IPC. Section 5 and 6 of Explosives Substance 8 SPL.C.No.76/2011 Act, 1908, Section 25, 26 and 28 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957. Copy of the FIR of Crime No.6/2007 of Yeshwanthpura police station is at Ex.P2. The Yeshwanthpura police have filed charge sheet against the accused and others and copy of which is at Ex.P3. The trial of the said charge sheet has been conducted in SC No.1031/2008 before the 55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. As per the said charge sheet, the accused and others had entered into a conspiracy during the period 2001 to 2007 to wage war against Government of India; that the accused was a member of Pakistan based Terrorist Organization namely, 'Lashkar-e-Toiba'; that the accused was operating from Bangalore City and Hampi, Hospet, Bellary District, where he was residing under the camouflage of doing handicraft business and taking a fictitious identity as 'Imran Jalal'; that the police had apprehended the accused on 5.1.2007 at around 5.10 hours while he alighted from Hospet - Bangalore VRL Bus bearing No.KA-25/B-6085 at RNS Bus Stop, Goraguntepalya, Tumkur - Bangalore road, Bangalore, and inter-alia recovered from him one AK Assault Rifle, 200 rounds of ammunition, five hand grenades and Satellite phone; and that the accused had later led the police to Hospet and 9 SPL.C.No.76/2011 reached there on 6.1.2007 and further led the police to his house at No.262/51, Rani Pet, Hospet, and inter alia produced one AK Assault Rifle, 200 rounds of ammunitions, 5 Hand grenades and Residential Certificate of Grama Panchayat - Hampi etc. The trial of the case was conducted in SC. No.1031/2008 against the accused before the 55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Ex.P18 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in SC No.1031/2008 dated 4.10.2016. The said Ex.P18 came to be marked on consent of the Advocate for accused on an application filed by Special Public Prosecutor under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. In the said SC.No.1031/2008 the accused has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 121, 121A and 122 of IPC, Section 5(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 25(1a) and 26(2) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 20 and 23(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence under Section 121 of IPC, simple imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.25,000/- for offence under Section 121A of IPC, with other sentences for other offences. The said offences under Sections 121 and 121A of IPC are contained in paragraph 1 of Part A of the Schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Therefore, the said 10 SPL.C.No.76/2011 aspect goes to establish that the accused has committed the scheduled offences i.e., offence under Section 121 and 121A of IPC contained in paragraph 1 of Part A of the Schedule.
12) It is the case of the complainant that the real name of the accused is Shri Bilal Ahmed Quta, son of Shamsuddin, whereas he assumed a fictitious identity as Imran Jalal and obtained purported identification documents and opened Savings Bank Account No.5336. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused had obtained an Indian Passport No.A-28587 in his real name Bilal Ahmed Quta from Bangalore Passport Office in the year 1996 and accused had later obtained another Indian Passport bearing No.A-027405 in his fictitious name "Imran Jalal"
from the Bangalore Passport Office during the year 2002. Ex.P9 is the letter dated 17.2.2011 sent by Passport Officer, Bangalore to PW.2. In Ex.P9 it is stated that Passport No.E3023968 dated 13.11.2002 has been issued by their office to Shri Imran Jalal vide File No.A-027405/02 and Passport No.A-1306951 dated 1.11.1996 was issued from their office vide File No.A-02858796 in the name of Bilal Ahmed Quta. Along with the said letters, they have sent scanned application. The photo appearing in the application form of Bilal Ahmed Quta and the photo appearing in 11 SPL.C.No.76/2011 the application in the name of Imran Jalal for obtaining Passport are same and they are of accused. The address furnished by Imran Jalal for obtaining Passport in his application Form is No.14, 7th Cross, Hongasandra, Bengaluru. PW.2, the I.O. in his evidence has deposed that he made enquiry with Passport Office, Bangalore regarding passport of accused. The Passport Officer sent him a reply dated 17.2.2011 enclosing two copies of application forms of Passport, one in his real name Bilal Ahmed Quta and another in his fictitious name as Imran Jalal. He further stated that he got made enquiry through his officials with regard to the address furnished to the Passport Authorities in the fictitious name and his officials reported him that there is no such address and no such person and submitted an enquiry report with Memo, which are at Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. The said incriminating evidence when put in question No.20 of the accused statement u/Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has not denied, but he has shown his ignorance by saying that he do not know. Ex.P12 is the Report submitted to PW.2 by his officials, wherein it is stated that they met the Post Master Mr.Nizamuddin, who has explained that there are no Muslims staying in that area and there are no House Nos.14, 17/2 and 10/1 under 7th Cross. Therefore, the said aspect goes to 12 SPL.C.No.76/2011 establish that the accused obtained Passport in a fictitious name Imran Jalal by giving address which does not exist.
13) It is the further case of the complainant that the accused and others had hatched a conspiracy during the period 2001 to 2007 to wage war against Government of India and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the accused had received monetary consideration from the collaborators of the said crime.
There were cash credits made into the account of accused in Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited, Bangalore and Canara Bank, Hampi from July 2005 will establish that accused received proceeds of crime by cash deposits into his accounts. PW.1 has deposed that accused has opened accounts in Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Bangalore showing his name as Bilal Ahmed Quta. PW.1 has further stated that later accused shifted to Hampi and assumed the identity of Imran Jalal and opened an account in Canara Bank at Hampi giving his name as Imran Jalal. When the said incriminating evidence has been put in question Nos.4 and 5 in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted the same as true. The very said aspect goes to establish that the accused is having one account in his real name with Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Bangalore and 13 SPL.C.No.76/2011 another account with Canara Bank at Hampi in his fictitious name Imran Jalal. Ex.P4 is the letter dated 19.12.2008 issued by Manager, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Infantry Road, Bangalore to PW.2 where under the account statement of Bilal Ahmed Quta with them has been furnished. Ex.P5 is the said statement of accused Bilal Ahmed in Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Infantry Road, Bangalore. The said Ex.P5 statement of bank account is admissible and it is to be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry as per provisions contained in Section 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Ex.P6 is the statement of branch head of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Infantry road, Bangalore. The said bank account shows the following cash credits:
Sl.No. Date Particulars Cash Deposit
(Rs)
1 01-07-2005 Balance 572
2 18-11-2005 Cash 45,000
3 07-02-2006 Cash 45,000
4 07-02-2006 Cash 50,000
5 27-04-2006 Cash 49,000
6 28-04-2006 Cash 49,000
7 29-04-2006 Cash 49,000
14 SPL.C.No.76/2011
8 03-08-2006 Cash 30,000
9 17-08-2006 Cash 37,000
10 18-08-2006 Cash 49,000
11 14-09-2006 Cash 8,500
12 27-09-2006 Cash 16,000
13 18-12-2008 Balance 773
14 Present Balance 48
Total Cash Deposits 4,27,500
(Excluding
the
Balances)
14) There are cash credits of Rs.50,000/- and below in the said account. In Ex.P6, the Manager of Jammu & Kashmir Bank has stated that the cash deposit of above Rs.50,000/- is not admissible and in order to circumvent the said restriction, people resort to deposit in installments of Rs.49,000/-. To circumvent the compliance with the demand of Income tax Pan Card details, an amount of Rs.95,000/- was split into two i.e., Rs.45,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 7.2.2006 and made two cash deposits. The said aspect goes to show that the cash deposits into this account were prima facie not untainted.
15 SPL.C.No.76/2011
15) The accused has opened Savings Bank Account No.5336 with Canara Bank, Main Road, Hampi under the fictitious name 'Imran Jalal'. PW.2 has deposed that accused has opened an account at Canara Bank, Hampi in fictitious name as Imran Jalal. The accused has admitted as true the said incriminating evidence while answering Question No.11 in the accused statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is the statement of account of accused in his fictitious name as Imran Jalal with Canara Bank, Main Road, Hampi. The said bank account shows the following cash credits:
Sl.No. Date Particulars Cash Deposit
(Rs)
1 28-07-2005 Balance 310
2 28-07-2005 By cash 10,100
3 01-08-2005 Interest 141
4 19-08-2005 By Cash 23,000
5 23-08-2005 By Cash 3,500
6 25-08-2005 By Cash 3,000
7 12-10-2005 By Cash 21,500
8 14-10-2005 By Cash 22,000
9 25-10-2005 By Cash 35,000
10 11-11-2005 By Cash 10,100
16 SPL.C.No.76/2011
11 28-11-2005 By Cash 8,000
12 29-11-2005 By Cash 40,000
13 01-12-2005 By cash 20,000
14 08-12-2005 By Cash 6,000
15 22-12-2005 By Cash 10,000
16 30-12-2005 By cash 13,000
17 31-12-2005 By Cash 5,000
18 09-01-2006 By Cash 22,000
19 10-01-2006 By cash 95,000
20 30-01-2006 By Cash 13,500
21 02-02-2006 Interest 41
22 17-02-2006 By cash 31,500
23 14-03-2006 By Cash 65,000
24 17-03-2006 By Cash 9,000
25 01-08-2006 Interest 120
26 01-08-2006 By Cash 16,000
27 21-08-2006 By SB 3948 3,640
28 19-10-2006 By Cash 17,000
29 10-11-2006 By Cash 33,000
30 28-12-2006 By Cash 20,000
31 30-12-2006 By cash 3,000
17 SPL.C.No.76/2011
32 02-01-2007 By Cash 8,000
SUMMARY Rs.
Initial Balance 310
Cash Credits 5,63,200
Interest 302
S.B. Transfer 3,640
Grand Total 5,67,452
Balance as on 8.1.2007 32,379
Further interest 2,451
Balance on 21/3/2009 34,830
16) The very said cash credits in the said accounts from
28.7.2005 to 2.1.2007 shows that there were cash credits of Rs.5,63,200/- in the account of accused opened in his fictitious name 'Imran Jalal'. The very said aspect goes to show that the cash deposits into that account were prima facie not untainted. Ex.P10 is the statement of B.Shivappa, Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank and it was recorded under Section 50(2) of PML Act 2002 on 24.2.2011. He was Manager of Canara Bank, Hampi when accused had opened Savings Bank Account under the fictitious name Imran Jalal. When confronted with the 18 SPL.C.No.76/2011 photograph of Shri Bilal Ahmed Quta figuring on the application for Passport No.A-28587 in the name of Bilal Ahmed Quta, the said B.Shivappa, Senior Manager had identified him as Imran Jalal. The accused has stated in answer to Question No.29 of Section 313 Statement regarding his wish to state anything else has stated that "The credits into my bank account are my business income; I was paying sales tax (KST & CST)". The accused to establish that the credit into his account are out of his business income and he was paying sales tax, has not produced any document or evidence. As per Section 24 of PML Act, the burden of proving that proceeds of Crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. The accused has not discharged the said burden. The complainant has established that the accused has committed scheduled offence and has received proceeds of crime and projected it as untainted property.
17) The learned Advocate appearing for the accused has submitted that the complainant has not established that where money came from? What happened to the money? And who took the money? The statements of bank accounts of the accused with Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Bangalore and Canara Bank, Hampi goes to show that huge amount i.e., totaling 19 SPL.C.No.76/2011 Rs.9,90,700/- has been deposited in the account of the accused. The accused has committed the scheduled offence under Section 121 and 121A of IPC. Therefore, when a person is accused of having committed the offence under Section 3 of PMLA, the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the accused does not hold any water.
18) The learned Advocate appearing for accused has contended that Section 18 and 19 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are similar to offence of money laundering under PMLA Act and therefore accused cannot be tried and punished for a single act twice as it amounts to double jeopardy. As per Article 20(2) of Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the similar offence more than once. The accused has been convicted for offences under Sections 20 and 23(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 in SC No.1031/2008 and not for offence under Section 18 and 19 as stated by Advocate for accused. Section 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 provides for punishment for being a member of terrorist gang or organization and Section 23(1) 20 SPL.C.No.76/2011 provides for enhanced penalties if a person with intent to aid any terrorist or terrorist organization or terrorist gang, contravenes any provisions of Explosives Act or Explosive Substances Act or Inflammable Substances Act or Arms Act. The offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PML Act is a distinct and different offence than the offence under Section 20 or 23(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Therefore, it does not amount to double jeopardy.
19) The complainant has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the scheduled offences and received proceeds of crime projecting it as untainted property. Therefore, the accused is guilty of offence of money laundering punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative.
20) Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER
The accused is hereby convicted
under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the 21 SPL.C.No.76/2011 offences punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, the same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of February, 2018.) (SHIVASHANKAR B. AMARANNAVAR) Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Accused submits that he has spent lot of time in judicial custody and prayed to give benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C., and to award minimum sentence.
Advocate for accused submits to give benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
SPP submits that the schedule offence is offence of waging war against Government of India and accused is involved with terrorist activities and prayed to award maximum sentence with fine.
As the Schedule offence u/s 121 & 121A of IPC are under Paragraph - 1 of Part - A of the Schedule, the sentence shall be punishment with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which shall 22 SPL.C.No.76/2011 not be less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.
The accused is involved in terrorist activities and the Schedule offence is waging war against Government of India, the maximum sentence has to be awarded with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default clause.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 07 (Seven) years and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand).
In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 (Six) months.
The accused is entitled to set-off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Office is directed to furnish copy of the Judgment to accused.
(SHIVASHANKAR B. AMARANNAVAR) Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.23 SPL.C.No.76/2011
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Sri. Subhash Agarwal PW.2 : Johnson K. George
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITTED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2: Copy of FIR in Cr.No.6/2007 of Yeshwanthpur P.S.
Ex.P3 : Copy of Charge Sheet consisting 18 sheets
Ex.P4 : Letter of Jammu & Kashmir Bank with 2 sheets
Ex.P5 : Account extract of J & K Bank with 3 sheets
Ex.P6 : Statement of Branch Head of the J & K Bank
Ex.P7: Account extracts of Canara Bank with 4 sheets
Ex.P8: Account opening Form with 4 sheets
Ex.P9: Letter dated 17.2.2011 from Passport Officer
with 32 sheets
Ex.P10: Statement of B.Shivappa, Senior Manager
of Canara Bank
Ex.P11: Enquiry Memorandum dated 1.3.2011
Ex.P12: Enquiry Report dated 1.3.2011
Ex.P13: Letter issued by PDO of Grama Panchayat of Hampi
Ex.P14: Provisional Attachment order No.472011
with 9 sheets
24 SPL.C.No.76/2011
Ex.P14(a): Signature of PW.1 on Ex.P14
Ex.P15: Copy of orders passed by Adjudicating Authority i.e.,
O.C. No.95/2011
Ex.P16: Copy of letter from ACP, CCB (H & B) to SHO of
Yeshwanthapura P.S. dated 5.1.2007
Ex.P17: Voluntary statement of accused
Ex.P18: Certified copy of Judgment in SC No.1031/2008
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITTED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*sk