Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Davangere Ps vs A1 S Chethana on 17 June, 2025
1 Spl.CC No.489/2019
KABC010156852019
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the State of
Karnataka)
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
Spl.CC. No. 489 / 2019
COMPLAINANT: State by Karnataka
Lokayukta Police, Davanagere
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Smt.S.Chethana
W/o T.N.Srikantaswamy
Aged about 54 years
No.241, 3rd Main,
P.J.Extension, Davanagere.
Presently residing at H.No.4,
4th Cross, Siddaganga
Extension, Tumakuru
2. Smt.S.Swetha
W/o H.S.Nagaraj
Aged about 43 years
2 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Residing at No.218, 3rd Main,
P.J.Extension, Davanagere.
3. Smt.M.G.Sonibai
W/o M.Basavaraj Naik
Aged about 56 years
Residing at Alura Hatti,
Mellekatte Post, Davanagere
Taluk.
Presently residing at 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Vidyanagara,
Davanagere.
4. Sri M.Guddappa
S/o Manya Naik
Aged about 73 Years
Retired Manager,
(Retired on 31.10.2012)
Canara Bank
No.848, 2nd Bus-stop,
Taralabalu Badavane
Vidyanagara, Davanagere.
5. Sri R.Dharmanaik
S/o. Ramanaik,
Aged about 46 Years
Hostel Warden,
High School Boys Hostel,
B.C.M Department,
Near JMIT College,
P.B.Road, Davanagere.
Also residing at 3rd Cross,
DCM Township, Davanagere.
3 Spl.CC No.489/2019
6. Smt. Sunitha.G.
W/o. Dronanaik,
Aged about 46 Years
Assistant Teacher,
Kundawada Government High
School, Davanagere Taluk and
District.
Residing at No.848, Near 2nd
Bus Stop, Tharalabalu Layout,
Davanagere.
7. Sri Prasanna Kumar G.S.
(DEAD)
8. Dr. J.H.Gowri Bai
W/o. Dr.K.R.Gangadhar Naik,
Aged about 70 Years
Retired Doctor,
(Voluntary retired in 1996)
No.320, Siddaiah Puranik
Road, Basaveswara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
9. Sri K.M.Virupakshappa @
Madal Virupakshappa
S/o Mallappa,
Aged about 75 Years
Ex.MLA, Chennakeshavapura,
Madal Post, Chennagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
10. Smt.Sudharani H.J
W/o Mallikarjuna M.V.
4 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Aged about 38 Years
Chennakeshavapura,
Madal Post, Channagere Tq.,
Davanagere District
11. Sri M.V.Praveen Kumar
S/o Virupakshappa @
Madal Virupakshappa
(Ex-Vidhanasabha Member)
Aged about 46 Years
Real Estate Business
Chennakeshavapura,
Madal Post, Channagere Tq.,
Davanagere District.
12. Sri M.N.Deepak
S/o M.J.Narayanaswamy
Aged about 37 years
Residing at No.231,
Nijalingappa Layout,
Davanagere.
13. Sri G.S.Hanumantha
S/o J.H.Sharanappa
Aged about 59 years
Cycle Stand Contractor
in Bapuji Hospital premises,
Residing at No.2035/72,
13th Cross, Anjaneya
Extension, Davanagere.
14. Sri Shivajinaik P.T.
S/o Thavarenaik,
5 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Aged about 54 years
Lakshmipura,
Harappanahalli Tq.,
Davanagere District
15. Sri Venkateshwaranaik
S/o Thavarenaik
Aged about 54 years
Lakshmipura,
Harappanahalli Tq.,
Davanagere district
16. Smt.A.S.Monika
D/o Mruthyunjaya
Aged about 36 Years
A.S. No.916, Ajjampura
Shettar Layout, Nittuvalli,
K.B.Extension, Davanagere.
17. Dr. B.Vasanth Kumar
S/o. Late C.Basappa,
Aged about 56 Years
Government Medical Officer,
City Family Welfare Centre,
Doddapete, Davanagere.
Residing at No.992/66,
11th Cross, M.E.S., near
Convent School, Anjaneya
Extension, Davanagere.
18. Dr. B.G.Goutham
S/o. G.Basavaraj
@ G.Siddabasappa,
6 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Aged about 37 Years
BDS Doctor, No.2402/1,
1st Floor, 10th Main,
MCC 'A' Block,
Near Bakkerswara High
School, Davanagere.
19. Dr.Sunil.S. Byadagi
S/o. Srishyla Byadagi,
Private Doctor,
Aged about 49 Years
Sukshema Hospital,
Davanagere.
Residing at No.1968/01,
'Shilpika', MCC 'A' Block,
Shamanooru Road,
Davanagere.
20. Smt.Latha
W/o K.T.Nagaraj Naik
Aged about 44 Years
Residing at No.2000/16,
1st Main, 11th Cross,
Taralabalu Extension,
Davanagere.
21. Smt. Netravathi N.K
W/o Thippeswamy H.D,
Aged about 66 years,
House wife,
Residing at No.1481/20,
1st A Cross, Siddaveerappa
Layout, near BIET,
Davanagere.
7 Spl.CC No.489/2019
22. Smt.H.M.Mukthambha
W/o S.Manjunath,
Aged about 59 Years
Senior Assistant,
LIC of India,
Challakere Branch
Residing at Ashraya Nilaya,
Near Bapuji College,
Chitradurga District.
23. Sri P.P.Aradhya Mutt
S/o Parvathayya Aradhyamutt
Aged about 71 Years
Kumarapattam,
Retd. Employee of Grasim
Factory,
Residing at Behind Hotel
Manohar Cafe, Halladakeri,
Shivamogga Road,
Harihara Town.
24. Smt.Rajeshwari
W/o H.R.Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 66 Years
House Wife,
Residing at No.1341/5,
2nd Cross, 2nd Stage,
Shivakumaraswamy Layout,
Davanagere.
Presently residing at
No.K.A.101, 10th cross,
V.V.Nagar, Mandya.
8 Spl.CC No.489/2019
25. Smt. Manjula
W/o Murugesh
Aged about 51 Years
Junior Engineer,
Mahanagara Palike,
Davanagere
No.3780/2, Sahyadri Nilaya
M.C.C. 'B' Block,
Near Shankara Leela Kalyana
Mantap, Davanagere.
26. Sri Nagaraj.T
S/o Basappa,
Aged about 65 Years
Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Department,
Divisional Office,
Kashipura Road,
Shivamogga.
Residing at No.801-3-4-5,
Shivakumara Swamy Nagar,
2nd Phase, Davanagere.
27. Sri Suresh.B.
S/o. Bharamappa Y,
Aged about 59 Years
Principal,
Government ITI College,
Chitradurga.
Residing at No.3714/56,
13th Main, M.C.C. 'A' Block,
Davanagere.
9 Spl.CC No.489/2019
28. Sri Nijaguna Shivacharya
S/o Murugendraswamy N.B,
Aged about 64 Years
Private Engineer at N.B.Bapuji
Educational Institute
Residing at No.2849/1, 4th
Main, 7th Cross, M.C.C. 'B'
Block, Davanagere.
29. Sri Basavarajanaik.M.
S/o Manya Naik
Aged about 59 Years
Ex-MLA, Mayakonda
Constituency
Residing at Alura Hatti Grama
Mellekatte Post,
Davanagere Taluk.
Presently residing at 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Vidyanagara,
Davanagere.
30. Sri S.A.Ravindranath
Aged about 79 Years
Ex-District Administrative
Minister, Davanagere District
R/o Shiramagondanahalli
Grama, Davanagere Taluk.
31. Sri Yeshwanth Rao Jadhav
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged 60 years,
Ex-President,
Davanagere-Harihara
Nagarabiruddi Pradhikara,
Davanagere.
10 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Residing at No.28, Devaraj Urs
Badavane, 2nd Cross,
'B' Block, Davanagere.
32. Smt.G.E.Shashikala
Eshwarappa
Aged about 60 years
Ex-Member,
Davanagere Harihara Urban
Development Authority
Residing at No.2035/35,
8th Cross, Anjaneya Extension
Davanagere
33. Sri G.N.Hanumanthappa
(DEAD)
35. Dr. B.R.Sumithra Devi
W/o Dr.Omkarappa
Aged about 69 years
Retired District Health and
Family Welfare Officer,
Davanagere District and
Member of Site Allotment
Committee,
Davanagere Harihara Urban
Development Authority
Davanagere
Residing at Taralabalu
Extension, "Dhruthi",
13th Cross, Davanagere
Date of offence FIRs registered on the basis of
totally 23 PCRs in No.11/13,
15/13, 16/13, 17/13, 22/13,
24/13, 28/13, 30/13, 32/13,
11 Spl.CC No.489/2019
34/13, 36/13, 38/13, 40/13,
42/13, 44/13, 46/13, 60/13,
61/13, 62/13, 63/13, 65/13,
66/13 and 67/13 filed District
and Sessions Judge and Special
Court, Davanagere
Date of report of offence As above
Name of the complainant Sri Manikanta Sarkar
S/o Karunakaran
Date of commencement of 27.11.2020
recording of evidence
Date of closing of 11.03.2025
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.198 and 420 of IPC, Sec.8,
13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused are found not guilty
State represented by By learned Special Public
Prosecutor
Accused represented by Sri. Nagaraja H.H., Advocate for A1
Sri R.Nagendra Naik, Advocate for A2
Sri G.M.Chandrashekar, Advocate for
A-3, 14 to 16, 27, 29 and 30
Sri S.V.Bhojaraja, Advocate for A4 to
6 & 20
Sri Siddartha B.Muchandi, Advocate
for A8, 17 to 19, 26, 28
Sri Govardhan, Advocate for A9 to 11
Sri Thukaramappa Arani, Advocate
for A12
Sri Akashkiran.S.V., Advocate for
A13
12 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Sri Shashidhara.M., Advocate for A21
Sri. Manjunatha.P, Advocate for A22
& 25
Sri H.K.Naghabhushan, Advocate for
A23
Sri.G.Govinda Gowda, Advocate for
A24
Sri.M.K.Hiremath, Advocate for A31
Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, Advocate for
A32
Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate for
A35
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Davanagere, has filed the charge-sheet against the aforesaid accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.198, 420 of IPC and under Sec.8, 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Protection of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').
2. The genesis of the above case is that, a private complaint came to filed by one Sri.Manikanta, alleging of irregularities in the allotment of sites by the Davanagere- Harihara Urban Development Authority (DHUDA in short). It is the case of complainant that about 507 sites 13 Spl.CC No.489/2019 were earmarked for allotment to various persons in J.H.Patel extension of various dimensions. In pursuance of the same, the DHUDA Authority had called for paper notification, which was published duly through various newspapers on 24.03.2008, 19.09.2009 and 29.12.2009. Thereafter, totally 2053 applications were received and about 1038 applications came to be rejected. Thereafter, about 1015 applications were placed before the Sub- Committee formed towards allotment of sites and thereafter a report was obtained which initially it was resolved to make the allotment by picking-up lottery, however, later on it was decided by the Sub-Committee as well as the Main Committee not to go for allotment by way of lottery system. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee, necessary allotment of sites being made. It is the contention of the complainant that a partisan attitude was leveled by the members of the Sub-Committee which was headed by the then District In-charge Minister Mr.S.A.Ravindranath, who has been arrayed as accused 14 Spl.CC No.489/2019 No.30 in the instant case and who had also presided the Sub-Committee as well as the Main Committee. In brief, the main allegation leveled is that the accused No.1 Smt.S.Chethana, accused No.2 Smt.S.Swetha, accused No.3 Smt.M.G.Sonibai, accused No.4 Sri.M.Guddappa, accused No.5 Sri.R.Dharmanaik, accused No.6 Smt.Sunitha.G, accused No.7 Sri.Prasanna Kumar (case is abated against him), accused No.8 Dr.J.H.Gowri Bai, accused No.10 Smt.Sudharani, accused No.11 Sri.M.V.Praveen Kumar, accused No.12 Sri.M.N.Deepak, accused No.13 Sri.G.S.Hanumantha, accused No.14 Sri.Shivajinaik, accused No.15 Sri.Venkateshwaranaik, accused No.16 Smt.A.S.Monika, accused No.17 Dr.B.Vasanth Kumar, accused No.18, Dr.B.G.Goutham, accused No.19 Dr.Sunil S. Byadagi, accused No.20 Smt.Latha, accused No.21 Smt.Netravathi, accused No.22 Smt.H.M.Mukthambha, accused No.23 Sri.P.P.Aradhya Mutt, accused No.24 Smt. Rajeshwari, accused No.25 Smt.Manjula, accused No.26 Sri.Nagaraj, accused No.27 Sri.Suresh.B and accused No.28 15 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Sri.Nijaguna Shivacharya were allotted sites with the influence and help of the Sub-Committee members i.e., accused No.29 Sri.Basavaraja Naik, accused No.30 Sri.S.A.Ravindranath, accused No.31 Sri.Yeshwanth Rao Jadhav, accused No.32 Smt.G.E.Shashikala Eshwarappa, accused No.33 Sri.G.N.Hanumanthappa (case is abated against him) and accused No.35 Dr.B.R.Sumithra Devi.
3. Immediately after presentation of the private complaint by the complainant Sri.Manikanta, the same came to be referred by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere to the Karnataka Lokayuktha under the provisions of Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the basis of the reference being made by the jurisdictional Lokayuktha Court at Davanagere, the Karnataka Lokayuktha had registered various FIR's i.e., FIR No.11/2013, FIR Nos.15/2013 to 17/2013, FIR No.22/2013, FIR No.24/2013, FIR No.28/2013, FIR No. 30/2013, FIR No.32/2013, FIR No.34/2013, FIR No. 36/2013, FIR No.38/2013, FIR No.40/2013, FIR No. 16 Spl.CC No.489/2019 42/2013, FIR No. 44/2013, FIR No. 46/2013, FIR No.60/2013, FIR No. 61/2013, FIR No. 62/2013, FIR No. 63/2013, FIR No. 65/2013, FIR No. 66/2013 and FIR No.67/2013. On completion of the investigation, a common charge-sheet came to be filed against the aforesaid accused persons. On presentation of the charge-sheet before the Court, the case came to be transferred to this Court since Special Court was established for trial of the criminal cases against the sitting/former MP's and MLA's in the State of Karnataka. On the basis of the entire materials on record, my predecessor-in-office was pleased to take necessary cognizance for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons were summoned before the Court and in pursuance of the same, they had appeared before the Court. The accused had filed necessary discharge applications which came to be rejected and later on court had proceeded to frame necessary charges, wherein the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 17 Spl.CC No.489/2019
4. The prosecution in order to prove their case, had examined totally 31 witnesses as PW.1 to 31 and Ex.P1 to 205 came to be marked on behalf of the prosecution. During the course of evidence, the prosecution had filed an application under Sec.216 of Cr.P.C., seeking for alteration and also for addition of charges. The said application was resisted by the learned Counsel for the accused. After hearing both parties on merits, this Court had allowed the application in part and had proceeded to frame charge under Sec.420 of IPC. On completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons came to be recorded as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused persons have denied all the incriminating materials available against them and some of the accused persons have filed written submissions. The sum and substance of the submissions which are made by the accused persons while recording their statements under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is that they have not 18 Spl.CC No.489/2019 committed any offences and they have been falsely implicated in the above case.
5. The Court has heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri.S.S.Hiremath at length. It is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that totally 507 sites were available for allotment, which were in deed allotted to the present accused persons as well as other persons. It is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the aforesaid accused persons though they were not eligible for allotment of sites, had obtained allotment by exerting their influence over the members of the Sub-Committee. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also brought to the notice of the Court that the accused persons had filed a false declaration before the DHUDA Authorities along with their application by contending that they were not owning any sites or any immovable properties in the State of Karnataka which was indeed contrary to the claim. Since the sites were to be allotted to the persons who were landless and who were not being allotted site 19 Spl.CC No.489/2019 according to the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1991, the allotment made in favour of the accused persons were per-say illegal. It has also been vehemently submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that immediately after scrutinizing the applications, the same were placed before the Sub-Committee. It is his submission that certain yardstick was prepared by the Members of the Sub-Committee, wherein it was decided that certain points were awarded to the applicants on the basis of their marital status, their responsibility towards their family members which is based on the total number of members available in the family, owning of immovable properties etc., by them. It is argued that even though some of the applicants had obtained zero points, they were allotted with sites by the Sub-Committee by ignoring the fact that some other eligible persons were entitled for allotment. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also argued that merely the ineligible persons or the persons who were not allotted with sites 20 Spl.CC No.489/2019 have not challenged the allotment of sites, that does not indicate that the allotment process was valid and fair. In order to buttress his submission, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken this court through the Resolution passed by the Sub-Committee and which is more fully placed at Ex.P205. The learned Special Public Prosecutor by pointing out the possession of the applicants/accused persons argued that though they were obtained zero points and were standing down below the line in their specific category, the Authorities had proceeded to allot sites for them. Under these circumstances, it is his submission that the entire allotment of sites were illegal and contrary to the settled position of law. By pointing out the said infirmities, he has argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt with respect to filing of false declaration and also allotment of sites. Accordingly, he has sought for convicting the accused persons.
6. Per contra, Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, learned Counsel appearing for accused No.2 has taken this 21 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Court to various facets of the above case. It is his submission that the application of provision of Sec.198 of IPC itself is not applicable to the case on hand. In order to substantiate his contention, he has argued at length that the provision of Sec.198 of IPC pertains to issuance of Certificate. However, in the instant case, it is alleged that certain declarations were filed by the applicants along with their application seeking for allotment. The question which is required to be appreciated is whether the declaration in the form of affidavit filed by the applicant in the application can be construed as Certificate filed before a public authority. By pointing out the same, he has argued that the provision of Sec.198 of IPC, itself cannot be applied. The other limb of submission which is being made by the learned counsel is that the investigation authorities have not clearly indicated the manner in which the accused persons had allegedly colluded with the Members of the Sub-Committee. It is his submission that unless the provision of Sec.120(B) of IPC, is pressed into service, 22 Spl.CC No.489/2019 there cannot be any conviction being rendered by invoking the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. If the prosecution is unable to establish that the accused persons had allegedly came in contact with the then District In-charge Minister or the Members of the Sub- Committee, the conviction cannot be sustained. He has also argued at length that the provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act are very much akin to the provisions of Sec.406 and 409 of IPC. However, in order to attract the provisions of Sec.406 and 409 of IPC, necessary entry is required to be made. Even otherwise, the provision of Sec.8 in the above case also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the learned counsel has argued that the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation only in pursuance of the prayer which is made in the private complaint. In fact, the Investigating Officer who had summoned the entire materials and also had an opportunity to scrutinize the application form of the eligible and ineligible applicants including the persons 23 Spl.CC No.489/2019 who were not allotted with sites. The learned counsel has also referred to the provision of Sec.3(3) of the General Clauses Act, wherein the word 'Affidavit' is defined and on the basis of the same he has argued that whether cancellation/forfeiture of site could be construed as illegal act or offence as contemplated under Sec.198 of IPC. In order to buttress his submission, he has referred to the allotment letter and as per Clause-6 of the allotment letter, which is similar to Clause-11 of the advertisement, and has submitted that there was no indication that the allottees should not own any immovable properties. It is his submission that only in the event of allottees obtaining prior allotment from any Government agencies, Housing Development Authorities or any other Authority, they would be considered as ineligible for the purpose of allotment. In this regard, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2018)17 SCC (732) (Babji Vs. State of Andra Pradesh), with respect to attracting the provisions of Sec.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Lastly, the 24 Spl.CC No.489/2019 learned Counsel has fortified his submissions by pointing out to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that is PW.31 Mr.Shankar M. Ragi and has argued at length that the Investigating Officer has failed to ascertain the fact about the person who has prepared the Resolution was the person who has drawn the proceedings. It is also argued that the Investigating Officer has not made any efforts to ascertain whether the Member of the Board/Sub-Committee had exercised discretionary power towards the allotment of sites. He has also argued that even the Secretary of the Authority was not at all examined. Before concluding it is his submission that, Rule-12 of KUDA (Allotment of Site) Rules speaks about ineligibility towards allotment of sites. The words and proviso which speaks about ineligibility cannot be construed to indicate any of the positive act to be made towards the allotment of sites. By considering the notification, it is crystal clear that the allotment was not made as a free site or a site allotted at concessional rate and at best it would be held that 25 Spl.CC No.489/2019 allottees had obtained site wherein the site had a marketable title deed free from any infirmities. By pointing out the said aspects, he has argued that the impugned allotment of sites was in accordance with the law and in no way the provisions of Section mentioned above could be attracted.
7. The learned Counsels for the other accused persons have adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for accused No.2 and all the aforesaid accused persons have relied upon various authorities, which are as follows;
(1980) 3 SCC 110 in the case of Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar Vs. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) (1996) 10 SCC 193 (C.Chenga Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P.) (2016) 12 SCC 273 (A.Sivaprakash Vs. State of Kerala) (2005) 12 SCC 631: (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 686: 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1544 (K.R.Purushottam Vs. State of Kerala) (2009) 8 SCC 617 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetal A. Sahai and others) 26 Spl.CC No.489/2019 AIR 2022 SC 3050 (Surendranath and another Vs. State of Kerala) Unreported Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of A.Lakshmanan Vs. State rep: by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore in Crl.O.P.No.8714/2024 and Crl.M.P. No.6271/2024 decided on 28.6.2024 (2013) 1 SCC 205 (C.K.Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (through CBI)
8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused materials on record. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 6, 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 19, 21 to 28 along with the deceased accused No.7 and 33, had intentionally filed false declaration by stating that they were not owning any immovable properties in their names which was believed to be false and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.198 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the aforesaid 27 Spl.CC No.489/2019 accused persons in order to obtain allotment of sites at Sri J.H.Patel Extension from Davanagere-Harihara Urban Development Authority with dishonest intention, had induced the committee members through the then District In-charge Minister accused No.30 Sri.S.A.Ravindranath, who had obtained allotment of sites though they were ineligible for the same and had not obtained requisite points towards the allotment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.30 to 32 and 35 had promised to give an advantage to accused No.1 to 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20 and 23 being the public servants to reward for improper performance of public duty and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused 28 Spl.CC No.489/2019 No.30 to 32 and 35 being the public servants had dishonestly committed criminal misconduct by influencing the DUDHA Authorities to allot sites and thereby had committed an offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
5) What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4: In the Negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 4: As these points are inter-
connected, all the points are taken together for discussion. The facts in narrow compass before adverting to the materials produced in this case is that, the DUDHA Authorities had called for application for allotment of 507 Sites at Sri J.H.Patel Extension, 29 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Davanagere and the condition which was imposed in the application was that the applicant should not be allotted with sites by Governmental Agency or any other Authorities. In pursuance of the same, nearly 2053 applications were filed, out of which, allotment was made in favour of the present accused persons also. It is noticed on records that subsequently a private complaint came to be filed by PW.1 Sri.Manikanta Sarkar, who had alleged that several ineligible persons were allotted with the sites. He has also submitted that the allotment of sites had taken place due to the influence exerted by accused No.30 Sri.S.A.Ravindranath, who was the then District In-charge Minister along with his cronies who was made as Members of the Allotment Committee and Sub-Committee. On the basis of the private complaint being filed, the jurisdictional Court had referred the complaint to the Karnataka Lokayuktha for investigation and to file report under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. On culmination of the investigation, the Investigating Agency had found that the members of the Committee and Sub- 30 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Committee had flouted the rules and regulations which they were required to be followed towards allotment of sites and had allotted sites in favour of ineligible applicants i.e., the present accused persons. As such, a final report came to be filed.
11. The main aspect which is required to be determined by this Court is with respect to entertaining of dishonest intention and also filing of false declaration as contemplated under Sec.198 of IPC. Prior to determining the same, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the entire evidence which is led by the prosecution in the above case. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined 31 witnesses as PW.1 to
31.
12. PW.1 Sri. Vasudeva C.S., is the Panchayath Development Officer who has deposed that on 05.07.2013 he was summoned to the office of the Karnataka Lokayuktha, Davanagere, to be a Panch witness and later on they had visited the DUDHA office 31 Spl.CC No.489/2019 and has met CW.33 Sri. Achyutha Murthy and also Shivanna Huligemmanavar and had recovered documents under the Mahazar at Ex.P1. It is his evidence that on 06.07.2013, he had once again visited the office and in his presence several records pertaining to the accused were recovered under the Mahazar at Ex.P2 to 6. He has identified the said documents. During the course of cross-examination, nothing much has been elicited from him.
13. PW.2 Manikanta Sarkar is the complainant who has reiterated the allegations which he has leveled in his private complaint and he has also identified his complaint which was marked before this Court as Ex.P7 to 52 along with the copy of private complaint. He was also subjected to cross-examination and he has categorically admitted that no other persons who were not allotted with the sites had challenged the allotment of site process. Apart from that, nothing much has been elicited from him.
32 Spl.CC No.489/2019
14. PW.3 Sri. Sunil Kumar.J., is the mahazar witness in whose presence the documents were recovered from the DHUDA office. During the course of cross-examination, nothing much has been elicited from him.
15. PW.4 Sri.H.T.Veeranjaneya, PW.5 Smt.P.S. Savitha, PW.6 Sri.Somashekar.N and PW.7 Sri.Thippeswamy.N are the mahazar witnesses who were present during the recovery of documents pertaining to the aforesaid accused persons in the DHUDA office. Nothing much was elicited from them during the course of cross-examination.
16. PW.8 Sri.Sathish D.P., is the Senior Sub- Registrar who has deposed of furnishing documents pertaining to the immovable properties standing in the name of Sri.A.S.Mruthyunjaya as per Ex.P71 to 78.
17. PW.9 Sri.Abhijith V.C. is the PDO of Alur Hatti Village Panchayath at Davanagere and has deposed of producing documents pertaining to the properties 33 Spl.CC No.489/2019 standing in the name of Smt.Sonibai, Sri. Basavaraja Naik and Late.Manya Naik and he has further deposed that after examining the materials he has produced the documents as per Ex.P79 to 84.
18. PW.10 Sri.Achyutha Murthy K.A., is the Stenographer at DHUDA and he has deposed of assisting the Investigating Agency by producing the documents in nearly 23 cases.
19. PW.11 Dr.N.Mahanthesh is the Deputy Commissioner of Davanagere Municipal Corporation and has deposed of producing documents pertaining to Smt.Shwetha, wherein he has furnished about 4 Khatha Extracts and also of furnishing documents of Basavaraja Naik, Guddappa, Dharma Naik, M.N.Deepak, G.S.Hanumamthappa, Kum.A.S.Monika, Mruthyunjaya, Dr.B.Vasanth Kumar, M.K.Nethravathi, Dr.Manjula, D.Nagaraju, Smt.Renuka and Sri.Nijaguna Shivacharya. During the course of cross-examination, nothing much was elicited from him.
34 Spl.CC No.489/2019
20. PW.12 Sri.H.S.Gandhi, is the Sub-Registrar of Chennagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, who has deposed of producing documents pertaining to Mr.M.V.Praveen Kumar and Smt.H.G.Sudharani. During the course of cross-examination, nothing much was elicited from him.
21. PW.13 Sri.Ravindra Gowda is the Senior Sub- Registrar at Davanagere and has deposed of producing documents pertaining to Sri.G.S.Hanumanthappa.
22. PW.14 Sri.K.Nagaraj is the Revenue Officer of Davanagere Municipal Corporation and it is his evidence that on 25.07.2015 he was requested by the Investigating Officer to produce Katha extract pertaining to Door No.2489/1 and 1968/1, which he had produced as per Ex.P132 to 136.
23. PW.15 Sri.Ningappa H. Kummannanavar is the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and has deposed that on 06.04.2015, he was requested to furnish the documents pertaining to accused No.23 Sri. Panchaksharaiah Aradhya Mutt and on verification he 35 Spl.CC No.489/2019 had produced the Assessment Register Extract as per Ex.P138 and 139.
24. PW.16 Smt.V.Rukmini is the Revenue Officer at Davanagere Municipal Corporation and has deposed of verifying the records with respect to properties being owned by Mr.Gowtham S/o Basavaraju and on verification no properties were standing in his name and accordingly he had furnished the information as per Ex.P140 and 141.
25. PW.17 Sri.Lakshman Kumar is the Revenue Officer at Tumkur Municipal Corporation and has deposed of receiving a requisition from Karnataka Lokayuktha to ascertain the immovable properties standing in the name of Smt.Chethana and Srikantaswamy and also of their family members. On verification, he had produced the materials as per Ex.P143.
26. PW.18 Sri.C.K.Basavarajappa, had worked as SDA at DHUDA and has deposed of preparing a check- 36 Spl.CC No.489/2019 list over the applications received by them towards the allotment of sites and he had prepared the check-list of Smt.Sunitha as per Ex.P155 and also of Vasantha Kumar at Ex.P156, Gowtham at Ex.P157 and another check-list at Ex.P158 and also the check-list of Sri.P.P.Aradhya Mutt, Smt.Rajeshwari H.R. and Nagaraju.T. During the course of cross-examination nothing much was elicited from him.
27. PW.19 Sri.Anbu Kumar was the Commissioner of Backward Classes Department and has deposed that on 19.05.2015, he had received a letter from the ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, requesting to accord sanction to prosecute Mr.Dharma Naik, who was working as Warden at Post Metric Boys Hostel, Davanagere. Being the Commissioner of Backward Classes Welfare Department, he was the Competent Authority to appoint Warden at Metric Boys Hostel, which was being run by their department and also, they were empowered to remove the Warden from the service. It is his evidence that the documents which were 37 Spl.CC No.489/2019 furnished by the concerned authorities pertains to Mr. Dharma Naik and on perusal of the same, strong prima- facie materials were made out to prosecute the accused Dharma Naik and hence he has issued necessary sanction for prosecuting him on 03.01.2017, which is as per Ex.P162 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Sec.198 of IPC and Rule 13 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1991. Apart from denial, nothing was suggested to him.
28. PW.20 Smt.H.M.Prema had worked as Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Davanagere and she has deposed of receiving the requisition from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru on 20.10.2016, to accord sanction to prosecute Smt.Sunitha.G, Assistant Teacher, Government High School at Davanagere. Further she has deposed that accused No.6 Smt.Sunitha had obtained site illegally at Sri J.H.Patel Extension, Davanagere and since the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet and other documents, she was convinced about the 38 Spl.CC No.489/2019 necessary materials to prosecute her and accordingly she had accorded sanction to prosecute her as per Ex.P163. Apart from denial, nothing was elicited from her during the course of her cross-examination.
29. PW.21 A.Allabhakshi had worked as Senior Assistant at BESCOM, Davanagere and had deposed of being mahazar witness along with CW.5 Shanmukhappa. It is his evidence that they had visited DHUDA office on 03.08.2013 and had collected documents under the mahazar at Ex.P164 and 165.
30. PW.22 Sri.Venkateshwarappa Gaddad, is the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning at Davanagere and he had deposed that a layout was developed at J.H.Patel Extension, wherein they had intended to allot sites to the eligible persons. Further he has deposed that in order to make the allotment, a Sub- Committee consisting of Chairman and 4 other members were formed, wherein the Commissioner of DHUDA had proposed to allot the sites on the basis of picking up 39 Spl.CC No.489/2019 lottery. However, the Sub-Committee had descended to the same on the ground that the eligible persons may not be provided with allotment of sites and hence on 08.10.2010, a Sub-Committee had prepared a list and had submitted to the meeting convened by the DHUDA Authority. Further he has deposed being part of the meeting and also affixing signature to the Resolution passed with respect to the allotment of site.
31. PW.23 Sri.Eranna had worked as Under Secretary at Labour Department, wherein he has deposed of receiving FIR, charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and report of the Investigating Officer from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha with a request to accord sanction to prosecute Mr.Suresh. On perusal of the records, it indicated the necessity to lodge prosecution against Mr.Suresh and accordingly he had granted sanction to prosecute him as per Ex.P166.
32. PW.24 Sri.Manjegowda is also Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department 40 Spl.CC No.489/2019 of Health and Family Welfare and has deposed that he had received a requisition from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha on 20.10.2016 to accord sanction to prosecute Dr.B.Vasantha Kumar, who worked as Taluk Medical Officer at Doddapete, Davanagere. It is his evidence that the accused had sworn to a false affidavit in order to obtain an allotment in his name and as per the records, necessary materials were found and accordingly he had permitted for prosecuting the accused person as per his Report and Notification at Ex.P167.
33. PW.25 Smt.Shwetha is the Junior Engineer working at DHUDA and deposed that she was directed by the Manager of the Authority to scrutinize the application and accordingly she had scrutinized the same. It is her evidence that the application consisted of the requirement to provide necessary address, marital status, persons depending on them and whether they belong to any category or quota wherein the Government 41 Spl.CC No.489/2019 is taking care. She has also identified preparing the check-list as per Ex.P168 to 171.
34. PW.26 Sri.K.C.Purushotham had conducted partial investigation and has deposed of receiving the directions from the jurisdictional court under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., and in furtherance of the same he had registered the complaint as per Ex.P172 to 175.
35. PW.27 Sri.M.P.Ramesh has deposed that he was requested to be mahazar witness in the office of DHUDA and as such he had accompanied the officials on 08.07.2013 to DHUDA office and in his presence, documents pertaining to Mr.Gudappa, Dharma Naik and Sunitha were recovered under the mahazar at Ex.P176 to 179.
36. PW.28 Sri.C.B.Patil had conducted partial investigation and has deposed of registering the FIR's on the basis of the directions issued by the jurisdictional Court and also, he has deposed of visiting the DHUDA 42 Spl.CC No.489/2019 office and of recovering various documents under several mahazars.
37. PW.29 Sri.S.T.Wodeyar had conducted the further investigation.
38. PW30 Sri.S.C.Manjappa and PW.31 Sri. Shankar M. Ragi are the Investigating Officers who had conducted the investigation and had filed the final report before the jurisdictional Court. During the course of cross-examination of PW.31, the learned counsel for the accused No.2 has elicited that he had not verified the allotment rules prior to conducting the investigation and he has also admitted that he had not inquired about the person who had prepared the notice of the Sub- Committee. He has also admitted the suggestion that as per the Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules, the definition of Family consists of husband, wife, minor children and depending parents. He has also admitted that there were no rules for according grades as mentioned in the Sub-Committee. Further it is his 43 Spl.CC No.489/2019 admission that in general category totally 51 sites were available, out of which 83 persons had secured 2 points and no yardstick was prepared for considering the seniority. In the further cross-examination the witness has admitted that he has not verified and examined the reasons for fixing specific points by the Sub-Committee to the applicants who had sought for allotment of sites. He has also admitted that he had not enquired the accused persons with respect to allotment of sites nor he had examined the Commissioner of DHUDA who was very much present during the course of discussion for allotment of sites.
39. As could be noticed from the records, the DHUDA had called for allotment of sites at Sri J.H.Patel Extension. It is also relevant to note that initially the Notification came be challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and thereafter a subsequent notification was passed on 19.09.2009. Even otherwise when the entire Notification is looked into, it indicates that several categories of sites were to be allotted to 44 Spl.CC No.489/2019 different eligible applicants. In short, the sites were earmarked towards the persons belonging to weaker sections in the society, general category, State Government Employees category and other categories. It is also relevant to note that certain stipulations came to be imposed in the notification which required the applicants to meet the same. The main bone of contention in the above case with respect to non- compliance of the stipulated conditions which was issued by the Authority at the time of allotment of sites. The main stipulations which have been pressed into service in the instant case is at Sl.No.7, which required that the applicants who were seeking for allotment should not be allotted with any site either in his name or in the name of his spouse, family members, or dependent either from Governmental Agencies or from Urban Development Authority. In other words, the intention of DHUDA was to ensure that the provisions and rules as enumerated under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, 45 Spl.CC No.489/2019 was to be complied with. It is noticed from the records that along with the application, the applicants were also required to file necessary affidavit wherein they were required to state about the allotment of sites if any or the immovable properties which were standing in their name. The learned counsel for the accused persons has vehemently argued that in all the applications which are before this court, it can be noticed that the affidavit which has been filed is in a similar manner. In other words, it is their contention that a model draft affidavit was furnished which was filled by the applicants and submitted to the authorities. The aforesaid submissions are being made in order to indicate that the accused persons do not entertain any malafide intention or an intention to defraud the Government authorities. In order better appreciate the same, the Court has carefully appreciated the entire materials which are placed before this Court and also the allegations which are leveled against the applicants. As could be noticed from the 46 Spl.CC No.489/2019 records, the main allegations which are leveled against the accused can be culled out into three categories;
a) The applicants had filed a false declaration by way of affidavit even though they were owning immovable properties in their name or in the name of their family members.
b) Some of the applicants/accused persons though were not eligible were allotted with sites by DHUDA Authorities suppressing the applications of the other applicants, who were otherwise eligible.
c) The then District In-charge Minister along with the members of the Sub-
Committee had played overt and positive act towards illegal allotment of sites to the accused persons.
40. If these aforesaid contentions to be analyzed, the first contention pertains to filing of false affidavit before the court, wherein the prosecution alleges that provision under Sec.198 of IPC is attracted. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the provisions of Sec.198 of IPC is extracted hereunder, which reads as follows; 47 Spl.CC No.489/2019
"Sec.198. Using as true a certificate known to be false. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
41. The opening words of the aforesaid provision would indicate that a Certificate which is known to be false is being issued by a person to use the same as an important material piece of evidence in a case pending. If the provision is carefully appreciated, the question which requires to be answered is whether Certificate can be considered in par with the Affidavit. In order to better appreciate the same, the main difference between the same is required to be considered. Normally Certificate is defined as "Generally a formal document issued by a competent authority certifying a fact. It carries a presumption of authenticity and is often required as primary evidence. However, sometimes certificates may not be available due to legal or practical reasons." Whereas Affidavit in normal parlance is 48 Spl.CC No.489/2019 defined as "A sworn statement made by a person before an authority, affirming certain facts. It is used as evidence, especially when certificates are unavailable or in interlocutory proceedings. Affidavits may provide prima facie proof but may be subject to cross- examination or further scrutiny." That apart as per General Clauses Act, 1897, Sec.3(3) defines Affidavit as:
"[3(3) "affidavit" shall include affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing;"
42. When both are juxtaposed and considered, the fact which emerges is that the affidavit is nothing but affirmation and declaration given by the persons who vouchsafe to the contents of the same. Whereas in the case of certificates it is normally a document issued by competent authorities. In the instant case, the affirmation and declaration was given by the applicants towards fact that they were not allotted with any sites by Government or any other urban development authorities. That apart, the underlying aspect which is to be 49 Spl.CC No.489/2019 appreciated is the aspect of knowledge which each person is entertaining at the time of filing of a Certificate which he admittedly knows to be a false Certificate and also the intention/motive is required to be pointed out to indicate that he had entertained such a motive to commit an offence. In other words the underlying factor is inclusion of the word "Corruptly" in the definition of section 198 of Indian Penal code. What could be discerned is that mens rea is the essential part in order to commit the offence. In this regard the court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3364 (Vimalakka Ramappa Koli v. State of Karnataka) wherein it is held as:
7. As there is no finding recorded that the ingredients of the offences alleged have been proved, the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court cannot be sustained. Section 198 of the IPC reads thus:
"198. Using as true a certificate known to be false.--Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."50 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(Underline supplied) The Section used the word "corruptly". Therefore, it is obvious that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence. Only because the appellant could not establish her caste claim before the Committee, one cannot conclude that the appellant corruptly used the caste certificate. Moreover, corruptly using the certificate is not sufficient. The accused must have knowledge that the certificate is false. The allegation that the certificate is false to the knowledge of the appellant must be proved by the prosecution.
43. The aforesaid authority clearly indicates that mens rea is the integral part to establish the provision of Section 198 of Indian Penal code and further when there is an allegation of commission of offence under section 420 of IPC both should be juxtaposed and considered. When the provision of Sec.198 of IPC is juxtaposed with the provision of Sec.420 of IPC, since the aforesaid charge was subsequently added by this Court during the course of trial, the fact which requires to be established by the prosecution is the accused persons had entertained a dishonest intention to cheat and defraud the DHUDA Authorities and in furtherance of the same 51 Spl.CC No.489/2019 they had filed a Certificate in the form of an Affidavit contending that they were not owning any sites or immovable property either in their name or in the name of their family members and the said Certificate/Affidavit was the basis for allotment of sites to the applicants. In other words, a dishonest intention was to be displayed by the accused persons right from the inception and the same had made the authorities i.e., the DHUDA authorities to deliver the property in the form of allotment of sites.
44. As could be noticed, the provision of Sec.420 of IPC comprises of two parts, wherein in the first part the dishonest intention is required to be proved and in the second part delivery of property is required to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. In order to better appreciate the same, it would be appropriate to cull out the allegations made against the accused persons by scrutinizing with the documents which is submitted by them. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that 52 Spl.CC No.489/2019 allegations are made against some of the accused persons of furnishing false affidavits and against some of the accused persons it is alleged that they had obtained the allotment of sites though they were not having sufficient points by the Sub-Committee. In order to consider the same, the allegations in brief are culled out as follows:
Sl. Name of the Accused and
Allegation in brief Exhibits
No. Ranking
1. A-1 Smt.S.Chethana Filing of false Ex.P.2
affidavit
2. A-2 Smt.S.Swetha Filing of false Ex.P.3
affidavit
3. A-3 Smt.M.G.Sonibai Filing of false Ex.P.4
affidavit
4. A-4 Sri M.Guddappa Filing of false Ex.P.177
affidavit
5. A-5 Sri R.Dharma Naik Filing of false Ex.P.178
affidavit
6. A-6 Smt.Sunitha.G. Filing of false Ex.P.179
affidavit
7. A-7 Sri.Prasanna Kumar G.S -- --
(DEAD)
8. A-8 Dr. J.H.Gowri Bai Filing of false Ex.P.169
affidavit
9. A-9 Sri K.M.Virupakshappa Influenced the --
@ Madal Virupakshappa Committee
Members to allot
sites for his
daughter and son
arrayed as A.10
and 11
53 Spl.CC No.489/2019
10. A-10 Smt.Sudharani H.J. Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
11. A-11 Sri M.V.Praveen Kumar Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
12. A-12 Sri M.N.Deepak Filing of false Ex.P.170
affidavit
13. A-13 Sri G.S.Hanumantha Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
14. A-14 Sri Shivajinaik P.T. Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
15. A-15 Sri Venkateshwara Obtained sites --
Naik due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
16. A-16 Smt.A.S.Monika Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
17. A-17 Dr. B.Vasanth Kumar Obtained sites Ex.P.156
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
18. A-18 Dr. B.G.Goutham Obtained sites Ex.P.157
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
19. A-19 Dr.Sunil. S. Byadagi Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
20. A-20 Smt.Latha Obtained sites --
due to influence
54 Spl.CC No.489/2019
exerted on sub
committee
21. A-21 Smt. Netravathi N.K Filing of false Ex.P.158
affidavit
22. A-22 Smt.H.M.Mukthambha Filing of false Ex.P.180 FIR
affidavit
23. A-23 Sri P.P.Aradhya Mutt Filing of false Ex.P.181 FIR
affidavit
24. A-24 Smt.Rajeshwari Filing of false Ex.P.182 FIR
affidavit
25. A-25 Smt. Manjula Filing of false Ex.P.183 FIR
affidavit
26. A-26 Sri Nagaraj.T Filing of false Ex.P.184 FIR
affidavit
27. A-27 Sri Suresh.B. Filing of false Ex.P.185 FIR
affidavit
28. A-28 Sri Nijaguna Filing of false Ex.P.187
Shivacharya affidavit Mahazar and
Ex.P.186 FIR
29. A-29 Sri Basavarajanaik.M Filing of false --
affidavit
30. A-30 Sri S.A.Ravindranath The then District --
In-charge Minister
with allegation of
influencing the
Committee
Members
31. A-31 Sri Yeshwanth Rao Chairman of the --
Jadhav Sub-Committee
32. A-32 Smt.G.E.Shashikala Committee --
Eshwarappa Member
33. A-33 Sri -- --
G.N.Hanumanthappa
(DEAD)
55 Spl.CC No.489/2019
35. A-35 Dr. B.R.Sumithra Devi Committee --
Member
45. On carefully appreciating the entire chart which gives an explanation about the case of prosecution along with the provisions of law invoked against them, firstly the prosecution is required to establish that the applicants had filed necessary application before the DHUDA seeking for allotment of site with a malafide intention. As noticed from the records, the provision of Sec.198 of IPC can be made applicable only when a false Certificate is issued by the concerned person to use the same as evidence before a public Authority. In the earlier portion of my judgment, already I have held that the difference with respect to the Certificate vis-a-vis Declaration and Affidavit. Here in the case on hand, the Affidavit has been annexed along with the application. Even otherwise for the sake of arguments, the Affidavit which is filed by the applicants is considered as a Certificate, then the Court is required to consider whether any illegality is committed by the parties. In the 56 Spl.CC No.489/2019 first instance it is noticed that all the applicants have sworn to a similar type of affidavit. In this regard, it was suggested during the course of cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that a model format was furnished by the DHUDA Authorities and the same was admitted by the witnesses. If for the sake of arguments, the same has been construed as true and correct, then the next aspect which requires determination is whether any false statement is made by the applicant. For the sake of convenience, the contents of the application in one of the applications is extracted which is annexed along with the application of accused No.1 Smt.Chethana at Ex.P2 is extracted, which reads as follows;
2. ನನಗಾಗಲೀ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನಿಗೆ ಆಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ನನ್ನ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಯಾರಿಗೇ ಆಗಲಿ, ದಾವಣೆಗೆರೆ - ಹರಿಹರ ನಗರಾಭಿವೃದ್ದಿ ಪ್ರಾ ಧಿಕಾರದಿಂದಾಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 1959 ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಆಗಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇೆ ಸಂಘದಿಂದ ಆಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಇತರೇ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳಿಂದಾಗಲೀ ಯಾವುದೇ ನಿವೇಶನ ಅಥವಾ ಮನೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗೂ ಅಂತಹ ಸೊತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪಾಲೂ ಸಹಾ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಪ್ರಮಾಣೀಕರಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.
46. The averments indicate that accused No.1 Chethana had sworn that neither herself or her husband 57 Spl.CC No.489/2019 or any other family members were allotted site by the DHUDA or any Co-operative Societies under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 or any other Registered Societies or Organizations. The very same aspect has been sworn by all the applicants in the above case. The prosecution is unable to point out that the applicants had obtained the allotment on the basis of such Declaration, inspite of being allotted with sites at the earlier instance. Though the Investigating Officer has collected plethora of documents, the same indicates of purchasing of site by some of the parties and in some other instance owning of house or devolution of property of ancestors in the family. In order to better understand the exact provision of law, it would be worthwhile to refer to the provisions of KUDA Act, 1987. As per the provision mentioned in Rule 12(2) of KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 ('KUDA Rules' for short). For the purpose of convenience, the said provision is culled out which reads as under:-
58 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Rule 12 - Disqualification for allotment of sites; (1)....
(2) Any person shall be eligible for allotment of site if said person has been allotted a site or house in any part of the State by any other Urban Development Authority or KHB or any other agency of the Government"
Apart from that the relevant provision which would be applied for considering the application has been narrated in Rule 13 of the KUDA Rules which is extracted and reads as follows:
Rule 13 of KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991
13. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀgÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¤ÃwUÀ¼ÀÄ.
(1) ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧâCfðzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄuÁªÀUÀÄtUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ°è F ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¤ÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀȶÖAiÀÄ°èj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÉʪÁ»PÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£À ಎಂzÀgÉ CªÀ£ÀÄ «ªÁ»vÀ£É CxÀªÁ E®èªÉªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ£ÉÃ, E§âgÀÄ CxÀªÁ E§âjVAvÀPÀrªÉÄ fêÀAvÀ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÁæzsÁ£ÀåvɤÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ;
2) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À ªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV CzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄ£É PànÖ¸ÀĪÀ CªÀ£À ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð:59 Spl.CC No.489/2019
¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, F µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ eÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ §ÄqÀPÀlÄÖUÀ½UÉ ಸೇjzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝಲ್ಲಃ
3) xxxxx.)
4) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ F »AzÉ JµÀÄÖ ¨Áj Cfð¹gÀĪÀ£ÉA§ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð¤zÁÝUÀÆå CªÀ£ÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð£ÁVzÁÝ£É JA§ÄzÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ;
5) ªÀiÁf ¸ÉʤPÀgÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ PÀ¼ÉzÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉêɸÀ°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ ¸ÉʤPÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ.
(2) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀV£À ««zsÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ºÀAZÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(J) »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ 2% (ಬಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಬುಡಕಟ್ಟು ಗಳು 3% (ಸಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಜಾತಿಗಳು 15%
(ಡಿ) ಮಾಜಿ ಸೈನಿಕರು ಅಥವಾ ಮೃತ ಸೈನಿಕರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಶಸ್ತ್ರ ಪಡೆಯ ಸದಸ್ಯರು 5% (ಇ) ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನಿಗಮ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ ಉದ್ದಿಮೆ ಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾ ಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು 10% (ಎಫ್) ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ ಉದ್ದಿಮೆ ಗಳು/ನಿಗಮ ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾ ಧಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು 5% (ಜಿ) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕು 48% 60 Spl.CC No.489/2019 (ಎಚ್) ಕಲೆ, ವಿಜ್ಞಾ ನ, ಕ್ರೀಡೆ ಅಥವಾರ ಇನ್ಯಾ ವುದೇ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ಲಾ ಘನೀಯ ಶಾದನೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು 8% ಐ) ಅಂಗವಿಕಲರು 2% «ªÀgÀuÉ.-- ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀ°è, (J) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀgÉ DUÀ D ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ «ÄøÀ°j¹zÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (©)¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (©) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ, DUÀ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV «ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J), (©) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ ಸೇjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è Cfð ¨ÁgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ DUÀ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV«ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
(f) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
«ªÀgÀuÉUÉ GzÁºÀgÀuÉ.-- ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ, ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À, CAxÀzÉà UÀÄtªÀÄlÖUÀ½gÀĪÀ CfðzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß aÃn JvÀÄÛªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.
47. When the aforesaid provision is considered, the same commenced with a non-abstante clause wherein Rule-12 speaks about disqualification for allotment of sites. In other words, as per Rule-12(2), the eligibility indicates that a person shall be eligible for allotment of site if he is not allotted with a site or house 61 Spl.CC No.489/2019 in any part of the State by any other Urban Development Authority or Karnataka Housing Board or any other Agency of the Government. Merely slamming a person with certain provision of law and furnishing some documents to indicate that certain properties are standing in the name of applicant is not suffice to seek for an order of conviction. Time and again, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that however grave may be the suspicion, the law requires proofs beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, grave suspicion will not automatically lead to an inference of guilt of the accused person. I have carefully examined all the documents which are produced by the Investigating Agency. The documents pertain to the property standing in the name of the accused persons and the same does not indicate that it was allotted by the State Government or any Agency of the Government, Karnataka Housing Board or other Urban Development Authorities. Under these circumstances, the basis for making the allegations and requesting the Court to indict the 62 Spl.CC No.489/2019 accused persons had entertained malicious intention right from the inception cannot be accepted and the contention of attracting the provisions of Sec.198 of IPC is totally baseless.
48. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the provisions of law, wherein the prosecution is required to establish the accused had a clear knowledge of the declaration which was going to be a false one and the same was being used for the purpose of obtaining an allotment or any benefit. In the instant case, the prosecution should have proved the fact that the accused knew that the allotment was being made to persons who were already owning sites either granted or allotment by any other Authorities in the State of Karnataka. Even in one instance the prosecution is unable to prove the same and as such the question of entertaining a malafide intention to attract the provision of Sec.198 does not arise.
63 Spl.CC No.489/2019
49. I have also bestowed my anxious reading with respect to the allegations leveled against some of the accused persons who were the members of the Sub- Committee. The prosecution contends that the then District In-charge Minister Mr.S.A.Ravindranatha has exerted pressure on the other Members of the Sub- Committee as well as the Main Committee towards allotment of sites. In order to indicate the same, the prosecution has produced the Resolution which was passed by the Sub-Committee and later on which was confirmed by the Main Committee. With respect to the deliberations that had taken place, the same will be discussed in the later part of the judgment since the allegations would attract the provisions of Sec.420 of IPC. The prosecution also intends to include accused No.30 S.A.Ravindranath, Yashawantha Rao Jadhav, Mrs.Sumithra Devi and others who are the members of the Sub-Committee with that of other accused persons. I have already discussed supra in order to attract the ingredients of Sec.420 IPC, mainly dishonest intention 64 Spl.CC No.489/2019 on the part of the applicants is required to be established which was also entertained by other accused persons. The question which arises here is who can be considered as an aggrieved person in the above case. Definitely it cannot be said that the members of the Sub-Committee or the Committee can be considered as aggrieved persons, they were the one who had passed an order approving the recommendations made by the Sub- Committee towards allotment of site. In other words, a delivery of property is required to be proved by the prosecution and the concept of malafide intention is also required to be established right from the inception. In the instant case, the delivery of property by way of allotment though had taken place, the prosecution is unable to point out any materials that there was hatching of conspiracy by the accused themselves. Unless there was meeting of minds which would attract the wrath of Sec.420 of IPC r/w Sec.120B of IPC, in my humble opinion, when several accused persons are involved in the case, the provision of Sec.420 of IPC 65 Spl.CC No.489/2019 alone cannot be invoked against each individuals. It is not the case of prosecution that some of the accused persons who were the beneficiaries in the case on hand, had met the members of the Committee or the Sub- Committee. Though it may be argued at length that the beneficiaries/applicants were related to the members of the Sub-Committee, once again the question which requires to be answered is why all the members of the Sub-Committee have not been arraigned as accused persons. The records indicate that some of the members of the Sub-Committee have been left out and whereas in some instances a member i.e. Dr. Sumithra Devi, who had attended the meeting on the day the Resolution was passed has been arraigned as accused. The aforesaid aspect requires clear answers from the prosecution for the reasons that she had entertained any malafide intention right from the inception of the case or she was arraigned as accused only on the ground that she had been attended the meeting when the recommendations has been made. When records indicate that Dr.Sumithra 66 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Devi in her official capacity as District Health Officer has attended the last meeting, she has affixed her signature to the recommendations being made. Unless some other penultimate acts are shown on her part to indicate that she entertained a malafide intention and in order to cheat and defraud the Government she had supported other accused persons in the delivery of property, the allegations cannot be sustained against her.
50. Now coming to the other aspect, the allegation which is leveled against the applicants are, the Sub- Committee had recommended their names though they were not eligible for allotment of sites. In the instant case, total number of 507 sites were earmarked for allotment and in that special classifications were made with respect to allottees belonging to General Category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Ex-Servicemen quota, State Government Employees quota etc., In each sector a definite number of sites were reserved and out of that allotment was required to be made to the persons belonging to that particular category. The evidence of 67 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Investigating Officer i.e., PW.31 Shankar M. Ragi, indicates that allotment was made to the aforesaid accused persons though they had not obtained requisite points towards the same. In order to better understand the same, the process which adopted by the Committee is required to be considered. In the first instance the DHUDA Authorities had directed their staff to scrutinize the applications and to ascertain the number of applications which were valid. After the first round of scrutiny, the applications were placed before the Committee, wherein it was resolved to appoint a Sub Committee to verify the documents and to make recommendations for allotment of sites. Initially it was suggested that the allotment should be made by picking- up a lottery which was opposed by the then District In- Charge Minister S.A.Ravindranath stating that the same may prejudice the case on other eligible candidates since picking up lottery was totally based on luck. The aforesaid suggestion was accepted and Sub-Committee had formulated certain rules by themselves for 68 Spl.CC No.489/2019 considering the applications and for instance one point was awarded to the applicants who were having dependents and another point to be awarded if they were married and likewise several aspects were discussed. Interestingly, the chart which they had formulated for awarding the points was not placed either before the DHUDA Authorities or before the Main Committee before implementing the allotment of sites. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW.31 Shankar M Ragi would indicate that the marks awarded to several accused persons were even though less than the other candidates, they were given preference over the others. For the sake of convenience, the following chart is prepared in order to depict correct picture with respect to allotment of sites.
(A) General Category sites are allotted in 9 x 12 meters -dimension, total site available 57 67 applications received, 1 to 36 given 2 points - 37 to 59 given 1 point - 60 to 67 given 0 points Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment No. 1 H.R.Rajeshwari 24 2 13 19 69 Spl.CC No.489/2019 (B) General Category sites are allotted in 9 x 15 meters dimension, total site available 137 244 applications received, 1 to 151 given 2 points - 152 to 203 given 1 point - 204 to 244 given 0 points Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment No. 1 H.Muktamba 22 2 58 67 2 A.S.Monica 16 0 235 136 (C) Government Servant Sites are allotted in 9 X 15 meters dimension, total site available 24 104 applications received, 1 to 71 given 2 points - 72 to 97 given 1 point - 98 to 104 given 0 points Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment No. 1 Manjula 25 2 58 20 2 Dharma 5 1 93 22 Nayak.R 3 Sunita.G 6 1 95 23 (D) General Category sites are allotted in 12 x 18 meters dimension, total site available 51 141 applications received, 1 to 83 given 2 points - 84 to 119 given 1 point - 120 to 141 given 0 points Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment No. 1 Chethana 1 1 107 30 2 Shwetha 2 1 115 43 3 Prasanna 7 2 35 22 Kumar 70 Spl.CC No.489/2019 4 M.N.Deepak 12 1 137 52 5 Dr.B.Gowtham 18 0 134 2 6 Sunil Byadgi 19 1 86 33 7 Nethravathi 21 2 14 10 8 Aradhyamath 23 1 92 6 (E) General Category sites are allotted in 15 x 24 meters dimension, total site available 9 21 applications received, 1 to 16 given 2 points - 17 to 18 given 1 point - 19 to 21 given 0 points Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment No. 1 Sudharani 10 2 16 9 2 Praveen Kumar 11 2 14 7 3 G.S.Hanumantha 13 1 19 5
51. When the aforesaid chart is appreciated, particularly in general category with respect to allotment of sites 9 X 12 meters dimension, accused No.24 H.R.Rajeshwari had secured 2 points and her seniority number was 13, wherein totally 57 sites were available. Further, when the chart is further probed in general category site allotment of 12 X 18 meters dimension, accused No.1 Chethana had secured 1 point and her seniority in the total list is 107, wherein only 51 sites 71 Spl.CC No.489/2019 were available. When the aforesaid chart is carefully appreciated, it definitely raises a question that on what basis allotment of sites were made and whether grading of points was in accordance with law.
52. The learned Counsel for accused No.2 Sri.R.Nagendra Naik has vehemently argued that no procedure has been mentioned in the Act or in the allotment Rules and as such it was the absolute discussion given to the Committee to decide. I have carefully appreciated the submissions made by both the parties. On bare perusal of the chart, it indicates that definitely some irregularities had taken place towards allotment of sites. However, at the same time if the procedures and Rules are carefully appreciated, it does not indicate a proper procedure which is required to be followed by the Authorities in the allotment of sites. Unless Rules are framed with respect to allotment of sites, the question of considering the awarding of points as an irregular one or otherwise could not be proper. It 72 Spl.CC No.489/2019 is a situation wherein the allotment of sites is questioned by pointing out that the procedures that are adopted was not in accordance with law. Unfortunately, there is no proper procedure prescribed and even the investigation of the case lacks merit for the reason that the Investigating Officer has not bothered to examine the Chairman of DHUDA, who was present during the entire deliberations that had taken place by the Committee towards allotment of sites. That apart, the Investigating Officer should have explained in detail by examining the other persons who were not allotted with the sites also. In other words, no attempt has been made by the Investigating Agency to ascertain whether there is any grievance by the applicants who had successfully filed the application. The Investigating Agency had totally concentrated on the allegations made in the complaint and on the basis of the same, the Investigating Officer had proceeded to record the statement and also had taken note of the documents which were available and has placed the charge-sheet. In the instant case, when a 73 Spl.CC No.489/2019 question of awarding of point arises, the Investigating Officer should be in a proper position to point out that in what manner otherwise the eligible applicants were left out by ignoring their credentials. Just because the points which were awarded indicates of certain seniority in the list, the same will not take the place of conclusive proof to arrive at a conclusion that illegality was committed. Time and again it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a very thin line separates illegality and irregularity. Irregularity is an act which can be modified or which is not tainted with any malafide intention. However, when an allegation of irregularity is made, the evidence which is required to be placed is of a higher pedestal. The main difference between the same has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment rendered in (2024)9 SCC 94 (M/s Al-CAN Export Private Ltd.,V Prestige H M Polycontainers Limited and others) wherein it is held as:
88. The aforesaid lapses, in our opinion, cannot be termed as irregularity. Once it is evident that 74 Spl.CC No.489/2019 the mandatory provisions as stipulated under the rules and regulations are not followed or abridged, any action pursuant to the same could be termed as gross illegality. There is a fine distinction between illegality and irregularity.
Whereas the former goes to the root of the matter and renders the action null and void, of no effect whatsoever, the latter does not ipso facto invalidate the action, unless prejudice is caused to the person making a complaint, even if, for the purposes of Order 21 Rule 90CPC the lapses we have taken note of could be termed as material irregularities going to the root of the matter.
89. Almost a century back, in Ashutosh Sikdar v. Behari Lal Kirtunia [Ashutosh Sikdar v. Behari Lal Kirtunia, 1907 SCC OnLine Cal 128 : ILR (1908) 35 Cal 61] , drawing the distinction between "nullity" and "irregularity", Mookerjee, J. stated :
(SCC OnLine Cal) "... no hard and fast line can be drawn between a nullity and an irregularity; but this much is clear, that an irregularity is a deviation from a rule of law which does not take away the foundation of authority for the proceeding, or apply to its whole operation, whereas a nullity is a proceeding that is taken without any foundation for it, or is so essentially defective as to be of no avail or effect whatever, or is void and incapable of being validated."
90. Whether a provision falls under one category or other is not of easy 75 Spl.CC No.489/2019 discernment, and in the ultimate analysis it depends upon the nature, scope and object of a particular provision. A workable test, however, has been laid down in Holmes v. Russel [Holmes v. Russel, (1841) 9 Dowl 487] , wherein it was held thus:
"7. ... 'It is difficult sometimes to distinguish between an irregularity and a nullity; but the safest rule to determine what is an irregularity and what is a nullity is to see whether the party can waive the objection; if he can waive it, it amounts to an irregularity; if he cannot, it is a nullity.' "
[see Dhirendra Nath Goari v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh [Dhirendra Nath Goari v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 259 : (1964) 6 SCR 1001 : AIR 1964 SC 1300] , SCC OnLine SC para 7] (emphasis supplied)
53. Unfortunately, in the above case, no such documents are placed by the prosecution to indicate that the allotment itself was illegal or the same would go to the roots of the case.
54. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the Resolution which was passed by the DHUDA Authorities and marked as Ex.P205. The Resolution 76 Spl.CC No.489/2019 indicates of the entire proceedings that had taken place and finally the same indicates of successful allotees. On 19.05.2010, the Sub-Committee formed for allotment of sites had formulated a procedure by stating that if the applicant was married 1 point was required to be allotted and in case of dependents less than two 1 point is to be accorded. Further, 1 point was required to be accorded if the applicant had made attempt for allotment on previous occasions and if the applicant was unsuccessful previously for any other reasons, the aforesaid point was required to be awarded. The awarding of point itself is to be found fault for the reasons that the applicants who are having less than 2 dependents are awarded with one point and whereas if the applicant is having more than 2 dependents, no points are to be accorded. It is a common sense that when the dependents are more, the responsibilities of a person will be more and also his capacity to purchase site in the open market will be much less than the person who is having less dependents. That apart, in the application, though it is 77 Spl.CC No.489/2019 questioned that whether he has applied for allotment on previous occasions there no materials to indicate that whether the applicant was otherwise eligible had not considered in any other earlier allotment processes. However nothing is clarified with respect to preferences given to the applicants who were unsuccessful in previous allotment process. Under these circumstances, the Resolution passed by the Sub-Committee itself was not proper. Even then, the Sub-Committee which had passed the Resolution indicates that it was headed by accused No.30 Yashawanth Rao Jadhav and other members of the Sub-Committee and the other members of the Sub-Committee Accused No.32 Smt.Shashikala Eshwarappa, Commissioner of DHUDA, Executive Engineer KUWS and DB, District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Davanagere. If for a moment the aforesaid particulars are carefully looked into, admittedly the Commissioner of DHUDA and the Executive Engineer have not been arraigned as accused persons. It is also relevant to note that Dr.Sumithra Devi, the DHO, had 78 Spl.CC No.489/2019 not attended all the meetings. Even otherwise, the Investigating Officer is unable to answer the aforesaid question during the course of cross-examination that why a pick and choose method has been made by the Investigating Agencies. In short, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the Investigating Agencies are required to point out the overt-act alleged against each of the accused persons. Further, the Investigating Officer should have pointed out the positive role being played by the Commissioner of DHUDA as well as the Executive Engineer and DHO with respect to allotment of points. If awarding of points itself was illegal, then the Investigating Agency cannot blow hot and cold in one breath exonerating the Commissioner of DHUDA as well as the Executive Engineer and putting all the blame on the other members of the Sub-Committee. Even otherwise, the recommendations of the Sub- Committee were only in the manner of recommendations which was placed before the Committee formed by DHUDA for allotment of sites. If the fault is committed by 79 Spl.CC No.489/2019 the members of the Sub-Committee and if it is endorsed or seconded by the Main Committee, then the allegations of committing illegality have to be shared by the members of the Main Committee. It is repeatedly pointed out the court is not holding that the act of the members of the Sub Committee is perse illegal, but is only analyzing to ascertain whether the same is illegal or irregular. No where in the entire investigation process, the members of the Main Committee were examined, nor an attempt has been made to arraign the members of the Main Committee as accused persons. The aforesaid act itself would indicate that without any justification, some members have been roped in as accused persons and some members have been left out for no valid reasons.
55. The sole question which is required to be considered is whether the stamp of authority can be placed over the allotment of sites though it is to be found arbitrary. At the outset, the allotment seems to be an irregular one. However, as already pointed out above, each and every irregularity cannot be termed as the 80 Spl.CC No.489/2019 illegal act. The admitted position is that there were no proper rules for allotment of sites nor the Act or the Rule do not specify the manner in which the allotment was to be made when two applicants secured equal points. First of all, there is no justification with respect to awarding of points itself and unless the same is justified, the question of looking into the other aspect cannot be adjudicated.
56. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the allegations leveled against the accused persons. In the instant case, it is charged against the accused persons that at the time of submitting the applications itself they had intentionally had sworn to a false affidavit by stating that they were not owning any sites or houses in the State of Karnataka. As already discussed above and also by looking into the affidavit sworn by the applicants, it indicates that they have clearly narrated that they were not allotted with any sites or house properties by any Urban Development Authority or the Government Agencies. Under these circumstances, the 81 Spl.CC No.489/2019 question of entertaining a dishonest intention right from the inception is not established by the prosecution. In order to better understand the aforesaid aspects, it would be appropriate to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 (Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of West Bengal), wherein it has been held as follows;
32. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:-
i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415;
and
ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to;
a) deliver property to any person; or
b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC.
33. The following observation made by this Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. with almost similar facts and circumstances may be relevant to note at this stage:-
82 Spl.CC No.489/2019
"6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of the complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Section 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petitioner against the accused person is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs. 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. It was pointed out that on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the consumer forum in relation to the claim of Rs. 4,20,0000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases of breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case, it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception that there was intention on behalf of the accused person to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under 420 IPC.
"7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts (2005) 10 SCC 336 allowing the police 83 Spl.CC No.489/2019 investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C which it has erroneously refused."
34. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants.
35. In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., this Court made the following observation:-
"13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case, there is nothing to 84 Spl.CC No.489/2019 show that at the very inception there was any inception on behalf of an accused person to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence u/s 420 IPC. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be (2000) 4 SCC 168, (2015) 8 SCC 293 encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the courts. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings."
57. When the aforesaid Authorities are appreciated, the legal position which can be juxtaposed in short as follows;
a. Deception of any person
b. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing
any person to deliver any property c. To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
85 Spl.CC No.489/2019
58. If the aforesaid ingredients are applied to the case on hand, firstly the prosecution is required to prove that there was an fraudulent intention at the inception of the case. Time and again it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, an intention to cheat and defraud should be in existence right from the beginning. In order to better appreciate the same, once again, at the cost of repetition, the evidence requires to be revisited. The provision of Sec.420 would clearly stipulate that mere misrepresentation of the fact would not be sufficient and it is a sine-qua-non that accused who entertained the mala-fide intention from the beginning itself. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in another occasion has held that, in order to prove the dishonest intention, it would be possible always to insist upon direct evidence. However, reasonable inferences can be drawn from the circumstances which are prevailing. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 15 86 Spl.CC No.489/2019 (Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla) wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex court as follows:
8. As was observed by this Court in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras [AIR 1967 SC 986 : 1967 Cri LJ 946] it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
9. On the proved facts it is seen that a cheque was handed over to the complainant and in the receipt it was stated that the shares have been received. The High Court has referred to this factual position and drawn a conclusion that the receipt (Ext. PW 3/B) which was admittedly executed by accused Devender clearly states that the shares had been transferred. The mere fact that the cheque was filled in by the complainant is not sufficient to take away the effect of the statement in the receipt. The plea that it was an advance receipt does not appear to have been even agitated before the courts below.
10. Significantly, there was no suggestion to the complainant (PW 3) that the shares had not been delivered.87 Spl.CC No.489/2019
59. The aforesaid judgment clearly lays down the criteria that in order to attract the rigors of Section 420 IPC, there must be an element of cheating and defrauding which had commenced right from the inception. Once again when the materials are re- visited, it would clearly indicate that the accused persons who were the allotees had applied for allotment of site from DHUDA in pursuance with the notifications issued and thereafter the authorities had formed Sub Committee to scrutinize and recommend the name of the allotees. It is not the case of prosecution that some of the allotees/ accused persons had met the members of the Main committee or the Sub Committee and had obtained the allotment. There are no materials to indicate that they had exerted pressure on the members of the Sub Committee to allot them with particular points. Though it certainly raises the eye brows that why some of the accused 88 Spl.CC No.489/2019 persons were given preferential treatment, nothing has been pointed out by the investigating authorities to indicate that such preferential treatment or partisan treatment was in furtherance of previous meeting of mind between the members and District In charge Minister and the allotees. Unless the prosecution points out the same even in a circumstantial manner, the suspicion cannot be replaced with proof.
60. In order to consider the legal position, once again the points awarded by the Sub-Committee is carefully appreciated to ascertain whether the same attracts Sec.420 of IPC. As already discussed above, the prosecution is at loss to explain why the Chairman and some of the Members of the Sub-Committee were left out who were instrumental in awarding points to the successful applicants. That apart, the provision of Sec.120B of IPC is nowhere pressed into service by the prosecution in order to contend that there was meeting of minds between the accused persons and that of the 89 Spl.CC No.489/2019 members of the Sub-Committee. If only the prosecution alleges that accused had individually approached the members of the Sub-Committee or the then District In- charge Minister, then necessary materials are required to be produced by them, but unless the prosecution clarifies their case that whether all the accused persons who were allotees had met the members of the Committee or Sub-Committee, the question of entertaining a malafide intention right from the inception cannot be proved. That apart, the procedure which is adopted by the Sub-Committee though amounts to an irregular, cannot be considered as an illegal act. By looking into the aforesaid aspect, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has rightly failed to prove the allegations made under Sec.198 and 420 of IPC.
61. Now, the other aspect which is required to be considered is whether the act of accused No.30 S.A.Ravindranath, accused No.31 Yashawanth Rao Jadhavan, accused No.32 Shashikala Eshwarappa and accused No.35 Sumithra Devi, who were the public 90 Spl.CC No.489/2019 servants can be charged for the offences punishable under Sec.8 and Sec.13(1)(c) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid public servants who were the members of the Sub-Committee had given undue advantage by improperly performing the public duty and hence they had committed an offence punishable under Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, it is also contended that they had acted dishonestly and the same amounts to mis-conduct as contemplated under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For the sake of brevity, the provision of Sec.8 is extracted which reads as follows;
8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant.
Any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention-
(i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; or
(ii) to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty;shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both:
91 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply where a person is compelled to give such undue advantage:
Provided further that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage:
Provided also that when the offence under this section has been committed by commercial organisation, such commercial organisation shall be punishable with fine.
Illustration. - A person, 'P' gives a public servant, 'S' an amount of ten thousand rupees to ensure that he is granted a license, over all the other bidders. 'P' is guilty of an offence under this sub- section.
Explanation. - It shall be immaterial whether the person to whom an undue advantage is given or promised to be given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the public duty concerned, and, it shall also be immaterial whether such undue advantage is given or promised to be given by the person directly or through a third party.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person, if that person, after informing a law enforcement authority or investigating agency, gives or promises to give any undue advantage to another person in order to assist such law enforcement authority or 92 Spl.CC No.489/2019 investigating agency in its investigation of the offence alleged against the later.
62. The opening words of the Provision itself would clarify that any person, when he gives or promises an undue advantage with an intention to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty or to reward such public servant for improper performance of public duty. In order to prove the aforesaid aspect, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused persons had induced the aforesaid public servants to perform their public duty improperly and in furtherance of the same a reward was given or assured by them. Unless the same is established, the prosecution cannot contend that the allegation under Sec.8 is established. In the instant case, nowhere it is mentioned that whether the accused persons had met the members of the Sub- Committee or in any other manner had approached them to obtain an order which was otherwise illegal. That apart, the other limb of the submission by the learned Special Public Prosecutor with respect to attracting the 93 Spl.CC No.489/2019 rigor of Sec.13(1)(c) is also to be considered. The provision of Sec.13(1)(c) would clearly indicate that a public servant has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted by him, then the provision of Sec.13(2) can be attracted. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a punishment clause which specifies that a public servant in the event of proving the criminal misconduct would be punished for not less than 4 years, but which may extend to 10 years. Even otherwise, at the time of committing the alleged offence, the law as it stood on that day would be imprisonment for 1 years which may extend to 7 years. When the entire allegations leveled by the prosecution is once again considered by the Court, firstly the prosecution is required to establish what amounts to a criminal misconduct. The question of criminal mis-conduct is not res-integra and it has been laid down and explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. First instance, the Court has relied upon the Authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 94 Spl.CC No.489/2019 (2007)4 SCC 566 (Inspector Prem Chand V Govt of NCT of Delhi) wherein it is held as:
10. In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, Ex-
Constable [(1992) 4 SCC 54 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 793 : (1992) 21 ATC 435] it was stated: (SCC pp. 57-58, para 5) "5. Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. at p. 999, thus:
'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mis- management, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been defined as:
'Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the office-holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act.' "
11. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., at p. 3027, the term "misconduct" has been defined as under:
"The term 'misconduct' implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.
*** 95 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.
The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. 'Misconduct' literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct."
(See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. v. T.K. Raju [(2006) 3 SCC 143 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 480] .)
63. When the aforesaid dictum is applied to the case on hand, it clearly indicates that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, the Authority which is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused reported in (2015) 11 SCC 669 (National Institute of Technology and another Vs. Pannalal Choudhury and another), wherein it has been held that;
"Doctrines and Maximx - "Ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur" - Meaning - Held, means "a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act" - Further held, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated."96 Spl.CC No.489/2019
64. In the aforesaid Authority, the Hon'ble Apex Court has succinctly explained that when the higher Authorities ratifies the act performed by the concerned, the ratification assumes an invalid act to be retrospectively validated. Here in the case on hand, if for the sake of arguments, it is to be accepted that the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee were not in accordance with law, then nothing prevented Chairman of DHUDA or the members of the Main Committee to modify the same. Interestingly, the allotment was made by the DHUDA Authorities by passing a Resolution to accept the recommendations being made by the Sub-Committee. In other words, the recommendations were ratified by the Committee which consisted of the Chairman, Secretary of DHUDA who have not been arraigned as accused persons in the instant case. Though the act of the accused persons including the public servants may amounts to a mis- conduct, the prosecution has failed to establish that the same amounts to a criminal mis-conduct. Under these 97 Spl.CC No.489/2019 circumstances, there is no other alternative for the Court than to acquit the accused persons for the reason of lackadaisical manner of investigation being conducted by the Investigating Agency. It is also appropriate to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that however grave may be the suspicion, the same will not displace its proof. As such, the materials though indicates of certain irregularities being committed, the same will not attract the rigors of Sec.13(1) (c) and Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Now lastly dealing with the provisions of section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption act, the judgment which is relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused reported in (2018)17 SCC 732 (Babji Vs. State of Andra Pradesh) , wherein it has been held as follows;
5. In order to establish the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it must be proved:
(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other person;98 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(ii) Any gratification whatever;
(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any 'public servant' to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section.
In the instant case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Members of the main committee or the Sub Committee had obtained or agreed to accept for himself or for some other persons any gratification or as a motive or reward for inducing to do or to forbear any official act. In short the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons including the District In-charge Minister and other members of the committee had obtained any gratification towards allotment of sites. Looked from any angle independently the prosecution has utterly failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. It seems that the investigating agency seems to have tried to wash off their hands merely by collecting the application forms which were filed by the accused persons and had only tried to investigate with respect to the offences which were alleged in the private complaint. 99 Spl.CC No.489/2019 It would be appropriate to remind the investigating agency that the complaint is filed only to set the criminal law into motion and once that law has taken its course and once the investigating agency commences the investigation the same is required to be considered from wider angle. Further, I have also relied upon the treatise on Criminal Investigation -- Basic Perspectives by Paul B. Weston and Renneth M. Wells which reads as :
"Criminal investigation is a lawful search for people and things useful in reconstructing the circumstances of an illegal act or omission and the mental state accompanying it. It is probing from the known to the unknown, backward in time, and its goal is to determine truth as far as it can be discovered in any post-factum inquiry. Successful investigations are based on fidelity, accuracy and sincerity in lawfully searching for the true facts of an event under investigation and on an equal faithfulness, exactness, and probity in reporting the results of an investigation. Modern investigators are persons who stick to the truth and are absolutely clear about the time and place of an event and the measurable aspects of evidence. They work throughout their investigation fully recognizing that even a minor contradiction or error may destroy confidence in their investigation. The 100 Spl.CC No.489/2019 joining of science with traditional criminal investigation techniques offers new horizons of efficiency in criminal investigation. New perspectives in investigation bypass reliance upon informers and custodial interrogation and concentrate upon a skilled scanning of the crime scene for physical evidence and a search for as many witnesses as possible. Mute evidence tells its own story in court, either by its own demonstrativeness or through the testimony of an expert witness involved in its scientific testing. Such evidence may serve in lieu of, or as corroboration of, testimonial evidence of witnesses found and interviewed by police in an extension of their responsibility to seek out the truth of all the circumstances of crime happening. An increasing certainty in solving crimes is possible and will contribute to the major deterrent of crime--the certainty that a criminal will be discovered, arrested and convicted.
The same applies to the case on hand. In the instant case, though the investigating officer had collected several documents unfortunately the investigation was misdirected and there are no materials to indicate that the accused had committed the aforesaid offences. Ergo, I answer points for consideration in the Negative.101 Spl.CC No.489/2019
65. Point No.5: In view of my findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No's.1 to 6, 8 to 32 and 35 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.198, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.8, 13(1) (c) r/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons stand extended till the completion of the period of appeal.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 17th day of June, 2025) (Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) 102 Spl.CC No.489/2019 ANNEXURES
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution:-
PW1 CW3 Vasudeva.C.S.
PW2 CW1 Manikanta Sarkar
PW3 CW7 Sunil Kumar.J
PW4 CW9 Veeranjaneya.H.T.
PW5 CW11 P.S.Savitha
PW6 CW13 Somashekar.N
PW7 CW14 N.Thippeswamy
PW8 CW16 Sathish D.P.
PW9 CW17 Abhijith V.C.
PW10 CW33 Achutha Murthy K.A.
PW11 CW18 Dr.Mahantesh.N
PW12 CW19 Gandhi.H.S.
PW13 CW20 Ravindra Gowda
PW14 CW24 K.Nagaraja
PW15 CW26 Ningappa.H.Kummannanavar
PW16 CW23 Rukmini.V
PW17 CW27 Lakshmana Kumar
PW18 CW30 C.K.Basavarajappa
PW19 CW37 V.Anbu Kumar
PW20 CW36 H.M.Prema
PW21 CW4 A. Alla Bakshi
PW22 CW34 Venkateshwarappa Gaddad
PW23 CW38 Eranna
PW24 CW39 Manjegowda
PW25 CW22 Shwetha
PW26 CW40 K.C.Purushotham
103 Spl.CC No.489/2019
PW27 Addl. M.P.Ramesh
Witness
PW28 CW42 C.B.Patil
PW29 CW41 S.T.Wodeyar
PW30 CW43 S.C.Manjappa
PW31 CW44 Shankar M.Ragi
2. Witnesses examined by the defence/accused.- Nil
3. Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.1(a) to Signature of PW1 (c) Ex.P.1(d) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.2 File of accused No.1 Ex.P.3 File of accused No.2-Shwetha Ex.P.3(a) Letter dt.11.12.2014 of Dy.S.P.Lokayukta Ex.P.3(b) Letter dt.27.12.2014 Ex.P.3(c) to Four katha Extracts furnished along with (f) letter Ex.P.3(b) Ex.P.4 File of accused No.3 Ex.P.4(a) Letter dt.4.2.2014 of Davanagere
Lokayukta Superintendent of Police Ex.P.4(b) Letter dt.5.3.2014 to Lokayukta Dy.S.P. furnishing information Ex.P.4(c) Encumbrance Certificate furnished along with Ex.P.4(b) Ex.P.5 Mahazar of seizure of file of A2 S.Shwetha Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW29 104 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.6 Mahazar of seizure of file of A3 Sonibai Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.7 Complaint filed before Davanagere Lokayukta Court Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.8 Affidavit Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.9 Complaint in PCR 9/13 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.10 Verification Affidavit Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.11 Complaint in PCR 10/13 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.12 Verification Affidavit Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.13 Complaint in PCR 11/13 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.14 Verification Affidavit Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.15 Complaint in PCR 13/13 Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.16 Affidavit Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.17 Complaint in PCR 15/13 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.18 Affidavit Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.19 Complaint in PCR 19/13 105 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.20 Affidavit Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.21 Complaint in PCR 21/13 Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.22 Affidavit Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.23 Complaint in PCR 23/13 Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.24 Affidavit Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.25 Complaint in PCR 25/13 Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.26 Affidavit Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.27 Complaint in PCR 27/13 Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.28 Affidavit Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.29 Complaint in PCR 29/13 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.30 Affidavit Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.31 Complaint in PCR 31/13 Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.32 Affidavit Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW2 106 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.33 Complaint in PCR 33/13 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.34 Affidavit Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.35 Complaint in PCR 35/13 Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.36 Affidavit Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.37 Complaint in PCR 37/13 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.38 Affidavit Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.39 Complaint in PCR 46/13 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.40 Affidavit Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.41 Complaint in PCR 47/13 Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.42 Affidavit Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.43 Complaint in PCR 48/13 Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.44 Affidavit Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.45 Complaint in PCR 49/13 Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.46 Affidavit Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW2 107 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.47 Complaint in PCR 51/13 Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.48 Affidavit Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.49 Complaint in PCR 52/13 Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.50 Affidavit Ex.P.50(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.51 Complaint in PCR 53/13 Ex.P.51(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.52 Affidavit Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.53 Mahazar in Crime 28/2013 Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.53(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.54 Mahazar in Crime 30/2013 Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.54(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.55 Mahazar in Crime 32/2013 Ex.P.55(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.55(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.56 Mahazar in Crime 36/2013 Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.56(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.57 Mahazar in Crime 38/2013 Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.57(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.58 Mahazar in Crime 34/2013 108 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.59 Mahazar of seizure of file of A18 Dr.G.B.Goutham in Crime 40/2013 Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.59(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.60 Mahazar - seizure of file of A19 Sunil S.Byadagi Crime 42/2013 Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.60(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.61 Mahazar -seizure of file of A20-Smt.Latha in Crime 44/2013 Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.61(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.62 Mahazar - seizure of file of A21 Nethravathi.N.K. in Crime 46/2013 Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.62(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.63 Mahazar - seizure of file of A22 H.M.Mukthamba in Crime 60/2013 Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.63(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.64 Mahazar - of seizure of file of A23 P.P.Aradhya Math in Crime 61/2013 Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.64(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.65 Mahazar -seizure of file of A24 Rajeshwari H.R. in Crime 62/2013 Ex.P.65(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.65(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.66 Mahazar - seizure of A25 Manjula in Crime 63/2013 109 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.66(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.67 Mahazar - seizure of file of A26 Nagaraj.T. in Crime 65/2013 Ex.P.67(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.67(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.68 Mahazar - seizure of file of A27 Suresh B. in Crime 66/2013 Ex.P.68(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.68(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.69 Seizure Mahazar 20.02.2013 - seizure of file of A29 Nijaguna Shivacharya Ex.P.69(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.69(b) Signature of PW30 Ex.P.70 Letter Police Superintendent dt.14.01.2015 Ex.P.71 Letter written by PW8/CW16 to Lokayukta Police Superintendent Ex.P.72 to 78 Copies of 5 Sale Deeds and 2 Gift Deeds enclosed along with letter Ex.P.71 Ex.P.79 Letter of Deputy Superintendent of Police dt.25.07.2015 Ex.P.80 Letter dt. 30.07.2015 written by PW9 Ex.P.81 Letter dt. 07.11.2015 written by PW9 Ex.P.82 Certificate issued by PDO Grama Panchayathi, Sriramnagar Ex.P.83 True copy of Demand Register extract Ex.P.84 True copy of Demand Register extract Ex.P.85 Letter dt.21.02.2014 of Dy.SP Lokayukta Ex.P.86 Letter dt.28.02.2014 of PW11 Ex.P.87 to Four katha extracts furnished along with 110 Spl.CC No.489/2019 P.90 letter Ex.P86 Ex.P.91 Letter dt. 28.07.2015 Ex.P.92 Letter dt. 07.08.2015 of PW11 Ex.P.93 Katha extract of house of G.S.Hanumamthappa-A13 Ex.P.94 Letter dt.14.01.2015 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.95 Letter dt. 07.02.2015 of PW11 Ex.P.96 Katha Extract Ex.P.97 Katha Extract Ex.P.98 Letter dt. 19.04.2014 of Dy.SP Ex.P.99 Letter dt. 05.05.2014 of PW11 Ex.P.100 Katha Extract Ex.P.101 Letter dt. 24.06.2014 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.102 Letter dt. 02.07.2014 of PW11 Ex.P.103 Katha extract Ex.P.104 Letter dt. 29.04.2016 of Dy.S.P Ex.P.105 Letter dt. 25.05.2016 of PW11 Ex.P.106 Katha extract Ex.P.107 Letter dt. 15.04.2015 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.108 Letter dt. 20.05.2015 of PW11 Ex.P.109-112 4 katha extracts Ex.P.113 Letter dt. 30.07.2015 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.114 Katha extract Ex.P.115 Letter dt. 28.07.2015 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.116 Letter dt. 10.09.2015 of PW12 Ex.P.117 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.05.2011 Ex.P.118 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.05.2011 Ex.P.119 CC of Cancellation Deed dt. 12.07.2011 Ex.P.120 CC of Sale Deed dt. 29.05.2014 111 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.121 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.04.2010 Ex.P.122 CC of Sale Deed dt. 03.10.2013 Ex.P.123 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.04.2010 Ex.P.124 CC of Sale Deed dt. 17.09.2009 Ex.P.125 Letter of Police Superintendent dt.
28.07.2015 Ex.P.126 Letter of PW13 dt. 10.05.2015 Ex.P.127 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.128 Letter of Lokayukta Police Superintendent dated 15.04.2015 Ex.P.129 Letter of PW8 dt. 18.04.2015 Ex.P.130 CC of Gift Deed dt. 27.04.2007 Ex.P.131 CC of Sale Deed dt. 27.04.2007 Ex.P.132 Letter of Police Superintendent dt.
25.07.2015
Ex.P.133 Letter written by Prabhuswamy
Ex.P.134 Letter written by Prabhuswamy
Ex.P.135 Katha extract
Ex.P.136 Katha extract
Ex.P.137 Letter from Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta 06.04.2015
Ex.P.138 Letter dt.13.4.2015 written by PW15 to
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Ex.P.138(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.139 Copy of Assessment Register extract Ex.P.140 Letter dt. 03.06.2014 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.141 Letter dt. 16.06.2014 of PW16 Ex.P.141(a) Signature of PW16 112 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.142 Copy of Demand register extract Ex.P.143 Letter dt. 21.04.2014 of Dy.S.P. Ex.P.144 to Form No.3 Rule 20 issued by Tumakuru 154 Mahanagara Palike Ex.P.155 Check list pertaining to Accused Sunitha Ex.P.155(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.156 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Vasantha Kumar Ex.P.156(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.157 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Goutham Ex.P.157(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.158 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Nethravathi Ex.P.158(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.159 Check list pertaining to Accused- P.P. Aradhya Mutt Ex.P.159(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.160 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Rajeshwari H.R. Ex.P.160(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.161 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Nagaraj.T. Ex.P.161(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.162 Sanction to prosecute Accused Dharma Naik - letter dt. 03.01.2017 issued by PW19 Ex.P.162(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.163 Sanction to prosecute accused Sunitha -
letter dt. 03.11.2016 issued by PW20 Ex.P.163(a) Signature of PW20 113 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.164 Mahazar dt. 03.08.2013 with respect to Cr.No.22/13 and Cr.No.24/2013 Ex.P.164(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.164(b) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.165 Mahazar dt. 03.08.2013 Ex.P.165(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.166 Sanction to prosecute accused Suresh -
Sanction order dt. 23.01.2017 Ex.P.166(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.167 Sanction order to prosecute accused B. Vasanth Kumar Ex.P.167(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.168 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Smt.H.S. Muktamba Ex.P.168(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.169 Check list pertaining to Accused- Smt. Gowri Bai Ex.P.169(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.170 Check list pertaining to Accused-
M.N.Deepak Ex.P.170(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.171 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Prasanna Kumar.G.S. Ex.P.171(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.172 FIR in Cr.No.11/2013 (PCR No.5/13) Ex.P.172(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.173 FIR in CR No.15/13 (PCR 9/2013) Ex.P.173(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.174 FIR in CR No.16/13 (PCR No.10/2013) Ex.P.174(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.175 FIR in PCR No.17/13 (PCR No.11/2013) 114 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.175(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.176 Mahazar dt. 08.07.2013 Ex.P.176(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.176(b) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.177 File pertaining to H.Guddappa Ex.P.178 File pertaining to R.Dharma Naik Ex.P.179 File pertaining to G.Sunitha Ex.P.180 FIR in CR.No.60/13 Ex.P.180(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.181 FIR in CR.No.61/13 Ex.P.181(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.182 FIR in CR.No.62/13 Ex.P.182(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.183 FIR in CR.No.63/13 Ex.P.183(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.184 FIR in CR.No.65/13 Ex.P.184(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.185 FIR in CR.No.66/13 Ex.P.185(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.186 FIR in CR.No.67/13 Ex.P.186(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.187 Mahazar in CR.No.34/13 Ex.P.187(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.188 FIR in Cr.No.22/2013 Ex.P.188(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.189 FIR in Cr.No.24/2013 Ex.P.189(a) Signature of PW29 115 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.190 FIR in Cr.No.28/2013 Ex.P.190(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.191 FIR in Cr.No.30/2013 Ex.P.191(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.192 FIR in Cr.No.32/13 Ex.P.192(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.193 FIR in Cr.No.34/13 Ex.P.193(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.194 FIR in Cr.No.36/13 Ex.P.194(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.195 FIR in Cr.No.38/13 Ex.P.195(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.196 FIR in Cr.No.40/2013 Ex.P.196(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.197 FIR in Cr.No.42/13 Ex.P.197(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.198 FIR in Cr.No.44/13 Ex.P.198(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.199 FIR in Cr.No.46/13 Ex.P.199(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.200 PF No.13/2013 Ex.P.200(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.201 PF No.18/13 Ex.P.201(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.202 PF No.19/13 Ex.P.202(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.203 PF No.3/2014 Ex.P.204 Letter dt. 26.02.2014 116 Spl.CC No.489/2019 Ex.P.205 Certified copy of the resolution book maintained by the Sub-Committee towards allotment of site
4. Documents exhibited by the Defence/Accused:- Nil
5. List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- Nil
6. List of Court Documents: Nil LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) Digitally signed by SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT Date: 2025.06.21 17:49:42 +0530