Bangalore District Court
Lokayukta Police Inspector vs D.S.Kumaraiah on 23 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA),
BENGALURU (CCH.79)
Present: Sri. Ravindra Hegde,
M.A., LL.M.
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Spl. Judge (PCA),
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd day of July 2018
Spl.C.C. No.181/2011
COMPLAINANT: Lokayukta Police Inspector,
City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED: D.S.Kumaraiah,
S/o Shivanna,
H.C.4682,
Gnanabharati police station,
Bengaluru City.
R/o.576, Mahadeshwara Temple
Road, Ranganathapura,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. BRS - Advocate.)
Date of commission of
offence 28-04-2011
2 Spl.C.No.181/2011
Date of report of occurrence 09-05-2011
Date of arrest of accused: 11.05.2011
[
Date of release of accused 16.05.2011
on bail:
Date of commencement 22-08-2013
of evidence
Date of closing of 28-02-2018
evidence
Name of the complainant Sri. Nagendra.V.
Offences complained of
U/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
of PC Act, 1988 and 201
of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge ACQUITTED
Date of Judgment: 23-07-2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (In short PC Act) & Sec.201 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:-
Accused - D.S. Kumaraiah is working as HC 4682 in Jnanabharathi Police station, Bengaluru and is a public servant. The complainant-V.Nagendra S/o Late Venkataraman was 3 Spl.C.No.181/2011 dealing with second hand cars on commission basis and in respect of one vehicle, earlier owner Nandish had given complaint to Jnanabharathi Police Station against several persons including complainant and he obtained anticipatory bail on 25.04.2011. On 28.04.2011 complainant met Police Sub- Inspector of Jnanabharathi Police Station and he asked them to meet accused Kumaraiah and when they met accused, he asked complainant to bring different surety and told that they have to pay his fees and thereafter again on 03.05.2011, accused told that without bringing fee work will not be done and on the same day accused called Srinivas and asked them to bring amount how much they can. As complainant and Srinivas were not interested in giving bribe they met Lokayukta Police Inspector on 04.05.2011 and a voice recorder was given to them and they were asked to record conversation regarding demand of bribe by accused. Accordingly, on 05.05.2011 at 11 a.m. complainant met accused and accused demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and asked them to come on next day evening. Complainant recorded conversation and thereafter by arranging Rs.5,000/- complainant appeared before Lokayukta Police Inspector along with voice Recorder on 09.05.2011 and gave complaint. On receiving complaint, Lokayukta Police Inspector registered the case in Cr.No.21/2011 and submitted F.I.R. to 4 Spl.C.No.181/2011 Court. Lokayukta Police Inspector secured panchas and made all arrangements to trap accused. On the same day complainant along with shadow witness met accused, but he asked them to come on the next day at 2 p.m. and therefore trap attempt was postponed to 10.05.2011. On 10.05.2011 between 6.15 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. infront of tea stall on the side of Bengaluru-Mysuru Highway near Jnanabharathi Police Station, accused received tainted notes of Rs.5,000/- and then came back to Police station with complainant and thereafter, on receiving signal P.W.6 came with his team and when he was getting details, accused thrown out tainted notes from window and among 5 tainted notes only one tainted note of Rs.1,000/- was traced and seized and trap procedure was followed. Accused was arrested and produced before the court. Investigating Officer continued investigation and after completion of investigation and after securing prosecution sanction order, filed charge sheet against accused.
3. Cognizance of offences is taken by this court. Accused appeared and is enlarged on bail. Copies of prosecution papers are furnished to accused. After hearing both sides regarding framing of charge and having found prima-facie materials, charge is framed against accused and 5 Spl.C.No.181/2011 read over to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the prosecution case PWs 1 to 8 are examined. Documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.28 are marked and MOs 1 to 16 are also marked.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and he has denied incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused records.
7. Now, points that arise for my consideration are:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves that there is valid sanction to prosecute accused ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being public servant working as Police Head constable in Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru, has on 28.04.2011 when complainant met him to execute bail bond as per anticipatory bail order, asked to bring his fees and on 03.05.2011 when again complainant met him he told that without bringing his fee work will not be done and later made a phone call to C.W.4 and asked them to bring how much is possible and then again, on 6 Spl.C.No.181/2011 05.05.2011 when complainant met him at 11 a.m. he demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and on 10.05.2011 between 6.15 to 6.40 p.m. infront of tea stall on the side of Bengaluru-Mysore Highway near Jnanabharathi Police Station he reiterated his demand and received Rs.5,000/-
tainted notes from complainant as illegal gratification, as motive or reward to do official act or official favour to complainant and thereby committed offence u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being public servant working as Police Head constable in Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru, has on 10.05.2011 between 6.15 to 6.40 p.m. infront of tea stall on the side of Bengaluru-Mysore Highway near Jnanabharathi Police Station has by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.5,000/- without public interest from complainant and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct, which is an offence u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being public servant working as Police Head constable in Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru, has on 10.05.2011 accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from complainant, infront of tea stall on the side of Bengaluru-Mysore Highway near Jnanabharathi Police Station and then came 7 Spl.C.No.181/2011 back to police station and when Lokayukta Police came to apprehend him, on seeing Lokayukta police he thrown out tainted notes outside the window to cause disappearance of evidence and even on search only Rs.1,000/- is found and accused has concealed rest of the bribe amount received from complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C?
5) What order ?
8. My findings on the above points are :-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
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
9. Point No.1: The offences alleged against accused are under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act & Section 201 of IPC. Accused is working as Police Head constable in Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru. Therefore, accused is a public servant and sanction from competent authority is necessary to prosecute him. To prove prosecution sanction order P.W.5-S.N.Siddaramappa - DCP (West), Bengaluru City, at the relevant time, has given evidence. In his evidence, he has stated that accused was working as Police Head constable and was coming under him 8 Spl.C.No.181/2011 and he was competent authority to remove official in the cadre of Head constable. He has stated that he has received requisition from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha along with copies of investigation records and he has gone through the records and applied his mind and found prima facie grounds to proceed against accused and accordingly he has issued Prosecution Sanction Order as per Ex.P.12. In his cross-examination, he has denied that along with requisition ADGP had sent draft and he has only filled the same. He has denied that he was not competent authority to remove accused from service and therefore he is not a competent sanctioning authority. He has denied that without applying his mind, he has issued Ex.P.12.
10. On going through Ex.P.12 and evidence of P.W.5, it is clear that accused, who was working as Police Head constable in Jnanabharathi Police Station, was coming under P.W.5 and he was proper sanctioning authority. They also show that by going through the investigation records placed before PW5, he applied his mind and then issued prosecution sanction order. There are no materials to show that prosecution sanction order is not valid. Moreover, on the basis of the same materials this court has taken cognizance of offences and has framed charge. Therefore, prosecution is successful in proving that there is valid Prosecution Sanction 9 Spl.C.No.181/2011 Order against accused. Even learned counsel for accused in the course of his argument has submitted that there is no much dispute about issuing of Ex.P.12 prosecution sanction order. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
11. Point Nos. 2 to 4 : Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition.
12. To prove charge against accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 201 of IPC, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8. P.W.1 - V. Nagendra is complainant. P.W.2 - J.V. Sanjeev Kumar is Shadow witness. P.W.3- Chandrashekar L is another panch witness. P.W.4 - Jayaram is friend of complainant and surety who signed bail bond. P.W.5 - S.N. Siddaramappa is Prosecution Sanctioning Officer. P.W.7- Dharme Gowda is Police Sub-Inspector of Jnanabharathi Police Station who has identified voice of accused and visuals of accused. P.W.8 - K.R. Narasimhaiah is Police Sub-Inspector of Jnanabharathi Police Station on whose instructions accused is said to have taken bail bonds. P.W.6 K.Anjan Kumar is Police Inspector and Investigating Officer.
13. On behalf of the prosecution, documents at Exs.P.1 to P.28 are marked. Ex.P.1 is complaint and FIR is marked as 10 Spl.C.No.181/2011 Ex.P.28. Ex.P.4 is sheet containing number of currency notes. Ex.P.2 is Pre-trap mahazar dated 09.05.2011 and Ex.P.11 is Return mahazar dated 09.05.2011. Ex.P5 is continued pre-trap Mahazar dated 10.05.2011 and Ex.P.3 is trap mahazar. Spot sketch prepared by Investigating Officer is marked as Ex.P.6. Written explanation of accused is marked as Ex.P.7. Transcription of conversation recorded in voice recorder produced by complainant at the time of giving complaint is marked as Ex.P.8. Ex.P.13 is transcription of recording in voice recorder on 9.05.2011. Ex.P.9 is transcription of recordings in button camera and digital voice recorder at the time of trap. Ex.P.10 is document seizure Mahazar dated 12.05.2011. Prosecution sanction order given by P.W.5 is marked as Ex.P.12. Copy of SHD is marked as Ex.P.14. Copy of PSR and bail bond are marked as Ex.P.15. Attested copy of bail bond is also marked as Ex.P.20. Report of PW6 is marked as Ex.P.16. Sample seal is marked as Ex.P.17 and acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P.18. Copy of case file in Cr.No.129/2011 is marked as Ex.P.19. Ex.P.21 and P.22 are statements of PW1 and CW4 given before 17th ACMM, Bengaluru under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.23 is Chemical examination report. Ex.P.24 is requisition for service details. Ex.P.25 is service details of accused. The sketch prepared by Assistant Engineer is marked 11 Spl.C.No.181/2011 as Ex.P.26. Call details of mobile number of accused is marked as Ex.P.27. Apart from this, M.O.-1 to M.O.16 are also marked. M.O.1 is metal seal. Bottles containing solutions taken at different stages of proceedings are marked as M.O.2 to M.O.8. The C.Ds are marked as M.O.9 to M.O.14. The pant of accused is marked as M.O.15 and one currency note of Rs.1,000/- is marked as M.O.16.
14. As per the prosecution case, P.W.1-complainant gave complaint-Ex.P.1 before P.W.6-Investigating Officer stating that he had obtained anticipatory bail and visited Jnanabharathi Police Station for executing bail bond and at that time on direction of Police Sub-Inspector he met accused who is Head constable and he asked for his fees and thereby made demand for bribe and on 03.05.2011 accused made phone call to C.W.4 and made demand. Thereafter complainant went to Lokayukta office and P.W.6 gave him voice recorder to record conversation with accused. Again on 05.05.2011 when complainant met accused, he demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and this conversation was recorded and then he gave Ex.P.1- complaint. On receiving complaint, P.W.6 registered the case and secured PWs 2 and 3 as panch witnesses and introduced them to PW1 and they ascertained veracity of complaint and PW1 produced Rs.5,000/- in denomination of Rs.1000X5 and 12 Spl.C.No.181/2011 numbers of currency notes were noted as per Ex.P4 and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes and PW3 after verifying notes again has kept them in right side pant pocket of P.W.1 and thereafter his hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution after taking sample and solution turned to pink colour and it was seized in a bottle. Voice recorder produced by P.W.1 was played and recordings were transmitted to CD as per M.O. 13 and contents were transcribed as per Ex.P8. Pre-trap proceedings were videographed and then transmitted to CD. P.W.1 was asked to meet accused along with his friend C.W.4 and shadow witness P.W. 2 and to enquire about his work and to give tainted notes only in case of demand and to flash signal by wiping his hairs and was given voice recorder and button camera with instructions to switch on the same while meeting accused. P.W.2 was asked to accompany P.W.1 as a shadow witness and to observe the activities and to report later. Pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P.2 was prepared and signatures were taken.
15. It is further case of the prosecution that after pre-trap mahazar, trap team proceeded towards Jnanabharathi Police station and on the way on instructions of Investigating Officer PW1 made a phone call to accused and accused asked them to come within 5 minutes and P.W.1, P.W. 2 and C.W. 4 went 13 Spl.C.No.181/2011 inside the Police station and accused informed that he is on night shift and after verifying xerox copies of documents, he asked them to come on next day with original documents of some vehicle and therefore, P.W.1, 2 and C.W. 4 came back and recordings in the camera and voice recorder were played and then transmitted to CD and trap attempt was postponed to 10.05.2011. A Mahazar was drawn and tainted notes given back by P.W. 1 were kept in safe custody and they were asked to appear at 9.30 a.m. on 10.05.2011 before P.W.6. Thereafter on 10.05.2011 P.W.1 to 3, and C.W.4 have appeared before P.W.6 and again pre-trap procedures have been followed and continued pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P.5 was prepared and signatures were taken and after pre-trap proceedings, they all proceeded towards Jnanabharathi Police station again. As per the prosecution case, trap team went near Jnanabharathi Police station and vehicles were stopped at a distance and instructions were reminded to PWs 1 and 2 and C.W.4 and button camera and voice recorder given to P.W.1 were switched on and they were sent to Police station and other trap team members scattered themselves near Police station waiting for signal. P.W.1, 2 and C.W.4 along with surety P.W.4, who met them near police station, went inside Police station and met Police Sub-Inspector and have shown documents of surety and he 14 Spl.C.No.181/2011 talked to accused by mobile and accused informed that he will come within 10 minutes. After 30 minutes accused came to station and took them to computer room and took signatures and sent back P.W.4. Thereafter accused took them to tea stall on the side of Bengaluru-Mysuru highway near Police station and after taking tea, infront of Tea stall, accused received Rs.5,000/- tainted notes from PW1 from his right hand and kept it in his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, they all came back to Police station and accused asked P.W.1 and C.W.4 to be wait outside the Police station for 10 minutes and then P.W.1 came out and gave signal at about 6.40 p.m. Immediately, PW6 along with others entered Police station and P.W.1 shown accused as person who received tainted notes from him and explained the happenings. At that time, accused took out tainted notes from his pant pocket and thrown out from window behind him and immediately they all went there and searched for tainted notes and they found only one note of Rs.1,000/- which was one among the notes mentioned in Ex.P.4. In respect of other notes accused has not given proper explanation and other notes were not found and currency note which was found was seized and produced in this case as M.O.No.16. Thereafter sodium carbonate solution was prepared and after taking sample, both hands of accused were 15 Spl.C.No.181/2011 washed in solution and solution turned to light pink colour and it was seized in bottles. Pant in which accused had kept amount was also got removed and seized. The documents like PSR and bail bonds taken by accused and SHD are also secured by P.W.6. Button camera and voice recorder were played and contents were transcribed as per Ex.P.9 and recordings were played before P.W.7 and he identified voice of accused and also identified accused in visuals and gave report as per Ex.P.16. When questioned accused gave written explanation as per Ex.P.7 which was not acceptable. The accused was arrested and produced before the court. Trap proceedings were video- graphed and then transmitted to CD and trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.3 and signatures were taken. P.W.6 continued further investigation and after completion of investigation submitted final report and after obtaining prosecution sanction order filed charge sheet.
16. Complainant-P.W.1 has stated prosecution case in his chief evidence. He approaching accused for executing bail bond as per anticipatory bail order and accused demanding bribe are stated by him. He also stated about pre-trap proceedings and postponement of trap attempt to 10.05.2011. He has also stated about happenings on the day of trap on 10.05.2011. P.W.1 has stated that after taking signature of 16 Spl.C.No.181/2011 P.W.4 he was sent back and they went for tea and after taking tea, accused demanded amount and he gave tainted notes and accused received from his right hand and kept it in left pocket of pant and thereafter they again came to Police station and accused, asked him to be outside and then he gave signal. He has also stated further events like accused throwing tainted notes from window and seizing of M.O.16 and about hand wash of accused. Therefore, P.W.1 has totally reiterated prosecution case in his chief evidence, except minor deviation here and there. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on 09.05.2011 when they went to meet accused with tainted notes, accused has not demanded bribe. He has stated that earlier to 09.05.2011 accused had demanded bribe. P.W.1 has further stated that on 10.05.2011 when they went to station accused was not there and he was secured by making a phone call and he came within half-an-hour and then verified original documents and obtained bail bond. The witness has stated that at that time also accused has not demanded any bribe amount. He has stated that thereafter they went to tea stall at a distance of about 500 meters and at the time of taking tea in hotel, accused neither demanded nor accepted bribe. He has stated that after taking tea they came out of tea stall and he offered communication to C.W. 24 about acceptance of bribe.
17 Spl.C.No.181/201117. P.W.2, Shadow witness has also supported the prosecution case and stated prosecution case in his chief evidence with minor deviation here and there. He has stated that infront of tea stall, P.W.1 gave tainted notes to accused and accused received and kept in left side pant pocket and at that time he was at a distance of 70 feet and thereafter they all came back to Police station and accused asked them to wait outside and thereafter signal was given. He has also stated further events as appearing in prosecution case. He has stated that sketch of room from which accused has thrown out tainted notes from window was drawn as per Ex.P.6. But Ex.P.6 is sketch showing the spot near tea stall wherein tainted notes are stated to have been given to accused. In his cross- examination, P.W.2 has stated that on 09.05.2011 there was no demand by accused for money. He has stated that on 10.05.2011, when they went, accused was not in Police station and Police Sub-Inspector made phone call and then accused came and verified documents and obtained signature on bail bond and at that time accused has not demanded money. He has stated that he could not hear conversation between accused and P.W.1 in the tea stall. He has stated that room in which accused was apprehended was very small in dimension.
18 Spl.C.No.181/2011He has denied that accused has not thrown out amount from the window.
18. P.W.3, is another panch witness. He has also supported prosecution case and stated about his participation in pre-trap and trap proceedings as stated in prosecution case. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after entering into Jnanabharathi Police station till Rs.1,000/- was shown to him, he has not come out of police station and has stated that pant of accused was not removed in his presence. P.W.4 is surety who has signed the bail bond on 10.05.2011 and has stated that after signing the bail bond he went back.
19. P.W.8, Police Sub-Inspector has stated in his evidence that on 10.05.2011 accused Nos.4 and 5 in Cr.No.129/2011 appeared with his surety along with anticipatory bail order and as accused had gone out on work, he asked them to wait and then to meet accused and he went on his work and later he came to know that accused was trapped and he has also found that signatures of accused and surety were taken on bail bond by present accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that only on his satisfaction surety is to be accepted and then only bail bonds will be filled and admitted that he had not yet accepted surety offered by accused in Cr.No.129/2011 and bail bond was not filled and admitted that in the PSR accused 19 Spl.C.No.181/2011 appearing with surety was mentioned. P.W.7 has stated that two CDs were played before him and he was asked to identify the voice and after hearing he found that one voice was similar to voice of accused and he also found picture of accused in visuals and gave report as per Ex.P.16. He has admitted that he has not under gone any special training for voice identification.
20. P.W.6, Investigating Officer has stated about investigation done by him and also about filing of charge sheet. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that P.W.1 appeared before him on 04.05.2011 and informed about demand of bribe and he has not registered FIR on that day and he gave him a voice recorder by making entry in SHD and SHD is not produced. He has admitted that there is no entry of date and time in the voice recorder to show that recording was made on a particular day. He has stated that he has not seized voice recorder. He has admitted that in conversation marked at Ex.P.13 on 09.05.2011 there is no demand of bribe by accused. He has admitted that on the date of trap on 10.05.2011 at 6.15 p.m. when complainant, accused and shadow witness came out of police station, complainant has not flashed any signal and they proceeded towards Mysuru road and after coming back from tea stall they entered police station and thereafter, after 5 20 Spl.C.No.181/2011 minutes signal was given. He has stated that he has not seen accused receiving amount and keeping it in his pant pocket and has stated that when they entered chamber of accused after receiving signal from complainant, video-graphing of the trap proceedings was started and after seeing accused throwing some item from window, he immediately went to that spot within one minute and found only one currency note of Rs.1,000/-. He has stated that even on personal body search of accused, remaining four tainted notes were not found and admitted that body search of complainant and accused is not noted in trap mahazar. He has stated that he has not prepared any rough sketch to show that behind seat of accused in his chamber, there is a window and not prepared a sketch showing location of window and denied that there is no such window. He has stated that for preparing spot sketch he has shown spot to the Engineer and P.W1 and 2 were not present at that time. He has admitted that in Ex.P.9 transcription of visuals, complainant giving tainted notes to accused and keeping notes in pant pocket is not seen. He has stated that in respect of call details and CDs and transcriptions, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not taken. He has stated that he has not made any separate investigation in respect of offence under Section 201 of I.P.C.
21 Spl.C.No.181/201121. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution have to prove that accused being public servant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification and also that he has committed criminal mis- conduct. For the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. Prosecution must prove that accused has caused disappearance of evidence by throwing out tainted notes as alleged in this case. Prosecution must also prove that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is for doing official act or for doing official favour. On proof of demand and acceptance, presumption can be drawn to the effect that such illegal gratification is demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of P.C.Act. In various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held that demand of illegal gratification by accused is sine-qua-non to constitute offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, without proving demand of illegal gratification by accused, prosecution cannot proceed further.
22. To prove demand of bribe by accused, prior to giving of complaint, prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and also recordings in voice recorder stated to have been produced by P.W.1 while giving Ex.P.1 complaint on 22 Spl.C.No.181/2011 09.05.2011. In Ex.P.1 it is stated that on 28.04.2011 when complainant met accused he asked to pay his fees and to bring surety and on 03.05.2011 when P.W.1 met accused again he asked for fee and then by making a phone call to C.W.4, he asked them to bring amount. On 04.05.2011 complainant went to Lokayukta police and briefed about demand of bribe and then PW6 gave him voice recorder and asked him to record conversation with regard to demand of bribe by accused and then on 05.05.2011 complainant again met accused in Police station, wherein accused asked him to bring Rs.5,000/- on the next day. Thereafter on 09.05.2011 along with voice recorder complaint is given. During pre-trap proceedings, P.W.6 secured P.Ws.2 & 3 and before them voice recorder was played and then it was transmitted to CD as per M.O.-13 and recordings were transcribed as per Ex.P.8. In this conversation recorded in M.O.-13 CD and Ex.P.8 transcription there is demand of bribe made by accused according to prosecution. Even at the time of trap, accused is stated to have demanded and then received amount. On 09.05.2011 when trap attempt was made accused had asked complainant to come on the next day. As admitted by P.W.1, and also shadow witness P.W.2 on 09.05.2011 there was no demand made for bribe by accused. On 09.05.2011 also button camera and voice recorder were given to P.W.1 and 23 Spl.C.No.181/2011 conversation recorded were transcribed as per Ex.P.13. In Ex.P.13 there is no any demand of bribe by accused, as even admitted by P.W.6 Investigating Officer. On 10.05.2011 at the time of trap, accused is stated to have demanded and then received tainted notes and button camera and voice recorder given to complainant were played before panchas and then transmitted to CD as per M.O. 12 and its contents were transcribed as per Ex.P.9.
23. Therefore, regarding demand of bribe by accused prior to giving of complaint, prosecution is relying on M.O.-13 CD containing conversation dated 05.05.2011 and its transcription at Ex.P.8. Regarding demand subsequent to giving of complaint, prosecution is relying on M.O.-12 CD containing recordings in button camera and voice recorder at the time of trap and its transcriptions at Ex.P.9. In respect of these transcriptions and CDs, as admitted by P.W.6, no certificate as required under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is produced. M.O. 12 and 13 CDs are stated to have been played before P.W.7 higher officer of accused and he is stated to have identified the voice and visual of accused and then gave report as per Ex.P.16. P.W.7 has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not an expert in voice identification and has not undergone any special training. Therefore identification of 24 Spl.C.No.181/2011 voice by P.W.7 will not prove that voice heard in M.O. 12 and 13 are that of accused. These CDs were not sent for scientific investigation by an expert. The voice recorder from which M.O.13 was made and button camera and voice recorder which is source for M.O.-12 CD are not seized in this case. Since original devise from which these recordings were made is not available before the court and its copies are only produced as per MOs 12 and 13 and its transcriptions at Ex.P.8 and 9, without certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act these CDs and transcriptions are not admissible in evidence.
24. Learned counsel for accused has relied on the decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 (Anvar P.V -Vs- P.K.Basheer and others = (2014) 10 SCC 473. In this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that "when the secondary evidence of the electronic records are produced before the Court, they cannot be admitted in evidence, unless the secondary evidence is accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act". As original device in which recordings are made are not produced before the court and the CDs and the transcriptions which are produced are not supported by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, these 25 Spl.C.No.181/2011 documents at Ex.P.8, P.9 and P.13 and M.Os.12 and 13 are not admissible in evidence and will not help the prosecution.
25. Similarly, call details are also produced as per Ex.P.27. P.W.6 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not secured certificate under Section 65-B in respect of these call details at Ex.P.27. This document is produced to show that from mobile phone of accused calls were made on 03.05.2011 to C.W.4. In Crl. Appeal No.2539/2014 between Harpal singh Vs- State of Punjab dated 21.11.2016, in para No.11, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"...As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65(2) had been complied with, in absence of certificate under Section 65B (4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence."
Therefore, even Ex.P.27 call details are inadmissible in evidence.
26. Apart from this, learned counsel for accused has seriously disputed the admissibility of recordings in M.O. 13 CD which is from voice recorder produced by complainant at the time of giving complaint. Learned counsel has submitted that when P.W.1 appeared before Lokayukta police on 04.05.2011 and has narrated about demand of bribe, that information itself 26 Spl.C.No.181/2011 is First Information and P.W.6 giving voice recorder to P.W.1 and asking him to record conversation regarding demand of bribe by accused in voice recorder would be collection of evidence and cannot be accepted. In this connection, the Learned counsel has relied on a decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 2016 SCC online Kar 373 (Lakshmikantha S.G Vs State by Karnataka, Lokayukta Police). In this decision on a similar facts wherein on complainant approaching Lokayukta police, they had given voice recorder and asked him to record the conversation regarding demand of bribe and after he recording conversation and producing it with complaint, FIR was registered. Hon'ble High Court has held that, lodging of FIR after producing voice recorder is not the first information that reached the Police station at the earliest and it is not saved by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lalitha Kumari and has held that Investigating Officer has omitted to comply with provisions of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., and material collected before registration of the case is made to blend with the trap mahazar, subsequent to registration of FIR and it vitiates entire investigation. The Hon'ble High Court has quashed the FIR itself in the said decision. Present case is also similar, wherein P.W.1 was given voice recorder and was asked to record 27 Spl.C.No.181/2011 conversation with accused and then P.W.1 met accused on 05.05.2011 and recorded conversation and then came to Lokayukta police again on 09.05.2011 and produced voice recorder. The conversation recorded in voice recorder is transmitted to CD as per M.O.-13 and transcribed as per Ex.P8 and prosecution is mainly relying on these documents as an evidence to prove demand of bribe by accused which is impermissible as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court.
27. In the absence of these electronic records, prosecution case regarding demand of bribe would depend on the evidence of P.W.1 and regarding demand at the time of trap, even on the evidence of P.W.2 shadow witness. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that accused demanded bribe by stating that his fee is to be given and if he come with bare hand his work will not be done and on 05.05.2011 accused asked him to bring Rs.5,000/-. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has clearly stated that on 09.05.2011 when they met accused, he has not demanded bribe. P.W.1 has also stated that on 10.05.2011 also while verifying original document and obtaining bail bond in the Police station, accused has not demanded bribe amount. P.W.1 has even stated that when they went to tea stall and they were taking tea, accused has neither demanded nor accepted the bribe. Therefore, as per admission of P.W.1, 28 Spl.C.No.181/2011 at the time of trap attempt on 09.05.2011 and at the time of trap on 10.05.2011, there was no demand for bribe by accused. Though PW1 has stated that on 28.04.2011 and on 03.05.2011 accused asked for his fee and told that if he come bare handed work will not done, this statement of P.W.1 is not supported by any other evidence. The friend of P.W.1, C.W.4 who was with him is not examined in this case.
28. Learned counsel for accused has drawn my attention to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1191 ( Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs State of Maharashtra), in which, under Section 165A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it is held that "complainant is in no way in a better position than accomplice after introduction of Section 165-A and corroboration in material particulars is necessary and when there is no corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand for money, evidence of complainant cannot be accepted as is not corroborated".
29. In 2006 (3) KCCR 1445 (State of Karnataka Vs K.T.Hanumanthaiah), Hon'ble High Court has held that, in the case of offence under Sec.7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act there should be independent corroboration for proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe.
29 Spl.C.No.181/201130. In a decision reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450 (State of Kerala and another Vs C.P. Rao) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, When there is no corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand of bribe by accused, it has to be accepted that complainant's version is not corroborated and, therefore, evidence of complainant cannot be relied on.
31. In 2016 (1) KCCR 815 (R.Srinivasan and another Vs. State of Police Inspector Lokayuktha, Bangalore) it is held that, "In a trap case complainant will normally be an interested person in the sense he would be interested in getting the accused trapped since accused is stated to have not acted legally, according to him. However, his evidence needs corroboration in material particulars and this is where corroboration by the shadow witness assumes importance."
32. Therefore, without corroboration, say of P.W.1 that accused demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and he asked him to give his fees etc., does not prove demand. P.W. 1 and 2 both have stated that on 09.05.2011 and 10.05.2011 there was no demand for any bribe by accused. In the presence of this evidence of both PWs 1 and 2 and in the absence of any corroboration of evidence of PW1 stating that on 28.04.2011, 30 Spl.C.No.181/2011 03.05.2011 and 05.05.2011 accused had demanded bribe, demand of bribe by accused does not get established. Moreover, anticipatory bail order passed by the court was directing Investigating Officer to release accused on bail on personal bond with one surety to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer. As admitted by him, surety offered by present complainant and C.W.4 was to be to the satisfaction of P.W.8 and accused, who is Head constable, is only Investigating Officer's assistant and except taking signature on Bail bond and filling Bail bonds he had no role to play in P.W.1 offering surety. Under such circumstances, there was no work of the complainant pending with accused and accused was to act as per the direction of P.W.8. On 10.05.2011, as stated by PWs 1 and 2 accused has taken signatures on bail bond. Though Bail bonds which are seized in this case were not filled, P.W.8 has clearly stated that he had not yet accepted the surety offered by accused i.e. present complainant and only after he accepting surety, Bail bond will be filled. Even as per the prosecution case, after taking signatures of surety of P.W.1 and C.W. 4, accused took them to tea stall. Therefore, offering of surety and signing Bail bond was over even before they proceeding towards tea stall. On looking to all these evidence, prosecution has failed to 31 Spl.C.No.181/2011 prove the alleged demand of bribe by accused before giving complaint or at the time of attempted trap or at the time of trap as contended. Therefore, accused demanding illegal gratification from complainant is not established in this case.
33. Coming to the acceptance of bribe amount, PWs 1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that after meeting accused along with PW4, accused took signature of PWs 1 and 4 and C.W.4 on bail bonds and sent back CW4 and thereafter he took them to tea stall which is on the side of Bengaluru-Mysuru Highway at a distance of about 500 meters from Police station. Infront of the tea stall, after taking tea complainant is said to have given tainted notes of Rs.5,000/- to accused and he is said to have kept it in pant pocket. Both PWs 1 and 2 have stated about receipt of tainted notes by accused. Thereafter, they came from tea stall to Police station and again entered the police station and then accused asked them to be outside for 10 minutes and during this time i.e. within 5 minutes of entering the Police station for the second time, P.W.1 came out and gave signal. Then, P.W6 along with trap team came inside the station and in the chamber of Police Sub-Inspector accused was found sitting on chair and when P.W6 was ascertaining details of accused after introducing him, accused is said to have thrown out tainted notes from the window by taking out from 32 Spl.C.No.181/2011 his pant pocket. It is stated that trap team searched for the thrown object outside the window immediately within one minute and they could find only one note i.e. seized as M.O.-
16. Thereafter,hand wash of accused was made and the solution is said to have turned to pink colour. Entire acceptance and recovery of tainted note run around these facts stated above, as per the prosecution case.
34. In pre-trap proceedings P.W.1 was given instructions to give tainted notes to accused only in case of demand and then to flash signal and P.W.2 was asked to go as a shadow witness along with P.W.1 and to observe the happenings and report later. From the Police station, after taking signature on the bond, accused has sent P.W.4 out and till then there was no demand of any bribe by accused as stated by PWs 1 and 2. Thereafter they all proceeded towards tea stall and infront of the tea stall after taking tea, amount is said to have been given. However, P.W.1 has stated in his cross-examination that while taking tea accused has neither demanded nor accepted bribe amount from him and has stated that subsequently he has given signal. Therefore when this amount is given to accused is not clear by evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 has stated that he was standing at a distance of about 70 feet and he could not hear conversation between complainant and accused.
33 Spl.C.No.181/2011But he has stated that he has seen accused receiving amount from complainant and then keeping it in pant pocket. In this case only Rs.1,000/- is recovered from the place where tainted notes were said to have been thrown by accused through window. Therefore, whether all 5 notes were given by complainant to accused will not be clear. Even according to prosecution case as P.W.2 was at a distance of about 70 feet, he might not have seen how much amount is given and none of witnesses have stated that the accused has counted notes and then kept it in pocket.
35. The main doubt about prosecution case is with regard to P.W.1 giving signal. Though P.W.1 was instructed to give signal after giving amount and amount was given immediately after taking tea, P.W.1 has not given signal immediately. Even P.W.2 shadow witness who has seen accused receiving amount from complainant has not given signal to trap team while coming back to Police station from tea stall. As stated by all the witnesses, there is no tea stall near police station and tea stall is near Bengaluru-Mysuru Highway and it is at a distance of about 300 to 500 meters. Therefore, after taking tea, PWs 1, 2, accused and C.W.4 came to Police station by walking this much distance and during this time, though amount was already given and trap team was waiting for signal, P.W.1 for 34 Spl.C.No.181/2011 the best reasons known to him has not given signal and even P.W.2 or C.W.4 have not given any signal to trap team while coming back to police station. If amount was given near tea stall, there was no difficulty for Pws 1, 2 or C.W.4 to give intimation or signal to trap team immediately or while coming back to Police station. This itself would raise serious doubt about the prosecution case with regard to P.W.1 giving tainted notes to accused infront of tea stall.
36. Moreover, P.W.6 Investigating Officer in his cross- examination has denied the suggestion that from the place where they were standing, he could not see complainant Srinivas and accused, when they were in tea stall in Mysuru road. But, he has stated that he has not seen accused receiving amount and keeping it in his pant pocket. Therefore though P.W.6 could see P.W.1, accused and C.W.4 when they were in tea stall, he has not seen the accused receiving amount. Though P.W.6 was visible to P.W.1, 2 and C.W.4 they have not intimated about acceptance of tainted notes by accused immediately. All these doubts seriously affects the prosecution case, as prosecution have to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
37. It is specific case of the prosecution that amount is given infront of tea stall. Even sketch of spot at Ex.P.6 and 35 Spl.C.No.181/2011 Ex.P.26 show that spot of incident, i.e. giving of amount, is infront of tea stall. In Ex.P.26 sketch, Investigating Officer is shown to be standing on other side of road infront of tea stall wherein accused is shown to be standing. Therefore, even as per Ex.P.26 Investigating Officer could see P.W.1, 2, C.W.4 and accused. Therefore there was no difficulty for them to give signal. As admitted by P.W.6 for preparing Ex.P.26 sketch, he has shown the spot and P.W.1 & 2 were not present at that time. Since P.W.6 has seen P.W.1, 2, C.W.4 and accused standing at different places infront of tea stall, there was even possibility of P.W.6 seeing accused receiving amount, if really accused received tainted notes.
38. On looking to all these aspects acceptance of bribe amount by accused as stated in this case is not clearly established. As regards the recovery of tainted notes from accused admittedly no amount is recovered from personal search of accused. It is stated that accused has thrown out tainted notes from window behind his seat. It is suggested to witnesses that there is no window to the chamber of Police Inspector. Though the suggestion has been denied, there is no sketch of the chamber in which accused was apprehended is prepared and produced before the court to prove that there is window. Though P.W.6 has stated that immediately within one 36 Spl.C.No.181/2011 minute he reached the spot at which notes were thrown, only one note was found there. Though he has stated that he has made personal body search of accused and also complainant, trap mahazar does not refer to any such body search of accused and complainant. Therefore, even recovery of tainted notes from accused is not proved in this case.
39. Though it is alleged that accused has caused disappearance of evidence by throwing out tainted notes from his pant pocket, except say of P.Ws. 1,2,3 and P.W.6 there is no other evidence to prove that accused has thrown out tainted notes and even there is no convincing evidence to show that accused had received tainted notes of Rs.5,000/- and had kept it in his pant pocket. Evidence before the court, does not prove that accused has accepted tainted notes from complainant infront of tea stall as stated and that, one of the tainted notes is recovered from accused. Evidence also does not prove that accused has caused disappearance of evidence by throwing out tainted notes from the window. Though hand wash of accused in sodium carbonate solution is stated to have turned to pink colour as stated by all the witnesses and chemical examination report with regard to pant has shown the presence of phenolphthalein contents that does not itself prove the guilt of 37 Spl.C.No.181/2011 accused. Even otherwise without proof of demand, acceptance and recovery will not prove guilt of accused.
40. In a decision cited by learned counsel for accused, which is reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2080 =2014 (13) SCC 55 (B.Jayaraj Vs State of Andra Pradesh), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para No.7 as under :-
"In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court".
Therefore mere recovery of currency note is not sufficient to prove guilt of the accused. In the present case even recovery is not proved.
41. On looking to the entire evidence led by the prosecution, demand of bribe amount by accused to do any official act of complainant or to do official favour to complainant itself is not established in this case. Even acceptance and recovery of the amount are not proved. Apart from this, as per the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lakshmikanth S.G. referred above, the investigation initiated 38 Spl.C.No.181/2011 by the Investigating Officer itself is wrong as he was required to start investigation immediately on receiving information on 04.05.2011, before giving voice recorder to P.W.1 and act of using material collected before registration of the case as evidence has vitiated the proceedings.
42. When demand, acceptance and recovery of legal remuneration is not established, even presumption U/s.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn and accused need not be asked to prove the contrary and to rebut the presumption. In a decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 666 (Trilok Chand Jain Vs State of Delhi), relied by counsel for accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, accused may rebut presumption against him under the Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by showing mere preponderance of probability in his favour and it is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also held in various decisions that, burden on prosecution is to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused can rebut presumption by preponderance of probability. In this case, as prosecution has not proved demand, acceptance and recovery, presumption u/s 20 cannot be drawn.
39 Spl.C.No.181/201143. For all these reasons, prosecution has failed to prove that accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification from complainant and committed offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Similarly, any criminal misconduct of accused by receiving any pecuniary advantage without any public interest is also not made out. Similarly accused causing any disappearance of evidence and committing offence under section 201 of I.P.C. is also not established. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, points Nos.2 to 4 are answered in the Negative.
44. POINT No.5:- For the discussion and findings on Point Nos.1 to 4, accused is to be acquitted. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER Accused is found not guilty.
Acting u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.201 of I.P.C.40 Spl.C.No.181/2011
The bail bond executed by accused and his surety stands cancelled.
M.O.16 Cash of Rs.1,000/- is ordered to be confiscated to the Government after expiry of appeal period.
M.O.1 metal seal is ordered to be returned to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police after expiry of appeal period.
M.O.2 to 15 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period, as they are worthless.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of July 2018) (Ravindra Hegde) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Nagendra V
PW.2 Sanjeev Kumara J.V.
PW.3 L.Chandrashekar
PW.4 Jayaram
P.W.5 Siddaramappa.S.N.
P.W.6 K.Anjan Kumar
P.W.7 Dharmegowda
P.W.8 Narasimhaiah.K.R.
41 Spl.C.No.181/2011
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
P.1 (a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Pre-trap mahazar
P.2 (a) Signature of P.W.1
P.2 (b) to (h) Signature of P.W.2
P.2 (i) to (o) Signature of P.W.3
P.2 (p) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.3 Trap mahazar
P.3(a) Signatures of P.W.1
P.3(b) to (m) Signatures of P.W.2
P.3(n) to (g) Signatures of P.W.3
P.3(h) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.4 Sheet containing number of currency
notes
P.4 (a) & (b) Signatures of P.W.2
Ex.P.4(c) & (d) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.4 (e),(f) & (g) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.5 Continuation of pre-trap mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) to (c) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.5(d) to (f) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.5(g) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.6 Sketch
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.7 Explanation of the accused
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.8 Transcriptions of the recordings in C.D.
Ex.P.8(a) to (h) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.8(i) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.9 Transcription of C.D. and voice recordings
Ex.P.9(a) to (d) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.9(e) to (h) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.9(i) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.10 Mahazar dated 12.5.2011
42 Spl.C.No.181/2011
Ex.P.10(a) to (c) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.10(d) to (f) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.10(g) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.11 Mahazar dated 9.5.2011
Ex.P.11(a) & (b) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.11(c) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.12 Prosecution Sanction order
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.13 Sheet in which C.D. transcribed
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.14 Copy of SHD
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.15 Attested copy of PSR and bail bond
Ex.P.15 (a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.16 PSI Dharmegowda report
Ex.P.16 (a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.16 (b) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.17 Sample metal seal
Ex.P.17 (a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.18 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.18 (a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.19 Attested copy of file at
Page nos. 74 to 121
Ex.P.20 Attested copies of bail bond and PSR
Ex.P.21 164 statement of CW1
Ex.P.22 164 statement of CW4
Ex.P.23 Chemical examination report
Ex.P.23 (a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.24 Letter to DCP West
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.25 Service details
Ex.P.26 Spot sketch
Ex.P.27 Call details of accused
Ex.P.28 FIR
43 Spl.C.No.181/2011
Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence :
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
- Nil -
Material Objects marked by Prosecution :
M.O.-1 Metal seal
M.O.-2 Article No.1 bottles
M.O.-3 Article No.2 bottles
M.O.-4 Article No.5 bottles
M.O.-5 Article No.6 bottles
M.O.-6 Article No.9 bottles
M.O.-7 Article No.10 bottles
M.O.-8 Article No.11 bottles
M.O.-9 Article No.3 CDs
M.O.-9(a) Cover
M.O.-10 Article No.4
M.O.-10 (a) Cover
M.O.-11 Article No.7
M.O.-11(a) Cover
M.O.-12 Article No.13
M.O.-12(a) Cover
M.O.-13 Article No.14
M.O.-13 (a) Cover
M.O.-14 Article No.15
M.O.-14(a) Cover
M.O. 15 Pant of accused
M.O.15(a) Cover
M.O.16 Cash
M.O.16(a) Cover
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (PCA),
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
***
44 Spl.C.No.181/2011