Bangalore District Court
Shekar B.K. - Pi vs M.Mahesh on 4 February, 2025
1
C.C.No.4342/2015
KABC030114682015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 04th day of February, 2025.
Present: Sri SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE.
C.C. No.4342/2015
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
Complainant : State by C.K. ACHUKATTU Police
Station.
Vs/-
Accused : A1 N,Mahesh
S/o Late MahadevAge 26 years
R/at No.17/21, 5th cross, 17th main,
Nagendra block, Girinagara,
Bengaluru city
A2. Kumar
S/o Late Cheluve Gowda
Age 34 years
R/at Sriranga Pattana
Mandya.
A3 Dileep
S/o D.S.Erappa
Age 26 years
R/at No.2 Aaloor Siddapura
Somavarapete, Madikere,
Kodagu
2
C.C.No.4342/2015
A4 Mani (SPLITUP)
R/o Madikeri,
Kodagu.
Date of offence : 28-06-2014
Offences complained : U/s.420, 511 r/w/s 34 of IPC.
of
Plea : Accused No.1 to 4 Pleaded not
guilty
Final Order : Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order : 04-02-2025
*****
The Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K.Achukattu P.S, Bangalore
has filed chargesheet against the accused for the offences
punishable U/s.420, 511 r/w/s 34 of IPC.
2. The criminal law has been set into motion based on the
first information statement of B.K.Shekhar. The gist of the
prosecution case is that on 28-06-2014 at Banashankari 3 rd stage,
near C.K.Achukattu bus station, the accused persons in order to
earn money with common intention were selling some powder and
made public to believe as it is brown sugar and thus accused have
cheated public at large and thereby committed the aforesaid
offences. Based on the said information, a case in Crime
3
C.C.No.4342/2015
No.198/2014 came to be registered against the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
3. During crime stage accused entered appearance and were
enlarged on bail. After completion of the Investigation, the police
have filed Chargesheet against the accused for the offences
punishable u/s.420, 511 r/w/s 34 of IPC. On receipt of
chargesheet, this court took the cognizance of the alleged offences.
Pursuant to the issuance of summons issued by this court, the
accused appeared before the court through his counsel and the
copy of the prosecution papers was furnished to the accused as
required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.
4. Before framing charge an opportunity of being heard was
provided to the accused and the prosecution. On hearing them, as
there was sufficient materials, charge for the afore said offences
was framed and the same was read over to the the accused in the
language known to them, to which, accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused was recorded.
Thereafter, the matter was set down for prosecution evidence.
Accused No.4 despite issuance of NBW did not turn up and
remained absent and case against him is separated and the
4
C.C.No.4342/2015
concerned I.O. is directed to file split up chargesheet against
Accused No.4.
5. In order to prove the alleged offences, the prosecution has
examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 documents. The statement of accused No.1 to 3 as
required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. In which, the accused
denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.
The accused No.1 to 3 have not let in any oral or documentary
evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard arguments on both the sides. I have Perused the
materials on record.
7. The following points arise for my determination :-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 28-06-2014 at Banashankari 3rd stage,
near C.K.Achukattu bus station, the accused persons in
order to earn money with common intention were selling
some powder and made public to believe as it is brown
sugar and thus accused have cheated public at large
and thereby committed the aforesaid offences and
thereby the accused have committed the offences
punishable u/s.420, 511 of IPC.?
2) To what Order?
8. My finding to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1.......In the Negative.
Point No.2.......As per final Order, for the following:-
5
C.C.No.4342/2015
REASONS
9. POINT No.1:- It is the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution will have to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the same, the
prosecution has examined PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.1
panchanama and Ex.P.2 FSL report.
10.CW-6 was examined as P.W.1 Dollaiah. He has deposed in
his examination in chief that on 30-06-2014 he submitted seized
articles to the FSL and got acknowledgment and he had given
statement.
11. CW-8 was examined as PW-2 Kumaraswamy SP, P. I. He
has deposed in his evidence that on 28-6-2014 at 1-45 p.m. CW1
called himself and CW 4,5 and 7 and told that near auto stand one
person is selling brown sugar, CW1 to 5 7 and 10 and informant
went in two Govt. jeep. And they shown the accused persons. They
surrounded accused persons. At 2.45 p.m. accused told his name
as Mahesha. Accused consented for conducting search on him.
CW1 issued notice to accused. PW-2 further deposed that they
checked accused bag and there was brown sugar in it and he told it
is bring to sale. And on weighing it was 450 gms., when it is
examined in Narcotic detection kit, it was plastic. For FSL
6
C.C.No.4342/2015
examination took in four small cover each wg. 5 gms. Separately
and wrapped in white cloth and sealed it and marked with letters
S1 to S4. He has given statement. He identifies the accused
persons.
12. The above being the evidence on record, there is nothing
to prove that the police had seized the alleged powder from the
possession of the accused herein. The prosecution has also not
examined any person who was cheated by the actions of the
accused. Only based on the evidence of police personals convicting
accused would not be proper. The evidence of the police personals
needs corroboration from independent witnesses. However, no
independent witness is examined by the prosecution to show the
alleged recovery of powder from he possession of the accused.
Hence, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered
in the negative.
13. POINT No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
7
C.C.No.4342/2015
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.420, 511 r/w/s 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
Since case against Accused No.4 is splitup, office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any, for future reference. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 04-02-2025).
(SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M.) XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1 : Dollaiah PW-2 : Kumaraswamy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Spot panchanama Ex.P.1a : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.2 : FSL Report Ex.P.2a : Signature of witness 8 C.C.No.4342/2015 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE. 9
C.C.No.4342/2015 04-02-2025 Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separately) ORDER In exercise of power conferred Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.420, 511 r/w/s 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
Since case against Accused No.4 is splitup, office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any, for future reference.
XXXVII ACMM., B'lore.
10 C.C.No.4342/2015 11 C.C.No.4342/2015