Bangalore District Court
State By Puttenahalli vs No. : 1. K.N. Guru Murthy on 31 May, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 31st day of May, 2021
:Present: Sri. I.P.Naik, B.A.L., LL.B.,
30th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.10009/2018
Complainant : State by Puttenahalli, Police station
(By Sr. APP)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. K.N. Guru Murthy,
S/o. Late Nanjappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at.No.53, 13th Main,
Puttenahalli Palya,
J.P. Nagar, 7th Phace,
Bengaluru-78.
5. Ravi,P.S S/o. Late P.N. Shamanna,
(Case is Split Up)
(Rep by Sri....., Advocate)
******
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Puttenahalli Police has filed charge sheet against accused 1 and 5 for the offences punishable U/s.420 r/w 34 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.10009/2018
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
CA site bearing Site No. 2, situated at M.S. Ramaiah City, J.P. Nagar 8th Phase, within territorial limits of Puttenhalli police station. Accused no. 1 to 5 have filed requisition before Bengaluru development authority (hearing after refereed as BDA). At the time of submitting application accused are mentioned the name of the unregistered trust Sree Sai Darshanam Trust. As per the resolution passed by BDA, CA site No.2 alloted to unregistered Sree Sai Darshanam Trust on 29/10/2010 as lease agreement for period of 30 years. With malafide intention, to cheat the BDA accused are mentioned the wrong name of the trust as Sree Sai Darshanam Trust at the time of obtaining lease agreement from BDA. Hence accused No.1 and 5 are charge sheeted.
3. Intentionally, the president of M.S. Ramaiah City welfare associated (R) has filed private complaint before this court. As per the order passed this court on 16/01/2017 case is refereed to SHO Puttenhalli police station for the purpose of 3 C.C.No.10009/2018 investigation and submission of final report under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On receipt of copy of the complaint CW-7 PSI Somaraju has registered the case against accused No.1 to 5 in Crime No. 79/2007 and forward FIR to this court on 21/02/2017. On the same day CW-7 rush spot and conducted the mahazar, as shown by CW-1 who is president of complainant association, in the presence of CW.2 and 3 and also interrogated CW-2 to 5 and recorded their statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he has filed requisition before CW.6 who was none other than deputy secretary-I of BDA for collection of records. As per the requisition of CW-7 investigation officer, the deputy secretary-I of BDA CW-6 by name Venkataraju submitted all documents pertaining to proceedings conducted for grant of site in favour of Sree sai Darshnam trust in form of CD to investigation officer. After completing other formalities CW-7 submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 5.
4. Further I.O. stated in column No.2 of charge sheet, that no material against accused 2 to 4, accordingly he has 4 C.C.No.10009/2018 dropped them from charge sheet with liberty to file separate charge sheet against these three accused if additional evidence is trace out, under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. But till today CW-7 has not submitted charge sheet or additional charge sheet against accused No. 2 to 4.
5. Based on charge sheet and other documents submitted by CW-7 this court was taken cognizance as per the order dated 17/4/2018 against accused No.1 and 5, register the case in Register- I and issued summons against accused No.1 and 5. On 05/07/2018 accused No.1 and 5 appear through their respective counsel and got enlarged on bail thereafter accused No.5 fails to appear before court. Therefore this case split up against accused No.5 and registered the separate case against him in C.C. No. 8512/2019.
6. On 24/06/2019 charge has been framed and read over against accused No.1. He pleaded not guilty, he claims to be tried. Hence, case is posted for evidence. 5 C.C.No.10009/2018
7. In order to prove the guilt of accused No.1, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and 13 documents. After closer prosecution evidence, statement of the accused No.1 recorded u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C on 06/04/2021. Accused No.1 denied incriminating evidence and he has not chosen to lead evidence and no document produced by accused No.1 on his behalf.
8. On 22/04/2021 heard the arguments physically as submitted by learned counsel for accused No.1. On 25/05/2021heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P through on-line.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time of obtaining lease of CA Site No. 2 he submitted application by mentioning in the wrong name of unregistered trust as Sree Sai 6 C.C.No.10009/2018 Darshanam Trust and within my cognizance he has committed an offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC.?
2. What Order?
10. By considering oral and documentary evidence and the parties my answer to findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following..,
REASONS
11. Point No.1 : The learned A.P.P. submitted that PW.1
Shasheekanth Karagudri, PW-4 Girish, K.P, PW-6 Ramesh and PW.7 Dr. N.C. Venkatraju categorically deposed in respect of allegation made against accused No.1. PW-5 investigation officer by name PSI Somaraju deposed in respect of investigation as conducted by him and submission of charge sheet against accused No. 1. PW.2 and 3 are witness to SO mahazar, they have specifically stated about drawing of mahazar by IO. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable 7 C.C.No.10009/2018 doubt. Hence, prays for convicting accused No.1 in accordance with law.
12. As against this, the learned counsel for accused No.1 urged that in this case there is no malafide intention on part of accused No.1 at the time of proceedings held before BDA, said authority mentioned the wrong name of the trust in resolution. After having knowledge of error in mentioning name of trust, accused No.1 filed requisition on 3/3/2014, 04/05/2017, 26/08/2017 for rectification of the trust name in lease agreement dated 29/10/2010, no action taken by BDA. Therefore accused No. 1 filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 of Constitution with prayer of writ of mandamus against BDA in WP. No. 46323/2018 (BDA). As per the order dated 03/01/2019 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka issued writ of mandamus against BDA to consider the requisition filed by Sree Sai Darshanam Trust® and make correction in lease agreement. 8 C.C.No.10009/2018
13. The learned counsel for accused No.1 submitted that no malafide intention in order to cheat the BDA or State Government, it merely mentioned the wrong name of trust in lease agreement, will not attracts an ingridions of cheating.
14. In cross examination the prosecution witness clearly stated about different name of the trust mentioned in the proceedings held before BDA. They have mentioned the different name of the trust by mistake/misunderstanding. In cross examination of prosecution witness stated that they have filed number of cases against accused No.1 and trust since 2010 after clearly shows that the complaint association filed present private complaint before this court with malafide intention. The prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore prays for acquit the accused No.1 for alleged punishable under section 420 of IPC. The learned counsel for accused No.1 relied on Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED RESEARCH CENTER FOR POWDER 9 C.C.No.10009/2018 METALLURGY AND NEW MATERIALS v/s NIRMA CERGLASS TECHNICS (P) LTD.
15. In view of the revel submission by prosecution as well as defense of the accused No.1. I have carefully gone through ocular evidence of prosecution and documentary evidence.
16. According to prosecution case PW.1 Shashikanth Kargudri is President of complainant welfare association, PW.4 general Secretary of complainant welfare association and PW-6 is Member of complainant welfare association. These three witnesses deposed that earlier they have applied for allotment of CA Site No.2 for purpose of education purpose. As per their requisition BDA was alloted the said site in favour of complainant welfare association. Further they have stated that the complainant association unable to deposit the remaining amount within stipulated time, for these reason BDA has cancelled the allotment of CA Site No.2 in favour of complainant welfare association.
10 C.C.No.10009/2018
17. Further PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 deposed that initially BDA was alloted in CA Site No.1 in favour of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust situated at Raghuvana Halli, due to protest from the local people accused No.1 not accepted the said allotment of site, accordingly BDA was cancelled the allotment of CA Site No.1 situated at Raghuvana Halli. Thereafter accused No.1 in capacity as Managing trustee of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust applied for substitute allotment of site before BDA. By considering the representation of accused No.1, BDA alloted the disputed site i.e., CA Site No. 2 in favour of trust. It is specific case of the prosecution is that Sree Sai Darshanam Trust is not registered. The accused No.1 and other trustees cheated the BDA as well as Government getting the CA Site No.2 in favour of unregistered trust and its wrong name.
18. PW.2 M.S. Rao and PW.3 A.S.Somaiahji are witnesses to SO mahazar they have stated on 21/02/2017 at about 1.30 p,m, investigation officer/PW.5 PSI Somaraju conducted the spot mahazar.
11 C.C.No.10009/2018
19. PW.5 investigation officer of this case stated that on 21/02/2017 he has received the Ex.P.3 copy of the complaint from court and registered the case in Crime No. 79/2017 and forwarded the Ex.P.4, FIR to this court. After that he rushed to spot and conducted the mahazar EX.P.2, thereafter interrogated and recorded the statement of PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 and also sought documents from BDA. PW.7 being Deputy Secretary-I of BDA issued documents in form of CD Ex.P.7 as per the requisition of I.O.
20. The firstly I have examined Ex.P.2 mahazar, as per the said document Ex.P.2 and oral evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 investigation officer disclosed that on 21/02/2017 between 1.30 p.m to 2.30 p.m. conducted the spot mahazar in spot through Laptop thereafter taken Printout in one house. PW.1 and PW.2 stated that police have typed the mahazar and get the printout of mahazar in office of complainant welfare association. In cross examination PW.2 stated that he was not visited to temple at the time of drawn mahazar, further he stated that police have conducted the rough mahazar and he 12 C.C.No.10009/2018 has not signed there on but it is contrary to prosecution. PW.3 stated that police have conducted the mahazar in the spot but in cross examination he stated and he has not entered into temple. The PW.1 and PW.2 stated that it was conducted in office of the complainant welfare association, which is contrary to oral evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 and recitals of Ex.P.2 mahazar. By considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly fail to prove the spot mahazar.
21. By considering entire cross examination of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6, it revels that following facts is not disputed by the prosecution as well as accused.
21.1. Initially accused No.1 applied for site in capacity of managing trustee of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust in the year 2007.
21.2. The BDA alloted CA Site No.1 situated Raghvan halli in favour of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust in favour of Sree Sai 13 C.C.No.10009/2018 Darshanam Trust in the year 2007, said allotment was cancelled due to protest of local people. 21.3. Thereafter accused No.1 applied for grant of CA Site No.2 situated at M.S. Ramaiah City (disputed site) accordingly in the year 2010 BDA as alloted and executed agreement of lease in favour of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust for period of 30 years.
22. Before reiterate appropriation evidence of PW.1 it is better to reproduced the oral evidence of PW.1 deposed at the time of cross examination as under:
" -------------------------2012 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಸೈಟ್ ನನಂಬರ್ 2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅದದು ನಮಗೆ ಮನಂಜಜೂರಾಗಬಹದುದನಂದದು ಊಹಿಸಿ ಶೆಡ್ ಹಾಕಿದದವ. ಶೆಡ್ ಹಾಕಲದು ಅನದುಮತ ಕಕೇಳಿದ್ದೀರಾ ಎನಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರದು ಅನದುಮತಯನದು ನ ನಾವ ಕಕೇಳಿಲಲ ಬಿಡಿಎ ರವರದು ಕಜೂಟಟ್ಟಿಲಲ ಎನಂದದು ನದುಡಿದಿರದುತತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಸಸೈಟ್ನದು ನ ಯಾರದು ನೆಲಸಮಗೆಜೂಳಿಸಿದರದು ಎನಂಬ ಪ ಪಶೆನಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರದು ಹಿನಂದ ಇದದ ಕಮಿಟಯವರಿಗೆ ಆ ಶೆಡಡನದು ನ ತಮಗೆ ಕಜೂಡದುವನಂತೆ ಆರೆಜೂಕೇಪಿ ಕಕೇಳಿಕಜೂನಂಡಾಗ ಆತನ ಕವದುಟಯವರದು ಹಕೇಳಿದನಂತೆ ರಜೂ.150000 ಹಣವನದು ನ ಕಜೂಟಟ್ಟಿಗ ಆರೆಜೂಕೇಪಿಗೆ ಆ ಶೆಡಡನದು ನ ಟ್ಟಿ ಕಿಜೂಟಟ್ಟಿರದುತತ್ತಾರೆ . ಈ ಸನಂಬನಂಧವಾಗಿ ಒನಂದದು ಬಿಟದು 14 C.C.No.10009/2018 ಒಡನಂಬಡಿಕ ಆಗಿದ. ಆರೆಜೂಕೇಪಿ ಶೆಡಡನದು ನ ಅಲಲಸಸಲಲ ಮಾಪಾಡದುರ ಮಾಡಿ ದಕೇವಸಾಸ್ಧಾನ ಕಟಟ್ಟಿರದುತತ್ತಾನೆ.
" ರಾಮಯಯ ಸಿಟ ಯಲ್ಲಿರದುವ ಸಿ ಎ ಸಸೈಟ್ ನನಂಬರ್ 2 ಆರೆಜೂಕೇಪಿಗೆ ಹನಂಚಿಕ ಮಾಡಿರದುವ ಪ ಪಕಿ ಪಯ 2010 ಕಿಕನಂತ ಮೊದಲಕೇ ಮದುಗಿದದು ಹಜೂಕೇಗಿತದುತ್ತಾ ಎನಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಿಎ ಸಿಸಿೃಟ್ 2 ಸನಂಬನಂಧವಾಗಿ ಬಿಡಿಎ ದವರದು 30 ವಷಗರಳ ಅವಧಿಗೆ ಆರೆಜೂಕೇಪಿಯನಂದಿಗೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕಜೂನಂಡಿರದುವ ಭಜೂಗಯ ಇವತತ್ತಾನವರೆಗಜೂ ರದ್ದಾಗಿಲಲ ಎನಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಶಪಕೇ ಸಾಯಿ ದರರನನಂ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ ಇದರ ನಜೂನಂದಾಯಿತ ಕಚಿಕೇರಿಯ ನನಂಬರ್ 53 13 ನಕೇ ವದುಸಿೃನ್ ಪುಟಟ್ಟಿ ಕೇನಹಳಿಳ್ಳಿ ಪಾಳಯ 7 ನೆಕೇ ಹನಂತ ಜೆ ಪಿ ನಗರ ಬನಂಗಳಜೂರದುನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ ಎನಂದರೆ ಸರಿ . ಸಿ ಎ ಸಸೈಟ್ ನನಂಬರ್ 2 ರ ವಚಾರವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ವಯವಹಾರಗಳ ಸನಂಬನಂಧವಾಗಿ ಈ ಮಕೇಲ ಹಕೇಳಿದ ವಳಾಸವನದು ನ ನಮಜೂದಿಸಿ ಮಾಡಿರದುತತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನೆಜೂಕೇನಂದಾಯಿತ ಭಜೂಕೇಗಯ ಪತ ತದಲ್ಲಿಯಜೂ ಆರೆಜೂಕೇಪಿಯ ವಳಾಸ ಈ ಮಕೇಲ ಹಕೇಳಿದ ವಳಾಸ ನೆಜೂಕೇನಂದಾಯಿತ ಕಚಕೇರಿಯದ್ದಾಗಿದ ಎನಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. "
23. By considering this oral evidence of PW.1 it clearly shows that accused No.1 not change the corresponding address of the trust and also there is some money transaction between complainant and accused No.1. Further at this stage court relied on EX.P.7 document. According to prosecution case, these documents submitted by accused No.1 while availing CA site No.2 in favour of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust. Ex.P.7 CD 15 C.C.No.10009/2018 furnished by PW.6 as per the requisition filed by PW.5/ IO. In this regard PW.7 the Deputy Secretary-I of BDA stated that on 22/11/2017 he had issued documents in form of CD. It is mandatory production of electronic record along with certificate, the party who has relying on electronic evidence, it must produced certificate as contemplated. u/sec 65-B(4) of Evidence Act. In order to comply this provision BDA not furnished the certificate as contemplated under section 65-B (4) of evidence Act. But in this case both parties are admitted documents pertaining to trust, i.e., trust deed, lease agreement, these documents are not disputed by the accused, as well as complainant, at the time of filling Ex.P.1 private complaint is complainant himself produce documents that is application by the accused No.1 on behalf of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust. In the course of recording of evidence of PW.5 this court held that investigation officer collected the xerox copy of these two documents. But the recitals of trust deed dated 15/12/2003 and rectification trust deed dated 09/09/2011 and also lease agreement dated 29/10/2010 revels that important facts for examining of prosecution case. 16 C.C.No.10009/2018 The said important recitals trust deed as well as lease agreement re produced for better appreciation of material placed by prosecution.
Trust objections to the trust dated 9.9.2011 a. To give, provide render help and assistance in cash or kind to poor destitute, widows etc., b. To establish, promote, setup, run, maintain, assist, finance and to help in the setting up, maintain and running of orphanages widow homes, lunatic aylums, poor homes and other establishments for the relief and help for the poor, old and destitute.
c. To give, provide, render help and assistance to implement any scheme for providing livelihood and upliftment for the poor.
d. To establish, maintain, run, improve, develop schools, colleges, polytechnics, medical and engineering, colleges and private universities including hostels, research association and institutions without any motive for profit.
e. To see and get affiliation of the various institutions run by the trust.
17 C.C.No.10009/2018f. to provide and rendered monetary and other help and assistance of any shape or form to the poor deserving and needy persons.
g. To give, provide and rendered monetary and other help and assistance for the relief of persons and animals affected by natural and other calamines such as flood, fire, famine, cyclone, earth quake, storm, accident, pestilent, drought and epidemic.
h. To start maintain and to assist any relief measures in those parts which have subject to natural calamities such as flood, fire, drought famine cyclone, earth quake, epidemic, storm, accident, pastime etc., I. To maintain and running hospitals, boarding houses, libraries reading rooms and other training and vocational institutions.
j) To foster and encourage education and training in handicrafts, fine arts among women folks in general and establish institutions imparting spiritual and secular education.
k. To open, establish, promote, setup, run,maintain, assist aid of help in the setting up and maintain and running of hospitals, charitable dispensary, maternity homes, child welfare centers, sanatoriums, hostels and other similar institutions or centers for rendering or providing medical relief's and or aid to the suffering humanities or for research 18 C.C.No.10009/2018 centers and institutions for promotions of research and education for medical science including surgery.
l. To apply for all kinds of grants through out Karnataka State Social Welfare Board and Central Social Welfare Board.
m. To acquire immovable properties by purchase, lease, hire, exchange or otherwise and to put down to erect, alter and maintain buildings for carry out the activities of the trust.
n. To undertake any such activities as may be necessary for the promotion of the trust for the removable of doubts it is here by declared that all the objects of the trust will be carried out without any motive of profit. o. To open maternity homes for the benefit of the poor women and to do free of cost maternity service to women irrespective of cast, color, creed and religion.
p. Publish books, periodicals, monthly magazines, releasing of video/audio cassettes to spread knowledge on humanity and spirituality.
24. By considering conditions imposed by BDA in lease agreement and object of the Sree Sai Darshanam Trust, it clearly shows that the BDA is not permitted to accused No.1 19 C.C.No.10009/2018 put up permanent structure on CA Site No.2 which is in dispute and also it is alloted for religious purpose. Lease agreement dated 29.10.2010 Condition No.5. That the lessee shall use the schedule property only for the purpose of construction of building for the purpose religious purpose and shall not use it for any other purposes and no residential or commercial building shall be constructed on the allotted C.A site.
Condition No.8. That the lessee shall not put up any permanent structure on the land other than the above mentioned structure specifically mentioned hereunder:
A. Religious purpose.
25. The complainant never taken contention that by violating conditions of the lease agreement accused No.1 put up permanent construction on CA Site No.2 and it is misused the site other than object of the trust as stated above. It is not case of the complainant that, accused No.1 put up the permanent structure on CA Site No.2 and mis-utilizing the site. The complainant mainly taken contention that, trust is 20 C.C.No.10009/2018 unregistered and misuse the name of the trust. The document contended in CD Ex.P.7 which is undisputed documents in this case it clearly shows Sree Sai Darshanam Trust registered on 15/12/2003 and also trust deed registered on 09/09/2011 therefore the allegation made by the complainant in respect of address of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust is unregistered trust is not acceptable and not believable allegation made against the accused.
26. In cross-examination PW.1 stated that he had different of opinion with accused no.1 from 2012 PW.4 stated that in the year 2006 Sree Sai Darshanam Trust not at all in exist he also admitted that there is a disputes between there welfare association and accused No.1 since 2010. PW.6 stated that he has not verified the document pertaining to Sree Sai Darshanam Trust is registered or not. PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 deposed against the recitals of registered trust deed dated 15/11/2003 and 09/09/2011. The PW.1, PW.4 and P.W.6 not disputed the trust deed as produced by them, in serial No. 15 list of documents dated 16/01/2017. Therefore, their ocular 21 C.C.No.10009/2018 evidence is excluded for registered of trust deed. PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 in respect of unregister trust is not at all believe one, they have filed cases without verifying registered document the trust deed produce by the accused No.1 before BDA at the time of filling complaint the complainant has produced as many as 15 documents out of that himself as produced lease deed dated 15/03/2003 held by this court that said documents revels that Sree Sai Darshanam Trust is registered one. For these reason oral evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 pertaining to trust deed is rejected.
27. In cross-examination PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 stated that they have put up on said site before allotment of CA Site No.2 in favour of there welfare association. Thereafter site handover to accused No.1 for consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- out of that accused paid Rs.1,00,000/- by cash and issued one cheque for remaining consideration Rs. 50,000/- said cheque is dishonored in this regard welfare association filed filed case against accused No.1 for the offense punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C. No. 13673/2012 said complaint 22 C.C.No.10009/2018 was dismissed in the year 2015. The complainant association challenged this dismissal order the complaint filed by the association before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal appeal No. 2/2016 in the said complaint and appeal memo they have not against accused No.1 in respect of cheating by considering all these aspects it is clearly shows that M.S. Ramaiah City welfare association mis-utilize the CA Site No.2 by put up site without having proper rights before granting the said site. And also sold the site to accused No.1 without having right. It is clearly shows that the complainant made in tenable allegations accused No.1.
28. The main allegation of the complainant is that accused No.1 mis-utilize the name of trust while applying for site in cross-examination PW.1 stated as under:
" ರಫುವನಹಳಿಳ್ಳಿ ಸಸೈಟ್ ನನಂಬರ್ 1 ನದು ನ ಮನಂಜಜೂರದು ಮಾಡದುವ ಕಾಲಕಕ ಬಿಡಿಎ ರವರದು ರೆಸಲಜೂ ಯ ಷನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಟ ಪಸಿಟ್ಟಿನ ಹಸಿಸರನದು ನ ತಪಾಲಗಿ ಅರಸಿೃರಸಿಕಜೂನಂಡದು ಕಲ ಭಾಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶಪಕೇ ಸತಯ ಸಾಯಿ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ , ಶಪಕೇ ಶರಡಿ ಸಾಯಿ ದರರನನಂ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ , ಸತಯ ಸಾಯಿ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ ಶರಡಿ ಸಾಯಿ ಬಾಬಾ ದ ರದು ಸಾಯಿ ಬಾಬಾ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ ಶಪಕೇ ಶರಡಿ ಸಾಯಿ ಬಾಬಾ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ ಸದದು ಮನಂದಿರ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ , ಶಪಕೇ ಶರಡಿ ಸಾಯಿ ದರರನನಂ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ ಹಾಗಜೂ ಶಪಕೇ ಶರಡಿ ಸಾಯಿ ದರರನನಂ ಸಕೇವಾ ಟ ಪಸ್ಟ್ಟಿ ಅನಂತ ನಮಜೂದಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ 23 C.C.No.10009/2018 ಎನಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರದು ಆ ರೆಸಲಜೂ ಯ ಷನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡಿಎ ಅವರದು ಉದ್ದೇರಪೂವರಕವಾಗಿ ತಪಾಲಗಿ ಅರಸಿೃರಸಿಕಜೂನಂಡದು ಹಾಗೆಕೇ ನಮಜೂದಿಸಿರದುತತ್ತಾರೆ ನ ತತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಎನದು ಹಿಕೇಗೆ ತಪಾಲಗಿ ಅರಸಿೃರಸಿಕಜೂನಂಡಿರದುತತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನಂದದು ಬಿಡಿಎ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ವರದುದಸ್ಧಾ ದಜೂರದು ಕಜೂಡಲಾಗಿದ. ಅದಕಕ ಯಾವದಕೇ ಉತತ್ತಾರ ಬನಂದಿಲಲ. ಬಿಡಿಎ ನ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿಲಲ "
ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ವರದುದದ ಖಾಸಗಿ ದಜೂರನದು
29. By considering of this oral evidence of PW.1 it is clearly shows there is no fault of accused No.1, the BDA itself mis- understand the name of trust in a different manner and mentioned the name of the trust in different place in a different name at the time of proceeding held for granting of CA Site No.2 in favour of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust. The mere misunderstand of the name of trust and in the writing name of the trust in different words having amount to cheating. On considering entire oral evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.6 and PW.7 it is clearly shows that the prosecution utterly to prove the guilt of accused No.1 as charge level him for the punishable under section 420 of IPC. Therefore Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
24 C.C.No.10009/2018
30. Point No.2: In view of the Negative findings on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC.
The bail bond executed by accused No.1 & his surety is cancelled & surety is discharged. The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of u/s 357 of Cr.P.C is declined.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31 st day of May, 2021).
(I.P Naik.) 30th A.C.M.M., B'lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1 : Shasheekanth Kargudri, P.W. 2 : M.S. Rao, P.W. 3 : M.S. Somaiahji, P.W. 4 : Girish K.P., P.W. 5 : Somaraju, 25 C.C.No.10009/2018 P.W. 6 : Ramesh, P.W. 7 : Dr. N.C.Venkataraju.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P.3 : Copy of Complaint Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.4 : FIR Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.4 : Letter Ex.P.6 : Documents Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.7 : CD Ex.P.8 to 13 : Documents
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (I.P.Naik) 30th Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.26 C.C.No.10009/2018
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC.
The bail bond executed by accused No.1 & his surety is cancelled & surety is discharged. The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of u/s 357 of Cr.P.C is declined (I.P.Naik) 30th Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.