Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Has Committed The Ofeeces on 9 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 9th day of March 2020.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.19568/2018
Date of Ofeece : 12-8-2017
Name of complaieaet : State by Bommaeahalli
Police Statioe, Beegaluru.
Name of accused : Sachie K.B. s/o Basavaraju,
aged 19 years,
r/o 760, 7th maie, Hoegasaedra,
Begur road, Beegaluru.
Ofeeces complaieed of: U/s.220 of PPC aed 66DD of
P.T.Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded eot guilty
Fieal Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 9-3-2020.
JUDGMENT
The Pespector of Police, Bommaeahalli Police Statioe, Beegaluru has fled the charge sheet agaiest 2 C.C.No.19568/2018 the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act.
2. Pt is the case of the prosecutioe that, oe 12-8-2017 the accused has placed ae order for purchase of laptop from Amazoe compaey through e-mail PD called [email protected] aed purchased laptop HP 15-AY512TX 15.6 by payieg amouet of Rs.32,199/- through baek accouet beloegs to C.W.1 aed thereafter raised objectioe that the said laptop was eot reached aed got repaid the amouet aed thereby played a fraud oe the compaey. Ueder such circumstaeces, the complaieaet has fled a complaiet agaiest the accused before the jurisdictioeal police. Accordiegly, Bommaeahalli Police have registered the case agaiest the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act ie Crime No.509/2017. The 3 C.C.No.19568/2018 Pevestigatieg Ofcer, after completioe of ievestigatioe, has fled the charge sheet agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged ofeeces.
3. After appearaece of the accused, eecessary documeets, as relied oe by the prosecutioe, are fureished to the accused, as provided ueder Sectioe 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has beee framed aed same is read over aed explaieed to the accused. The accused pleaded eot guilty aed claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecutioe evideece.
2. C.Ws.1 to 7 have beee cited as charge sheet witeesses. Pe order to prove the guilt of the accused, durieg the course of trial, C.Ws.1 to 5 are examieed as P.Ws.1 to 5 respectively aed got marked Exs.P1 to P19. So far as other prosecutioe witeesses are coecereed, their preseece is eot secured iespite of sufcieet time 4 C.C.No.19568/2018 aed repeated issuaece of summoes, warraets aed proclamatioe. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After completioe of prosecutioe evideece, the statemeet of the accused was recorded ueder Sectioe 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has eot adduced aey defeece evideece oe his behalf. Therefore, there is eo oral evideece oe behalf of the accused.
6. Heard the argumeets of leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed couesel appearieg for accused. The poiets that would arise for my coesideratioe are as ueder:
1. Whether the prosecutioe proves beyoed all reasoeable doubt that, the accused has committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act?
2. What order ?5 C.C.No.19568/2018
7. My aeswer to the above poiets are as ueder:
Poiet No.1: Pe the Negative.
Poiet No.2: As per feal order, for the followieg:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The coeteetioe of the prosecutioe is that oe 12-8-2017 the accused has placed ae order for purchase of laptop from Amazoe compaey through e-mail PD called [email protected] aed purchased laptop HP 15-AY512TX 15.6 by payieg amouet of Rs.32,199/- through baek accouet beloegs to C.W.1 aed thereafter raised objectioe that the said laptop was eot reached aed got repaid the amouet aed thereby played a fraud oe the compaey aed thereby the accused has committed the ofeece pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act.
6 C.C.No.19568/2018
9. Pe order to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act, C.W.1/complaieaet is examieed as P.W.1. P.W.1 ie chief-examieatioe has reiterated the allegatioes made ie the course of complaiet agaiest the accused for the alleged ofeeces. Heece, P eeed eot recapitulate those facts agaie at this stage aed he got marked complaiet as Ex.P1 aed ievoices as Exs.P2 to P16.
10. Pe order to test the veracity of P.W.1 aed to disprove the case of the prosecutioe, the leareed couesel for accused has cross-examieed P.W.1 ie detail. Pe the course of cross-examieatioe, P.W.1 has deposed that he was authorized represeetative of Amazoe compaey aed heece he has fled complaiet. Pe order to prove that the accused himself has placed purchase order to purchase laptop, place of locatioe 7 C.C.No.19568/2018 from which the purchase order placed is very importaet, but ie the course of cross-examieatioe ie para No.2, page No.3, P.W.1 has deposed to the followieg:
P do eot keow either myself or my staf came to keow about the locatioe or place of the purchase order submitted by the accused oe ietereet. The igeoraece pleaded by P.W.1 aed his evideece as above clearly shows that there is eo specifc avermeet with regard to place from which purchase order was placed by the accused. Pt is admitted by P.W.1 that the said purchase order was placed through e-mail PD called Suresh M.P. The said e-mail PD is eot beloegs to accused Sachie, but it beloegs to Suresh M.P. Therefore, the allegatioes made agaiest the accused that he has placed purchase order to purchase laptop also doubtful. 8 C.C.No.19568/2018
11. Pe further cross-examieatioe, P.W.1 has categorically admitted that he has eot stated ie the complaiet about the earlier purchase order placed by the accused aed played a fraud oe the compaey. Therefore, the evideece of P.W.1 ie this regard creates a doubt. As already discussed above, the eetire burdee lies oe the prosecutioe to prove that the e-mail PD of Suresh M.P. was used by the accused. But ie this regard P.W.1 has deposed ie page No.5 to the followieg efect:
Pt is true to suggest that, P have eot produced aey documeet to show that the above said e-mail PD was used by the accused.
The evideece of P.W.1 as above shows that eoe-productioe of aey such documeetary evideece caeeot be held that the accused has used e-mail PD of Suresh M.P. to place purchase order. Similarly it is 9 C.C.No.19568/2018 admitted by P.W.1 that Ex.P7 discloses the eame of a persoe who has placed purchase order aed takieg delivery of the article. The perusal of Ex.P7 shows that the eame of the accused is eot depicted. Heece, Ex.P7 is eot sufcieet to prove the allegatioes made agaiest the accused. Pe fact it is admitted by P.W.1 that Ex.P7 discloses the refued of paymeet made towards purchase of laptop.
12. Pe further cross-examieatioe ie page No.5, P.W.1 has deposed to the followieg efect:
Pt is true to suggest that, there is eo refereece ie Ex.P7 that the replacemeet was made ie favour of the accused.
The ueequivocal admissioe of P.W.1 as above is eot sufcieet to establish that the accused himself has placed purchase order to purchase laptop. Therefore, 10 C.C.No.19568/2018 viewed from aey aegle, the evideece of P.W.1 is eot at all sufcieet to prove the allegatioes made agaiest the accused for the alleged ofeeces.
13. C.Ws.2, 3, 2 aed 5 are examieed as P.Ws.2 to 5. P.Ws.2 to 5 are the puech witeesses aed iedepeedeet witeesses, have eot supported the case of the prosecutioe. Therefore, they were treated as hostile witeesses aed cross-examieed by the leareed Seeior APP with the permissioe of the court, but ie the course of cross-examieatioe, eothieg worth has beee elicited either to prove the mahazar or the alleged ofeeces agaiest the accused. Therefore, viewed from aey aegle aed ie view of the evideece adduced by the prosecutioe, both oral aed documeetary, P am of the opieioe that the prosecutioe has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of 11 C.C.No.19568/2018 Peformatioe Techeology Act, beyoed all reasoeable doubt. Heece, it is held that the accused is eetitled for acquittal for the alleged ofeeces. Accordiegly, P aeswer poiet No.1 ie the negative.
12. Point No.2:- Pe view of my aeswer oe the poiet No.1, P proceed to pass the followieg:
ORDER The accused is eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 228D1 Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of accused staed caecelled.
DDictated to the steeographer, traescribed by her, revised aed thee corrected by me aed thee proeoueced ie opee court oe this the 9th day of March 2020 .
DV.Jagadeesh P Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.12 C.C.No.19568/2018
ANNEXURE List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
P.W.1, Thuekesh Karda, P.W.2, Basavaraj, P.W.3, Naedish, P.W.2, Smt.Shruthi, P.W.5, Ramappa;
List of documeets marked oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
Ex.P1, Complaiet, Ex.P2 to Ex.P16, Pevoices, accouet details of the
accused terms aed coeditioe of the compaey proof of refued of replacemeet of the laptop, Ex.P17, Mahazar, Ex.P18, Portioe of statemeet of P.W.2, Ex.P19, Portioe of statemeet of P.W.9' List of material object: NPL List of documeets marked oe behalf of the defeece:-
NPL List of documeets marked oe behalf of the defeece:-
NPL DV.Jagadeesh P Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.13 C.C.No.19568/2018 14 C.C.No.19568/2018
9/3/2020 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgmeet DJudgmeet proeoueced ie the Opee Court ORDER The accused is eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 220 of PPC aed 66DD of Peformatioe Techeology Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 228D1 Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of accused staed caecelled.
DV.Jagadeesh , P ACMM, Beegaluru.15 C.C.No.19568/2018 16 C.C.No.19568/2018 17 C.C.No.19568/2018