Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs K.N.Ramachandra Reddy on 1 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
& SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 1st day of August 2017
Spl. C.C.No.29/2010
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police
Wing, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED
1. K.N.Ramachandra Reddy,
s/o late Narayanareddy,
Assistant Engineer,
Office of the AEE,
BBMP, Ward No.63,
Hombegowdanagara
Sub-division, Bangalore.
(Discharged)
2 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
2. H.Puttappa,
s/o late Hanumappa,
aged about 59 years
Gangman, Ward No.63,
Hombegowdanagara Sub-
Division, BBMP,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. R.Vidyasagar-Advocate )
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2)
of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
2. Date of
Commission 05.01.2009
of offence
3. Date of First
Information Report 05.01.2009
4. Date of arrest 05.01.2009
5.Date of
commencement of 11.02.2016
recording of
evidence
6. Date of 15.06.2017
closing of evidence
7. Date of
pronouncement of 01.08.2017
Judgment
The accused is found guilty of
8. Result of the case offence punishable under
section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
3 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
JUDGMENT
The accused Nos.1 & 2 are charge sheeted for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Sec.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that:
The accused Nos.1 & 2 were then working as Assistant Engineer and Gangman respectively, in BBMP, Ward No.63, Hombegowdanagara Sub-Division, Bangalore. The complainant with an intention to construct new building in site No.36, 1st Main road, Lalajinagar, Bangalore, has obtained sanctioned plan from BBMP. At that time, accused No.1 & 2 had visited the spot and asked the complainant to stop construction work as it was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and they are going to demolish it. The accused No.1 demanded Rs.1,50,000/- as bribe, for not to demolish the building and not to give trouble in the construction work. The complainant pleaded difficulty. The accused No.1, asked the complainant to speak with accused No.2. When the complainant met the accused No.2, he told him to give Rs.1,25,000/- as bribe to accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for himself. The complainant has agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1 and 4 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Rs.5,000/- to accused No.2 at the first instance and to pay the balance amount at the later stage.
3. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, on 5.1.2009 he approached CW12- Prasanna V.Raju, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, and presented written information as per Ex.P1, who in turn arranged for the Trap. CW2-L.S.Dinesh and CW3- A.V.Mohan- the employees of the Office of the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, were secured to act as witnesses for the Trap. The bait money of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.5,000/-(MO-2 & MO-3) was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Before that, the serial number of the currency notes were recorded in a white sheet as per Ex.P2 and obtained the signatures of the witnesses. CW3-A.V.Mohan after verifying and counting the tainted currency notes placed it in the right side pant pocket of the complainant. Both hand fingers of CW3- Mohan were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The cassette produced by the complainant along with the complaint was played in the presence of the witnesses. CW12-Police Inspector has demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder when it comes into contact with 5 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 sodium carbonate solution. The complainant was instructed to approach the accused persons in their office, speak with them about the work and to pay the amount only on demand. He was further instructed to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief if the accused received the money. Small Tape recorder was given to the complainant with an instruction to switch it on while approaching the accused to give money and to record the conversation. CW2-L.S.Dinesh (shadow witness) was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused and overhear the conversation between them. Step by step all the events were photographed. Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P3 and obtained the signatures of the witnesses.
4. On 5.1.2009, at about 1.00 p.m., the complainant, two panch witnesses, CW12- Police Inspector along with the staff left for Lalajinagara, Lakkasandra, wherein the house of the complainant is situated in a Government vehicle. The complainant and CW2-Dinesh went inside the house of the complainant. It was about 1.30 p.m. The remaining Trap Team Members were standing secretly nearby the house of the complainant waiting for the signal. At about 2.00 p.m., the complainant 6 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 and CW2-Dinesh came out of the house. Complainant informed CW12 that the person, who just visited his house, is Puttappa (accused No.2) and he was told by accused No.2 to come to the office. All the Trap Team Members including the complainant and two witnesses proceeded towards the BBMP office, Wilson Garden, wherein the accused were working. Complainant and CW2-Dinesh went inside the BBMP office. The remaining Trap Team Members were standing secretly by the side of Poornima Restaurant, which is situated opposite to BBMP office.
5. At about 3.00 p.m., the complainant, CW2- Dinesh and another person came out of the BBMP office and went inside the Poornima Restaurant. Twenty minutes thereafter, all three of them came out of Poornima Restaurant and proceeded towards BBMP office. At about 3.25 p.m., complainant came out of the BBMP office and gave pre-instructed signal, whereupon the raid party rushed to the spot. The complainant led the raid party to the chamber of accused No.1. He pointed out accused No.1 & 2 and told the I.O that, those are the persons who demanded and accepted the bribe amount from him. He also informed the I.O that accused No.2 at the instance of accused No.1, received the amount of Rs.50,000/- on 7 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 behalf of accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for himself. Thereafter, both the hand fingers of accused No.2 were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. On being questioned, the accused No.2 has removed Rs.50,000/- (MO-2) from his banian pocket and produced it before the I.O by saying that it was intended to give it to accused No.1. Thereafter, he removed Rs.5,000/-(MO-3) from his right side pant pocket and produced it before the I.O by saying that it is his share. Those tainted currency notes were verified and got tallied with the currency notes sheet. The banian and pant of the accused were seized by making an alternate arrangement. The banian pocket and right side pant pocket portion was washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned to pink colour. The accused No.1 & 2 gave an explanation in writing The Tape recorder which was given to the complainant at the time of the Trap was played in the presence of the witnesses and G.Srinivasmurthy-SDA, BBMP office. Sri.G.Srinivasmurthy has identified the voice of the accused No.1 & 2. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the complainant and shadow witness and incorporated it in the Trap Mahazar. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4. On 25.4.2009, CW12 has received the chemical examination report as per 8 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Ex.P29. Thereafter, he got prepared the spot sketch showing the scene of offence as per Ex.P30. On 14.7.2009, CW12 received the Sanction Order-Ex.P21 to prosecute the accused No.2. Since, CW12 had been deputed to United Nations Peace Keeping Force at Sudan, Africa, he handed over the charge to CW13-U.D.Krishnakumar, Police Inspector.
6. After obtaining the Sanction Order dated 18.1.2010 from the Competent Authority to prosecute the accused No.1, CW13-U.D.Krishnakumar, Police Inspector has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. My Predecessor-in-Office took cognizance of the offence and issued process against accused No.1 & 2. In pursuance of the summons, accused No.1 & 2 appeared before the Court. Accused No.1 & 2 were enlarged on bail.
8. The accused No.1 has moved Writ Petition No.2384/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the validity of the Sanction Order. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by an order dated 5.1.2011 was 9 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 pleased to set aside the Sanction Order dated 18.1.2010 issued by the Government to prosecute the accused No.1. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that the State Government is at liberty to issue fresh Sanction Order, if any fresh materials which were not earlier taken into consideration and relevant for the case is placed before it. Thereafter, the prosecution has not produced the fresh Sanction Order issued by the Competent Authority to prosecute the accused No.1. The order sheet dated 29.3.2012 reveals that, my Predecessor-in-office has made a note that accused No.1 has been discharged by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Subsequently, in the order sheet, accused No.1 is shown as Discharged.
9. After hearing, the charge was framed against accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge was read over and explained to the accused No.2. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses as PWs-1 to 5 and got marked 30 documents as Ex-P1 to Ex.P-30 and 14 Material Objects as 10 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 MO-1 to 14. The accused No.2 was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing against him. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence available against him. The accused No.2 has not chosen to lead any defense evidence. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 being the public servant, working as Gangman, Ward No.63, Hombegowdanagara Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, on 5.1.2009 between 3.00 and 3.25 p.m., in his office demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/-
on behalf of accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/-
for himself from the complainant-
J.M.Nanjunda Guptha, for showing an official favour in the matter of not to demolish the building and not to give trouble in the construction work in site No.36, 1st Main road, Lalajinagara, Bangalore, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 11 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 being the public servant, working as Gangman, Ward No.63, Hombegowdanagara Sub-Division, BBMP, Bangalore, on 05.01.2009 between 3.00 and 3.25 p.m .in his office, by abusing his position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means and without public interest obtained Rs.50,000/- on behalf of accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for himself from the complainant-J.M.Nanjunda Guptha, as pecuniary advantage and thereby committed criminal mis-conduct punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
3. What order?
12. My answer to the above points is as under:
POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
for the following:
REASONS
13. POINT No.1 AND 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken both the points together for consideration.
14. Sri K.N.Ramachandra Reddy, Assistant Engineer, , Office of BBMP, Ward No.63, Homebegowdanagara sub-
12 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010division, Bangalore, is hereinafter referred to as "Discharged accused No.1".
15. The prosecution has examined CW1- J.M.Nanjunda Gupta as PW1. PW1 is the complainant. PW1 has deposed that, he constructed the house in Lalajinagara, Lakkasandra during the year 1986-87. In the year 2008, he obtained sanctioned plan and started construction of the first floor of the building. In the month of August 2008, he commenced construction work. In the month of January 2009, Discharged accused No.1 & accused No.2 came to the spot and told him that the construction of first floor building is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that they are going to demolish it. Discharged accused No.1 demanded Rs.1,50,000/- for permitting him to proceed with the construction work. He pleaded difficulty. At that time, Discharged accused No.1 told him to meet accused No.2 in his office. On that day afternoon, he met accused No.2 in his office, whereupon the accused No.2 demanded Rs.1,25,000/- for Discharged accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for himself. He sought two days time. On 03.01.2009, he approached CW12-Prasanna V.Raju, Lokayuktha Inspector and informed the matter orally. A tape recorder was given to him by CW12 with an 13 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 instruction to record the conversation. On 4.1.2009, when he met Discharged accused No.1 & accused No.2 in their office, they persisted the demand of Rs.1,30,000/-. He recorded the conversation. On 5.1.2009, he gave oral information which was reduced into writing by the staff of CW12 and also produced Tape recorder. CW12 secured the presence of CW2 & 3. He produced cash of Rs.55,000/-. The serial numbers of the said currency notes were recorded and thereafter phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said notes. CW3 had kept the tainted currency notes in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, both hand fingers of CW3 were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned to pink colour. The Tape recorder was played in the presence of the witnesses. He was instructed to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief if the accused received the amount. CW2 was instructed to follow him and to observe the transaction. Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P3. PW1 has further deposed that, all the Trap Team Members including the witnesses and him, left for his house in a Government vehicle. The vehicle was parked at a distance of about one furlong from his house. CW2 & he proceeded towards his house. At that time, accused No.2 came to his house and told him to meet him in his office. Accordingly, 14 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 they proceeded to BBMP Office, Wilson Garden. At about 2.40 p.m. he entered the office of BBMP. CW2 followed him. He questioned Discharged accused No.1 about the plan. Discharged accused No.1 asked him whether he brought money, for which he replied in the affirmative. Discharged accused No.1 told him to give the money to accused No.2. He along with accused No.2 and CW2 went to Poornima Hotel which is situated opposite to BBMP office, wherein accused No.2 demanded money. He gave Rs.50,000/-. Accused No.2 received the said amount and kept it inside his banian. Thereafter, accused No.2 asked him about his share of Rs.5,000/-. He gave Rs.5,000/-. Accused No.2 received the said amount and kept it in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, he contacted Discharged accused No.1 over cell phone and told him that he paid the amount, and handed over the cell phone to accused No.2, who in turn confirmed the receipt of the amount. Thereafter he came out of the Hotel and gave pre-instructed signal. By that time, accused No.2 proceeded towards his office. Immediately, CW12 along with his staff rushed to the spot. He told CW12 that the money was paid to the accused No.2. Thereafter, both the hand fingers of accused No.2 were made to dip in sodium carbonate solution, which turned to pink colour. On being questioned, the accused 15 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 No.2 produced tainted currency notes of Rs.55,000/-. The said currency notes were seized after tallying with the currency notes sheet. The banian and pant of accused No.2 were seized. Before that, the portion of the pant pocket and banian where the money kept was washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned to pink colour. The Tape recorder was played in the presence of the witnesses. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4. Photographs were taken during Trap proceedings.
16. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 has stated that in the year 2008, he has applied for sanctioned plan with an intention to put up a new building consisting of two floors, viz., ground floor & first floor by demolishing the existing structure. In the month of March 2008, he obtained sanctioned plan. In between June-August 2008, he started to construct the building. His neighbour- Narayan Reddy has filed complaint against him before BBMP alleging that he is putting up construction by violating the sanctioned plan and without leaving the set back. In pursuance of the said complaint, Discharged accused No.1 & accused No.2 visited the spot in the month of January 2009 for inspection. The Discharged accused 16 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 No.1 has orally warned him to demolish the portion of the illegal construction.
17. PW1 has further stated that on 3.1.2009, when he approached Lokayuktha Police, CW12- Police Inspector gave him a voice recorder. On 4.1.2009, he went to BBMP office and met the accused. It was Sunday. PW1 further stated that while lodging the complaint, he did not produce any documents to show that the construction work carried out by him was in accordance with the KMC Rules & sanctioned plan.
18. PW1 further stated that Entrustment Mahazar- Ex.P3 was prepared by CW12. He subscribed his signature on the Entrustment Mahazar without going through the contents of it. He further admits that during the pre-trap proceedings, he was told by CW12 to go to BBMP office to give money and not to his house. But as against the instructions of CW12, he took the raid team to his house. PW1 further admits that immediately after he entered the BBMP office, he met Discharged accused No.1 and spoke with him.
17 Spl.C.C.No.29/201019. PW1 has denied the suggestion that, he told the Discharged accused No.1 that he will pay the money for not taking action, for that Discharged Accused No.1 refused to receive the amount. PW1 denied the suggestion that immediately, accused No.2 goes to his office after having coffee, he forcibly tried to thrust the amount in his right side pant pocket, but accused No.2 has refused to receive the amount.
20. The prosecution has examined CW2-L.S.Dinesh as PW2. PW2 is the shadow witness. PW2 has deposed that, on 5.1.2009 as per the instructions of his higher Officer, along with CW3 he went to the Lokayuktha Police station and met CW12-Prasanna V.Raju-Lokayuktha Inspector. Complainant-Nanjunda Gupta was present. They were introduced to the complainant. The contents of the complaint were made known to them. The complainant produced cash of Rs.55,000/-. The serial number of the currency notes was recorded. The said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. CW3 counted the tainted currency notes and placed it in the right side front pant pocket of the complainant. Both hand fingers of CW3 were washed in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution turned to pink colour. Complainant was told by 18 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 CW12 to go and meet the accused persons, speak with them about the work and to pay the amount thereafter. He was instructed to follow the complainant and observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused. Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P3 and obtained the signature of CW3 and himself. PW2 further deposed that, at about 3.00 p.m. they reached the BBMP office. Complainant and he entered the BBMP office. Complainant met the Discharged accused No.1 and asked him as to how much amount is to be paid. For that Discharged accused No.1 replied that it was already told by him. When the complainant was about to pay the amount of Rs.55,000/-, Discharged accused No.1 told him to pay it to accused No.2. Thereafter, the complainant, the accused No.2 & he went to Poornima Hotel, which is situated just opposite to BBMP office, and ordered for coffee. Complainant gave tainted currency notes of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.2, whereupon he received it with his right hand and kept in the pocket of banian. Accused No.2 asked the complainant about his share, whereupon he gave Rs.5,000/-. Accused No.2 received the said amount with his right hand and kept it in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, the complainant made a call to Discharged accused No.1 through his mobile phone 19 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 and told him that he paid the amount to accused No.2 and handed over the cell phone to accused No.2, who in turn confirmed the receipt of the amount. Immediately, thereafter the complainant gave pre-instructed signal whereupon the raid team rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused No.2 and he was brought to the chamber of Discharged accused No.1. CW12 has disclosed his identity and informed the purpose of visit. PW2 further deposed that, both hand fingers of accused No.2 were made to dip in sodium carbonate solution which turned to pink colour. Thereafter, tainted currency notes of Rs.55,000/- was recovered from the accused No.2 and got tallied with currency notes sheet. The banian and pant of accused No.2 were seized by making an alternate arrangement. PW2 has further deposed that the Audio cassette given to the complainant at the time of Trap was played in their presence. Contents of it converted to CD and transcript into writing. CW12 has recorded his statement. Thereafter, accused No.2 gave his explanation in writing about he being in possession of the tainted currency notes. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4 and obtained the signature of CW3 & himself. Photographs were taken during pre-trap proceedings and Trap proceedings.
20 Spl.C.C.No.29/201021. PW2 was cross-examined quite at length. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary is elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW2 so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
22. The prosecution has examined CW3-A.V.Mohan as PW3. He is one of the witnesses to the Entrustment Mahazar and Trap Mahazar. PW3 has deposed that the complainant produced Rs.55,000/-. The serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded and thereafter those currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and placed it in two covers. He placed the cover containing the tainted currency notes of Rs.50,000/- in the right side pant pocket and cover containing tainted currency notes of Rs.5,000/- in the left side pant pocket of the complainant. His hand fingers were washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned to pink colour. CW2-Dinesh was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused. PW3 further deposed that after they reached the BBMP office, complainant and CW2 went inside the office, and after some time, complainant gave pre-instructed signal. Immediately, CW12 rushed to the spot and apprehended 21 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 the accused No.2. He also went inside the office and witnessed the proceedings. The tainted currency notes of Rs.55,000/- was recovered from the accused. Before that both hand fingers of accused No.2 were made to dip in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The banian and pant of the accused No.2 were seized and the portion where money kept, was washed in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution turned to pink colour. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4. All the seized articles were sealed with a metal seal by using the English letter 'I' and the said metal seal was handed over to him.
23. PW3 is cross-examined at length. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary is elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW2 so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
24. The prosecution has examined CW5-Bharat Lal Meena, the then Commissioner of BBMP as PW4. PW4 has deposed that he received a letter dated 25.5.2009 from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, seeking sanction to prosecute the accused No.2-H.Puttappa-Gangman, BBMP Office. Along with a letter he was made available the 22 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 copy of the complaint, FIR, Entrustment Mahazar, Trap Mahazar, Chemical Examination Report, statement of the witnesses, sketch and other documents. He being the Competent Authority to appoint and dismiss the employee of the cadre of Gangman, after verifying the case records, and satisfying himself about the existence of prima facie case, has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused No.2. The Sanction Order dated 25.6.2009, is produced and marked as Ex.P21.
25. PW4 was cross-examined quite at length. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary is elicited during the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the testimony of PW4.
26. The evidence of PW4 reveals that he has perused the investigation papers and come to the conclusion that there are enough materials to accord sanction to prosecute the accused No.2. PW4 being the Competent Authority has independently appreciated the documents placed before him and issued Sanction Order to prosecute the accused No.2. PW4 has applied his mind while according sanction.
23 Spl.C.C.No.29/201027. The prosecution has examined CW12-Prasanna V.Raju, the then Police Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Station, as PW5. PW5 is the Investigating Officer. PW5 has deposed about registering of FIR, drawing of Entrustment Mahazar, laying of trap against the Discharged accused No.1 & accused No.2, resultant hand wash of accused No.2 turned to pink colour, recovery of tainted currency notes of Rs.55,000/-from accused No.2, playing of Tape recorder containing the conversation between the complainant and the accused, converting into CD and transcript into writing, identification of the voice of Discharged accused No.1 & accused No.2 through Sri G.Srinivas Murthy, SDA, Office of BBMP, recording of statement of the witnesses, and incorporating the material substance of the statements of the witnesses in the Trap Mahazar, collecting service particulars of the accused persons, receipt of chemical examination report, receiving of spot sketch, receiving of Sanction Order from CW5 to prosecute the accused No.2, etc.
28. Since CW12 had been deputed to United Nations Peace Keeping Force at Sudan, Africa, he handed over the charge to CW13- U.D.Krishna Kumar, Police Inspector, who in turn obtained Sanction Order from the Competent 24 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Authority to prosecute Discharged accused No.1 and filed charge sheet before the Court on 28.1.2010.
29. PW5 was cross-examined quite at length. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary is elicited during the course of cross-examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony, except some minor irregularities in conducting investigation.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab -v- Madan Mohan Lal Verma; (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 136 while dealing with provisions of Ss.20 & 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 has given broad guidelines how the evidence of complainant to be scrutinized. It was held that:
"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount 25 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person."26 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
31. The learned Advocate appearing for the accused No.2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V.-v- P.K.Basheer; AIR 2015 Supreme Court 180, wherein it was held that:
"An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence, unless Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
32. The next citation relied on by the learned Advocate for the accused is the decision in the case of Naginbhai Dalpatbhai Chamar -v- State of Gujarat; 2016(3) Crimes 144(Guj.), wherein it was held that:
"Mere acceptance of any amount alone by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors proof of demand, ipso facto reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home charge- Demand and acceptance of bribe is sine quo non for constituting offence under 27 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Prevention of Corruption Act- If complainant or witness turns hostile on point of demand and acceptance of bribe and when Panch witness did not hear conversation between accused and complainant at the time when complainant had gone to give bribe money, factum of demand cannot be considered as proof.
33. The next citation relied on by the learned Advocate for the accused is the decision in the case of Vinod Kumar- v- State of Haryana ;2016 Cri.L.J.(NOC) 7 (P & H), wherein it was held that:
" Acceptance of illegal gratification -
Proof- Testimony of complainant showed that neither accused demanded any amount nor he knew reason for which said amount was being given to him by complainant- In absence of any demand and reason for accepting same at instance of another person, guilt of accused not proved - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt."
34. The next citation relied on by the learned Advocate for the accused is the decision in the case of Dr.S.K.Kamalpuria -v- State of Madhya Pradesh(now 28 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Chhattisgarh) 2016 Cri.L.J. 288(Chhatishgarh High Court), wherein it was held that:
"Demand of bribe- Allegation that accused demanded Rs.200/- per bottle for transfusion of blood to complainant's ailing sister- No document to show admission, treatment and discharge of complainant's sister in Government Hospital- Thus, prosecution story of demand of bribe without any corroboration becomes doubtful- Accused entitled to benefit of doubt."
35. The next citation relied on by the learned Advocate for the accused is the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh- v- Laxmiprasad Yadav; 2017 Cri.L.J.1461 (Chhatisgarh High Court), wherein it was held that:
" Demand of bribe- Trap case-
Complainant forcibly putting currency note in pocket of accused- No evidence that accused either demanded bribe or voluntarily accepted it at time of trap-
Complaint and evidence found, contradictory- Mere recovery of money from accused, insufficient to prove offence- Acquittal of accused, proper."29 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
36. The next citation relied on by the learned Advocate for the accused is the unreported Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chattisgarh, in the case of Ashok Kumar -v- State of Punjab; Crl.Appeal No.1510/2006 wherein it was held that:
"In the present case one more important feature that should have been taken note of by the Court is that the hands of complainant PW-6 were not got washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate after the recovery of currency notes from the accused. Failure on this front was sufficient to create doubts as to the act and conduct of the Investigating Officer. Had he got the hands of complainant washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, had he sent the contents of the hand wash to the chemical examiner for scientific test and had a report of chemical examiner being favoured to the prosecution case, it would have been certainly proved that complainant had actually given the said currency to the accused on the spot immediately before the recovery of the same from the possession of the accused. In the absence of the same there cannot be any reliable evidence on record to show that the complainant had actually given the said currency to the accused on the spot. The conduct of shadow witness was also under shadow in view 30 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 of his relationship with the complainant and his divergence in the statement on other material aspects of the case clearly made it a case of illegal trapping with all evil design to secure some illegal goal."
37. The case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
38 PW1 is the complainant. Perusal of evidence of PW1 reveals that accused No.2 after demanding and accepting amount of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of Discharged accused No.1, made further demand for his share from the complainant and that amount of Rs.5,000/- was given to the accused No.2 on demand made by him. His evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case on all material points with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused No.2 on behalf of Discharged accused No.1 & for himself to show an official favour to the complainant in the matter of not to demolish the building and not to give trouble in the construction work. The evidence of PW1 inspires confidence of the Court with regard to demand and acceptance of money by the accused No.2.
31 Spl.C.C.No.29/201039. PW2 is shadow witness. Admittedly, he had been associated with the complainant during the Trap. He witnessed the incident. He followed the complainant when he had gone to BBMP Office to give bribe amount and over heard the conversation between the complainant and Discharged accused No.1. He also accompanied the complainant to Poornima Hotel and over heard the conversation between the complainant and accused No.2. He saw the complainant giving money to the accused No.2 on demand made by him, whereupon he received and kept the amount of Rs.50,000/- being the share of Discharged accused No.1 separately in the pocket of the banian and Rs.5,000/- being his share in the right pocket of the pant. He also witnessed the recovery of money from accused No.2. The evidence of PW2 fully corroborates the testimony of the complainant on all material points with regard to demand of bribe by the accused No.2 and voluntarily acceptance of the same. Even the evidence of PW3- a co-Panch witness also supports the prosecution case with regard to recovery of tainted currency notes from accused No.2.
40. PW2 was testified about the incident in detail, demand and voluntarily acceptance of bribe by accused No.2, recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused No.2. He stood the rigor of cross-examination.
32 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010PW2 is an independent witness and reliable. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that PW2 is prejudiced or inimical towards the accused persons or interested in the Lokayuktha Police so as to make false statement on oath. It is also not elicited that if he turned hostile or deposed contrary to the contents of Trap Mahazar, he will have to face the consequences by way of disciplinary proceedings. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 who is truthful witness.
41. It is not disputed that tainted currency notes of Rs.50,000/- (MO2) & Rs.5,000/- (MO3) were recovered from the accused No.2. The resultant hand wash of accused No.2 turned to pink colour. Chemical Examination Report-Ex.P29 shows that the presence of phenolphthalein is detected in both the right and left hand finger washes of the accused No.2. Further the chemical examination report shows that, the presence of both phenolphthalein & sodium carbonate is detected in the banian wash solution- Article No.9 & pant pocket wash solution- Article No.11.
42. The prosecution has proved that the accused No.2 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of the Discharged accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for 33 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 himself from the complainant to do an official favour and he voluntarily accepted the bribe amount only after the demand. The prosecution has discharged the initial burden of proving demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused No.2. Hence, the burden rests on the accused No.2 to displace the statutory presumption raised under Sec.20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But accused No.2 has not displaced the statutory presumption raised under Sec.20 of the Act by brining on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial to establish that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Sec.7 of the Act.
43. The argument of the Learned Advocate appearing for the accused No.2 that, the complainant's neighbour- Narayan Reddy has filed complaint before BBMP making allegation about illegal construction made by him in violation of the sanctioned plan and without leaving set back, in that connection, Discharged accused No.1 visited the spot and warned him, having ill-will and grudge and with an intention to take revenge against him, the complainant has filed false complaint, is not probable and acceptable. Because, evidence on record reveals that accused No.2 was also present in the spot along with 34 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Discharged accused No.1 when he warned the complainant that he would demolish the portion of the illegal construction. Further, when complainant had gone to the chamber of the Discharged accused No.1 to give money, accused No.2 was physically present and over heard the conversation between them, he took the complainant to Poornima Hotel, wherein he demanded and voluntarily accepted the bribe amount not only on behalf of Discharged accused No.1, but also for himself.
44. The Learned Advocate for accused No.2 has pointed out some contradictions in the Trap Mahazar regarding recovery of the tainted currency notes, the location of the BBMP office. He has also pointed out wrong mentioning of the name of accused No.2 in the spot sketch, and argued that the shabby investigation is done, the Investigating Officer himself is not sure, the Trap Mahazar was prepared by Investigating Officer himself and obtained the signature of the witnesses, therefore, it vitiates the entire investigation.
45. In the Trap Mahazar-Ex.P4, it is mentioned that the accused No.2 has removed the tainted currency notes of Rs.5,000/- from his left side pant pocket, but the 35 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 evidence of PW5 (IO) discloses that the money was recovered from the right side pant pocket. In the cause title of the Trap Mahazar, the location of BBMP office, Wilson Garden is shown as 'Indiranagara'. But PW5 in his evidence has made it clear that it was due to typographical error crept in. In the spot sketch-Ex.P.30, the name of accused No.2 is shown as 'H.Huchappa-Gangman'. PW5 in his evidence has also clarified that the name of the accused No.2 is wrongly mentioned in the spot sketch as Hutchappa instead of Puttappa.. It is relevant to note that, in the present case, the witnesses have identified the accused No.2. There is no dispute about the identification of the accused No.2 by the witnesses. Wrong mentioning of the name of accused No.2 in the spot sketch, does not affect the root of the prosecution case. The contradictions pointed out by the Learned Advocate for the accused No.2, are too minor and trivial in nature and it does not affect the merits of the prosecution case.
46. The Learned Advocate for the accused No.2 has argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 & PW5 with regard to the date of first meeting of PW1 with PW5. PW1 deposed that on 3.1.2009, he met CW12 (PW5) and informed the matter orally, who in 36 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 turn gave Tape recorder with an instruction to record the conversation. Contrary to it, PW5 has deposed that the complainant never met him before giving complaint on 5.1.2009. It is relevant to note that the Trap was conducted on 5.1.2009. Evidence of PW1 was recorded on 11.2.2016 i.e, after lapse of seven years from the date of the incident. After lapse of such a long period, it is very difficult for any person to remember the date and incident in detail. Further, the fact when PW1 first met the I.O has no bearing on the merits of the case.
47. The Learned Advocate for the accused No.2 has argued that MOs-6 & 14-Casette said to have contained conversation of the complainant with the accused which is sought to be given as secondary evidence not accompanied by a certificate as specified in Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, these material objects cannot be admitted in evidence.
48. In the present case, PW1 who is the complainant has deposed about demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused No.2. The evidence of PW2- shadow witness who has seen the incident and overheard the conversation corroborates the evidence of the 37 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 complainant. The evidence of PW1 & 2 fully corroborates the prosecution case with regard to demand of illegal gratification by the accused No.2 on behalf of Discharged accused No.1 and for himself and voluntarily acceptance of the same only after demand made by him. PWs 1 & 2 are reliable and truthful witnesses. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 & 2. When there is direct evidence available before the Court with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe, non-production of certificate under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of MO6 & 14, is of no consequence.
49. The prosecution has led evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused No.2 for himself and on behalf of Discharged accused No.1, in the matter of not to give trouble in the construction work and not to demolish the building. The prosecution has also led evidence that the accused No.2 by abusing his position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means without any public interest, obtained Rs.50,000/- on behalf of Discharged accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for himself from the complainant. The prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.2 beyond all 38 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point Nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
50. POINT NO.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.2 is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The order regarding sentence will be heard after hearing both sides.
(Dictated to the judgment writer directly on the computer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) 39 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused No.2 is present before the Court and he is taken into custody. Heard the learned Spl.P.P. and Advocate for convict/accused No.2 regarding sentence.
Advocate for convict/accused No.2 submits that the accused is married and having family. He is retired Government servant. He is suffering from heart and kidney problem. He underwent surgery. He is under constant medication. Hence, pleaded mercy and requested to take leniency in sentence. He also pleaded hardship.
The Spl.P.P. submits that since the accused No.2 is involved in economic offence, it is not a fit case to take leniency, hence requested to impose maximum sentence.
Settled legal position is that award of sentence should be always proportionate to the nature of the offence, its impact on the society, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances if any, brought out by the parties.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was intended to make effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation defined to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object.
40 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh -v- Shambhu Dayal Nagar; (2006) 8 SCC 693 has held that:
"The corruption by public servants has become gigantic problem. Large scale corruption retards the nation building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant does his duty truthfully and honestly."
(The Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the prayer for leniency in sentence.) Keeping in view the scope and object of enactment of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, and the facts & circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to consider the prayer.
Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, amount of bribe involved in the case, its impact on the society, age and other background of the accused No.2, it is just and proper to impose quantum of sentence and fine.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
41 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010ORDER Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
The accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
In the event, fine amount is paid or realized, the said amount shall be remitted to the State Exchequer.
The accused No.2 is entitled for set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.42 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
Issue conviction warrant.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this Judgment & Order, to the accused No.2 forthwith.
MO.1 being metal seal is ordered to be handed over to Lokayuktha Police, MO2 & 3 being the currency notes is ordered to be confiscated to the State, MO4 to 14 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer in the open court, transcribed by her and after corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 J.M.Nanjunda Guptha
PW2 Dinesh L.S
PW3 A.V.Mohan
PW4 Bharath Lal Meena
PW5 Prasanna V.Raju
43 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Complaint
Ex.P-1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P-1(b) The endorsement with signature of
PW5
Ex.P-2 Currency notes sheet
Ex.P-2(a) & (b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-2(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P-2(d) & (e) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-3 Pre-Trap Mahazar
Ex.P-3(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P-3(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-3(c) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-3(d) Signature of PW3
Ex.P-4 Trap Mahazar
Ex.P-4(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P-4(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-4(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P-4(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-4(e) Signature of accused No.1
Ex.P-4(f) Signature of accused No.2
Ex.P-5 to 10 photos
Ex.P-11 to 19 photos
Ex.P-20 Written statement of accused No.2
Ex.P-20(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-20(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-21 Sanction order
Ex.P-21(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P-22 FIR
Ex.P-22(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-23 Transcription of charge sheet
Ex.P-23(a) Signature of PW2/CW2
Ex.P-23(b) Signature of PW3/CW3
Ex.P-24 Sample seal
Ex.P-25 Acknowledgment
Ex.P-26 Written statement of accused No.1
44 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
Ex.P-27 Records pertaining to the
complainant
Ex.P-28 Service particulars of accused No.2
Ex.P-29 Chemical examination report
Ex.P-30 Spot sketch
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Metal seal
MO.2 Currency notes(Rs.500 Article No.7
x100)
MO.3 Currency notes (Rs.500 x Article No.8
10)
MO.4 Sample solution Article No.1
MO.5 hand wash solution of CW3 Article No.2
MO.6 Cassette Article No.3
MO.7 Sample solution Article No.4
MO.8 Right hand wash solution Article No.5
of accused No.2
MO.8(A) Right hand wash solution Article No.5(A)
of accused No.2
MO.9 Left hand wash solution of Article No.6
accused No.2
MO.9(A) Left hand wash solution of Article No.6(A)
accused No.2
MO.10 Banian pocket wash Article No.9
solution
MO.10(A) Banian pocket wash Article No.9(A)
solution
MO.11 Banian Article No.10
MO.12 Pant pocket wash solution Article No.11
MO12(A) Pant pocket wash solution Article No.11(A)
MO.13 Pant Article No.12
MO.14 Audio cassette Article No.13
45 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) 46 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Judgment pronounced in Open Court (vide separate orders) ORDER The accused No.2 is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The order regarding sentence will be heard after hearing both sides.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) Order regarding sentence pronounced in open Court (vide separate orders) ORDER Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
47 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010The accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
In the event, fine amount is paid or realized, the said amount shall be remitted to the State Exchequer.
The accused No.2 is entitled for set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
Issue conviction warrant.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this Judgment & Order, to the accused No.2 forthwith.
48 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010MO.1 being metal seal is ordered to be handed over to Lokayuktha Police, MO2 & 3 being the currency notes is ordered to be confiscated to the State, MO4 to 14 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) The accused No.2 files an application u/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and fine, till the appeal period is over. It is stated in the application that accused No.2 is intended to prefer an appeal. Hence requested to suspend the sentence and fine for a period of 60 days and to enlarge him on bail.
The learned Spl.P.P. has seriously opposed the application.
Heard.
It is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the accused No.2 that, he is innocent. He is a senior citizen, having family members depending on him, he is suffering from kidney and heart problem. He underwent 49 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 surgery. He is under constant medication. He also produced medical records to show the illness of accused No.2 along with a memo.
Records would disclose that the accused No.2 was throughout on bail and has not indulged in any act prejudicial to prosecution and has not violated any of the conditions of bail. Taking this aspect into consideration and the fact that the accused No.2 is not likely to abscond, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence and fine imposed on the accused No.2 deserves to be suspended. Accordingly, sentence and fine imposed on the accused No.2 is suspended till 31.08.2017. Accused No.2 is enlarged on bail subject to condition that, he should appear before the Court whenever summoned, to receive the judgment of sentence & fine imposed on him, on executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum.
Surety affidavit of Sri.G.Mahesh S/o.Govindaswamy.R, aged about 34 years, R/at No.46/1, Mohan Layout, Vittasandra Main Road, Begur, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore is filed. He filed declaration u/s.441-A of Cr.P.C stating that, he is willing to stand as a surety to accused No.2. Along with Surety Affidavit, Salary Slip issued by Executive Engineer, BTM Layout Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, 50 Spl.C.C.No.29/2010 Notarized copy of the ID card issued by BBMP, Adhar Card, Election ID card are produced. All the documents are verified with original.
Surety affidavit of Sri.G.Mahesh S/o.
Govindaswamy.R is hereby accepted.
Office is directed to take bond from the accused No.2 and his surety.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-77)