Bangalore District Court
State By Adgp vs H.S.Ramakrishna on 13 April, 2022
1
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
KABC010228232011
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRYING OFFENCES
UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-78)
DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT:
SRI. S.V.SRIKANTH, B.A., LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SPL. C.C.No.133/2011
COMPLAINANT: State by ADGP
Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
/VS/
2
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
ACCUSED: 1. H.S.Ramakrishna,
S/o Late Sanna Cheluvegowda,
Spl.LAO-1, KIADB, Gandhi Nagar,
Bengaluru.
R/at No.C-85/A, 5th Cross,
PWD Quarters, Vasanth Nagar,
Bengaluru.
2. B.M.Nagabhushan,
S/o Late B.R.Mahadevaiah,
FDA, Office of Spl.LAO-1,
KIADB, Gandhi Nagar,
Bengaluru.
Resident of No.429,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
BSK 3rd Stage, 5th Phase,
Bengaluru.
3. Krishnappa,
S/o Venkataramanappa,
R/o B.H.Halli Village,
Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North.
(Since dead, abated)
(Rep by Sri.NIG/RBN,Adv.for A.1,
Sri.S.Balan, Adv. for A2)
TABULATION OF EVENTS
01. Date of commission of offence : 21-09-2010
02. Date of report of offences to
the Police Station (FIR date) : 21-09-2010
3
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
03. Date of arrest of accused : A1 arrested on
30-10-2010.
04. Date of release of accused A1 is released on
from JC : bail on 26-11-2010
05. Name of the complainant : Lokayuktha Police.
06. Nature of offence complained : U/S.Secs.465, 468,
471,420,120B of IPC
with Secs.13(1)(c)(d)
r/w Sec.13(2) of
Prevention of
Corruption Act
1988.
07. Date of submission of
charge sheet : 25-06-2011
08. Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 03-02-2018
09. Date of closing of evidence : 15-02-2022
10. Date of judgment : 13-04-2022
11. Opinion of the Judge in
respect of the offences. : Accused Nos.1
& 2 are acquitted.
Since Accused
No.3 dead, case is
abated against him.
*****
4 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 JU DG ME N T
1. The Police Inspector, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.465, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code with Secs.13(1)(d)r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The germane facts leading to filing of this complaint being that the Police Inspector, CW.1 while undertaking the investigation in respect of Cr.No.24/2010 of their office also came across certain documents, which according to him were suspicious IN NATURE and those documents were 5 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 submitted to the Special team to look in to the contents to identify the alleged irregularities in disbursement of compensation amount in respect of acquired lands by The Special LAO, KIADB, Bengaluru.
3. According to the complainant, the said committee which was formed to look into the documents in respect of KIADB acquiring the lands for the industrial purpose in and around Bengaluru for the public purpose i.e. for formation of hardware park, IT park, Aero space, metro and high speed rail project also noticed that there were rampant irregularities in disbursement of compensation amount. According to the said committee, over and above the award 6 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 passed compensation amount was released in favour of the claimants in certain cases, apart from it also noticed that when Sec.136(3) of the KLR proceedings were pending before the Spl.D.C., compensation was disbursed even though the person was not a beneficiary and his name was not found in the final notification, finally to strangers in some cases compensation has been released. In some cases compensation twice in respect of the same land acquired has also been released and these irregularities have been detected by the said committee.
4. Pursuant to the same, the Police Inspector also came to know that when the 1st accused was the Incharge Spl.LAO of the KIADB for 7 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 two intermittent periods i.e. from 15-06- 2009 to 02-07-2009 and for the second period from 11-11-2009 to 26-12-2009 found to have worked with Managers like Shankarappa, Kenchaiah, Smt.Lakshmi and superintendent such as K.P.Vijaykumar and case workers Byregowda, Nagabhushan, K.P.Mahalingaiah, J.K.Siddaiah, M.S. Ramachandra, Annappa, Smt.Geetha and Dhoolaiah. It is also the complaint of this CW.1 that lands of different beneficiaries situated at Dummanahalli, Singahalli, Unasuru, Jonnahalli, Baladimmanahalli, Kavadadasanahalli, Bhatramaranahalli, Bandikodigehalli palya, Arebinnamangala, Gollahalli, Bandikodigehalli, Bagaluru, Hoovina Nayakanahalli and Mahadeva Kodigehalli were acquired in a total extent of 8 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 218.7½ acres and total compensation amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- has been disbursed. Out of this total extent of land and total compensation disbursed to various beneficiaries, but in so far as the 1st accused is concerned, he is alleged to have wrongly released compensation in favour of the 3 rd accused knowing that the said land has already been acquired and compensation has been issued to the 3rd accused's younger brother's children by name Ravi Kumar, Ramaswamy and Venkatashamappa. According to the complaint, in respect of Sy.No. 7/P14 of Bandikodigehalli Palya, which was acquired for formation of IT Park on 07-12-2009, only compensation was released in favour of the above said three persons. Again, the first accused has 9 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 disbursed the compensation amount to the 3rd accused in respect of the same land, i.e. to a new survey number and this according to the complainant, the 1st accused by hatching a criminal conspiracy with the 2 nd and 3rd accused have committed the said act.
5. According to the complainant, the 2 nd accused being the case worker in the said office worked under the 1st accused have helped in wrongly releasing the compensation amount in favour of the 3rd accused, whereby they had committed not only criminal conspiracy, but also the offence of deceitment. It is the say of the complainant that both 1st and 2nd accused misused their official positions, then entered 10 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 into an agreement with the 3 rd accused and hatched a criminal conspiracy and even though the compensation in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of Bandikodigehalli Palya, was released in the name of Ramu and Subbanna by wrongly mentioning the Sy.No. as 40/P358 has further released the compensation amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3rd accused on 15-12-2009 even though had a knowledge that earlier on 28-07-2008 Rs.46,50,000/- was released in favour of Ramu and Subbanna, have committed the above said offences causing huge loss of money to the Government exchequer.
6. After securing the presence of the accused Nos.1 to 3 before this Court, they were duly 11 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 released on bail. As per the mandatory compliance, prosecution papers were supplied to them, then accused Nos.1 and 2 have moved the respective discharge applications which came to be rejected. Likewise, the 3 rd accused during the pendency of this proceedings died and this case against accused No.3 stood abated. As there was a prima-facie materials to frame charges against the accused persons, this Court duly framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2, read over to them in their known language. The accused Nos.1 and 2 having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the 12 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution in all has examined PWs.1 to 17 and exhibits at Ex.P.1 to P.30 came to be marked. No material objects came to be marked. As there was incriminating evidence found against the accused Nos.1 and 2, statements as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. got recorded, accused Nos.1 and 2 denied the incriminating evidence stood against them and they choose to lead both oral and documentary evidence. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in all have got examined DW. 1 and 2 and Ex.D.1 to D.42 came to be marked.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the 1st accused filed his written arguments. Whereas the counsel for the 2nd 13 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 accused supplied list with citations. I have gone through them carefully in detail.
10. The fresh points that crop up for my consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves that it had obtained valid sanction order to prosecute the 2 nd accused?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt tht accused Nos.1 and 2 being the public servants, wherein while the 1 st accused discharging as the Incharge Spl.LAO of KIADB, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru for two consecutive terms i.e. from 15- 06-2009 to 02-07-2009 and from 11-11-2009 to 26-12-2009, wherein at that time the 2 nd accused was the FDA in the said office entered into an agreement with the 3 rd accused hatched a criminal conspiracy while awarding compensation in favour 14 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of the 3 rd accused in respect of acquired land bearing Sy.No. 7/P20 of Bandi Kodigehalli, even though compensation was already claimed by Ramu and Subbanna mentioning that land as Sy.No. 40/P358 have committed offence under Sec.120B of IPC?
3). Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention, wherein the 1 st and 2 nd accused wrongly have released the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.
1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3 rd accused in rspect of already received compensation to Sy.No. 7/P20, have caused loss to the exchequer of Government in a sum of Rs.1,24,00,000 and also have deceived the Government, whereby have committed the offence under Sec.420 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the 15 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention in order to deceive the Government and to cause loss to the Government exchequer in a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- by forging the signatures have falsely created documents, whereby, have committed the offence punishable under Sec.465 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of the above and common intention, accused Nos.1 to 3 having hatched a criminal conspiracy to deceive a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- from the Government in respect of compensation amount released to 3 rd accused in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of Bandi Kodigehalli have involved in forging of signatures knowing fully that such documents which are create will be used with, which is forged have committed an offence under Sec.468 of IPC?
16
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
6) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 to 3 having hatched a criminal conspiracy have used created/fabricated documents by forging the signatures and projecting it as a genuine documents only for the purpose of drawing an amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- from the Government claiming to be the compensation amount entitled by the 3 rd accused in respect of the acquired lands in Sy.No. 7/P20 of 2 acres of B.K.Halli, have committed an offence punishable under Sec.471 of the IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 being public servants as they have entered into an agreement with the 3 rd accused and hatched a criminal conspiracy involved in the process of falsification of the documents by forging the signatures and projecting that 17 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 as a genuine documents knowing it to be fake have committed criminal misconduct, whereby punishable under Secs.13(1)(c)
(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
8). What order?
11. After carefully going through the materials available on record and also by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, my findings to the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 : Partly in the affirmative.
POINT NOs.2 to 7: In the negative.
POINT NO.8 : As per my final order for the following:
REASONS POINT NO.1:-
12. So far as the 1st accused is concerned, who was the incharge Spl.LAO of the KIADB, 18 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 against whom this prosecution is targeted, now discussion in respect of the prosecution obtaining valid sanction against the 1st accused does not arise, because, during the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st accused has attained the age of superannuation.
13. Coming to the role of the 2nd accused who was the FDA with the KIADB, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru, he faces the allegations as he was instrumental in making false entries in Ex.P. 5 which is the proceedings i.e. said to have taken place before the Spl.LAO, KIADB, wherein Ex.P. 5(a) and (b) came to be passed. In the result, an amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- which being the compensation amount in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya came to be released in favour of 19 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 the 3rd accused. Of course, the 3 rd accused is no more. He died during the pendency of this proceedings so this entire proceedings against him stands abated.
14. So far as the PW. 1 issuing sanction order in respect of the 2nd accused is concerned, according to him, he issued the said sanction order vide Ex.P. 2 and sent the same to the ADGP with his covering letter. This sanction order was attacked by the 2 nd accused on the ground that when Ex.P. 2 was issued, this PW.1's office was under the cloud as this official himself was facing various other charges including one of practicing corrupt practices in discharge of his duties.
20
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
15. On thorough scanning of evidence of PW. 1 T.Shyam Bhat, S/o T.Narayan Bhat, who was the Chairman, KPSC, Bengaluru when he gave evidence before this Court on 03-02-2018. According to this witnesses evidence, from 16-06-2008 to 29-12-2011 he has served as the Chief Executing Officer and Executive Member of KIADB, Bengaluru. He receives a letter from PW. 3 dtd.20-08- 2010 asking him to accord the sanction order in respect of 2nd accused. At that time, this 2nd accused was a FDA with KIADB, Bengaluru and along with that letter, the KLA Police Inspector has also furnished the documents such as complaint, FIR, pre-trap and trap mahazars, chemical analysis report and after verifying the same, since this PW. 1 being the removing authority of the said 21 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 accused also, as per Rules 58 and 59 of KIADB Act, issued a sanction order dtd.29- 04-2011, which is exhibited at Ex.P. 2. So, before I go on to analyze the cross- examination portion of this witness evidence a thing has to be made clear. Now, according sanction to the Lokayuktha to prosecute either the 1st or 2nd accused will make sense when material allegations contained are sustainable in the eye of law. The main allegation made by the complaint CW.1 vide his Ex.P. 4 is that this 1st accused who was the incharge Spl.LAO for two intervening periods i.e. from 15-06-2009 to 02-07-2009(18 days) and another period from 11-11-2009 to 26-12-2009 (45 days), totally 63 days has disbursed the compensation amount illegally, more so in 22 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 favour of the 3rd accused in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya to an extent of 2 acres, wherein already the claimants of the said land which was earlier Old Sy.No. 40/P 358 of B.K.Halli have received the compensation amount. So, there was overlapping of compensation amount, in that regard accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched a criminal conspiracy and caused huge loss to the Government exchequer.
16. According to CW.1, who has been examined as PW. 3 also makes it clear that when he was busy in conducting another trap case investigation, wherein the complainant by name Rukmangada who had given complaint in Cr.No.24/10 alleging that when he had gone to KIADB office, Gandhi 23 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 Nagar, Bengaluru to collect the compensation amount in respect of his sister Smt.Kamala, the then SLAO therein said to have demanded bribe. While conducting the investigation in that crime number, he came to know that there was some irregularities committed in disbursement of the compensation amount, wherein KIADB had acquired the lands and this 1st accused was the main culprit, who was assisted by the other staff members. So, suo-moto, this PW.3 gives a report on the basis of a preliminary enquiry said to have been conducted by him through his S.P.Lokayktha, who gave permission and authorized him to conduct the investigation in this regard. Hence, Ex.P. 4 and separate FIR was filed. So, ultimately, the aggrieved 24 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 person is none other than the PW. 3 himself.
17. Initially, PW. 3 gave Ex.P. 4 and FIR was at Ex.P-17 filed, which was totally against 12 accused. Apart from these 3 accused, other 9 accused were none other than the Managers, Section Officers, FDA and SDA of the KIADB, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru office. When charge sheet was filed, all the 9 officials names were deleted on the ground that as there was no material to directly connect them to the said allegations. Hence, their names came to be dropped. This was the version of PW. 3 and the IO,PW-17, who has conducted the investigation in this case. Now, only when the prosecution is able to prove and establish a point that old Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli measuring to an extent 25 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of 2 acres is the same as Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya, the present complaint Ex.P. 4 has legs to stand.
18. It is the definite case of the prosecution that this 1st accused by misusing and abusing his office has released an additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3rd accused knowing fully well that already the claimants of the same Sy.No. by name Ramu and Subbanna have taken compensation amount in a sum of Rs. 46,50,000/-. I am stressing hard on this, because, according to the prosecution itself, there must be only one survey number land, where it is Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya or Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli. Now, PW. 1 who claims to have looked into the 26 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 documents, contends that the documents prima-facie suggested to him that this both 1st and 2nd accused by hatching a criminal conspiracy with the 3rd accused not only forged the signatures, but created some documents so as to release this Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3rd accused, but in the cross-examination there are contrary admission given by this PW. 1 which show that from the documents submitted by the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, which show that both Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Halli and Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli are two distinct and different lands and the distance between two survey numbers lands is roughly 1½ kms. Under such circumstances, keeping in mind this aspect, we can appreciate the available 27 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 materials to know that is there any such evidence which show that in reality PW. 1 has applied his mind in verifying the documents.
19. Coming to the cross-examination of PW. 1, initially this witness admits that he has not gone in to the documents in detail, in fact, some of the answers of this witness show that as from the date of issuance of Ex.P. 2 to the date of giving answers in his cross-examination before this Court on 9-11- 2018, there is much efflux of time so he is unable to remember certain important aspects connected with issuance of Ex.P. 2. There is an admission elicited from this witness mouth that Ex.P. 2 does not contain specific allegations made against the 2 nd 28 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 accused. But, one important admission given by this witness shows that he has not obtained the KIADB, Board approval for issuance of Ex.P. 2. This was canvassed by the learned counsel for accused No.2 that as the KIADB Rules which governs the service conditions of KIADB staff members states that, permission of the said Board is a must in order to accord sanction Ex.P. 2. In fact, 2nd accused has also moved discharge application only on this technicality and on the said application, this court discussed in its order that when the Officer who issued Ex.P. 2 enters the witness box he can be cross-examined on these technical aspects and has rejected his discharge application. Even assuming that Ex.P. 2 is embedded with some technical defect, but the crux of 29 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 the matter is, there is no whisper in Ex.P. 2 as to from the reading of all the documents placed by the KIADB Officer, what were the list of the allegations that were levelled against the 2nd accused. In fact, when the oral evidence of PW. 1 is looked into, it looks as though this Ex.P. 2 is accorded as a blanket permission to prosecute him by the Lokayuktha police. Under such circumstances, the version of the 2nd accused counsel that prior Board Permission is not obtained for issuance of Ex.P. 2 holds water.
Likewise, when Ex.P. 5 and 17 accompanying some documents with other mahazars are exclusively not in respect of this case, but was also in respect of other connected 7 matters, wherein the complainant by name Rukmangadha brother 30 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of Smt.Kamalamma who has alleged that the SLAO, KIADB had demanded a bribe for release of compensation amount in their favour, that has been made use of in this case. So, on going through the evidence of PW. 1, definitely it can be said that Ex.P. 2 is issued keeping in mind other connected cases also as Ex.P. 2 is the bereft of the specific allegations faced by the 2 nd accused. I can only say that the document is not all that correct and rightful.
20. The counsel for the 2nd accused having contended that Ex.P.2 is defective also was of the view that, that document Ex.P2, sanction order was issued, even when there was an embargo upon the PW. 1 who has done it so. In this regard, he relied upon a decision 31 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 reported in 1979 AIR 677 in the matter between Mohd.Iqbal Ahmad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that in respect of obtaining valid sanction as the said authority has not bestowed its mind so that sanction order was found fault with. On similar analogy, another judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 between Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
" Criminal - sanction to prosecute
- Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Validity of sanction depends on applicability of mind by sanctioning authority to facts of case and also material and evidence collected during investigation - sanctioning authority to apply its own independent mind for generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution to be sanctioned or 32 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 not - sanctioning authority unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant sanction - Order to be bad for reason that discretion of authority 'not to sanction' taken away and compelled to act mechanically to sanction prosecution."
21. And Lastly unreported judgment in Crl.Petition No.3820/2017 in the matter between D.A.Chandrashekaraiah vs. The State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha Police highlighted the defective nature of Ex.P. 2 so far as dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above said decisions, no doubt aptly applicable to the case on hand, in the instant case, the documents which were produced by the prosecution before the 33 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 PW-1 was in respect of an allegation that both the 1st and 2nd accused have released compensation amount in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya which over lapped the release of compensation, whereby both accused Nos.1 and 2 hand-in-glove have released a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3rd accused, whereby have caused loss to the exchequer. So according to me, even though Ex.P. 2 is acted upon and there is already a finding given by this Court earlier in the discharge application moved by the 2nd accused, but suffice it to say that as extent of both Sy.No. 7/P20 and Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli are two distinct lands clearly goes to show that PW. 1 has not applied his mind. Since, this Court has already discussed in respect of the alleged 34 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 flaws found in the contents of Ex.P. 2, I have answered this point partly in the affirmative.
POINT NOS.2 to 6:-
22. I have taken up joint discussion of these points in order to avoid definite repetition. The allegations made by PW. 3 and the IO, P.W.-17 in this case are multi fold. According to the IO as well as the complainant, both accused Nos.1 and 2 have involved themselves in commission of offences under Secs. 420, 465, 468 and lastly 471 of IPC. So far as these offences are concerned, it is at the great responsibility on the part of the prosecution that they shall have to prove before the Court that on which documents whose signatures came to be forged by which 35 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of the accused. Secondly, which document/nomenclature came to be got up and fabricated. Then lastly, who has caused loss to the exchequer of the State. When the examination-in-chief of PW. 3 in general is looked into, he unequivocally discloses that Ex.P. 4 is general in nature. Further, according to this PW. 3, even though he has named 12 accused in FIR, which was registered on the basis of Ex.P. 4, but towards the end of the investigation, as PW. 17 has filed the charge sheet, he has deleted the names of 9 accused who are none other than the officials working at the KIADB, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru. Now, when the allegations of cheating, forgery, creating documents, projecting a created document as a genuine document and making a person 36 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 to act upon it, then causing loss to the exchequer in crores of rupees, there must be a specific allegation.
23. It is crystal clear that in the evidence of PW. 3 when he was undertaking investigation in respect of Cr.No.24/2010, wherein one Rukmangada had given a complaint against one Nagaraj, the then SLAO that he was demanding bribe. On verification of certain records, he came to know that the 1st accused has illegally released an amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- in respect of 6 acres 35 guntas of land illegally. This PW. 3 further contends that he was compelled to act upon Ex.P. 4, because, he took the assistance of a team which looked into the documents in respect of the alleged 37 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 irregularities committed in the office of KIADB, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru.
24. A team which looked into some of the documents came to know that compensation has been released to those beneficiaries who are not the beneficiaries under the final notification under Sec.28 of the KIADB Act. Likewise, it is also noticed by the said team that when Sec.136(3) KLR proceedings were pending before the Spl.D.C. even then, compensations were hurriedly released in favour of some unknown persons. Lastly, the Spl.LAO without verifying the correctness of the contents of the documents has released the compensation amount in favour of some persons who were not at all the claimants/beneficiaries. So, according to 38 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 this PW. 3, for the period of 65 days, when this 1st accused was the incharge Spl.LAO, he came to know that this 3rd accused was released with a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya, which was earlier old Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli, wherein already persons by name Subbanna and Ramu have taken compensation amount of Rs.46,50,000/- for the said extent of land ceded to KIADB. So, one important aspect is that there are no two survey numbers to an extent of 2 acres which is claimed by the prosecution as Sy.No. 7/P20 is the same as Sy.No. 40/P358. When this aspect is considered, there cannot be existence of two villages i.e. B.K.Palya and B.K.Halli.
25. On a cursory glance of the documents 39 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 placed by the prosecution, there is one document which according to me tilts the balance in favour of the accused i.e. Ex.P. 5. It is the original proceedings in LAQ 1/06-07 that has taken place before the Spl.LAO, KIADB, Bengaluru. When Ex.P. 5 which is the complete order sheet is gone through, this document itself is crystal clear that the above said survey numbers are not one and the same. There are two survey numbers, but for the reasons best known, neither PW. 3 nor PW. 17 have bestowed their attention in conducting proper investigation. Because, not only Ex.P. 5, even when accused No.1 and 2 led their respective defence evidences, they have filed the documents which the Court can take public notice of the same. Ex.D.2 is the Gazette notification in respect 40 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of acquiring the land i.e. Sy.No. 7/P20 which belonged to 3rd accused, wherein this Ex.D. 2 is the final notification of the KIADB. Coming to Ex.D. 3, which is the proceedings that has taken place on the basis of Ex.P. 5 before Spl.LAO and it also includes the preliminary notification. In Sl.No.22 of the List of the said document, the name of the 3 rd accused in respect of Sy.No. 7, 4 acres of land in B.K.Palya is referred. Ex.D.4 is the copy of the Gazette notification, Ex.D. 5 is the proceedings and award passed in respect of the land belonging to the 3rd accused which was acquired by the KIADB. Ex.D.9 is the proceedings that has taken place before the Spl. D.C., Bengaluru between the land owners of Sy.No. 40/358 of B.K.Halli. So, when these documents, wherein there 41 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 authenticity is not questioned and cannot be questioned by anybody, even then, PWs. 3 and 17 have approached this Court claiming that there are no two survey numbers lands, but it is one and the same. Now, when the Gazette Notifications are indirectly questioned in this proceedings, whether this Court can go and try the validity of the preliminary and final notifications passed by the KIADB in respect of the land belonging to the 3rd accused i.e. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya, according to me, it cannot and this Court has no jurisdiction at all. So far as the sanctity of Ex.P. 5 proceedings are concerned, none of the persons who claimed to be aggrieved have questioned the same.
26. In this regard, during the course of 42 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 arguments, the learned counsel for the 1st accused made a submission that the Addl.Chief Secretary to the Government, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka in compliance report under Sec.12(3) of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, the Chief Executive Officer of KIADB had submitted a verification report against the charges made by the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayuktha. In that report, charges leveled against the 1st accused in respect of releasing compensation connected to Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya was gone into and the documents were verified in the said report submitted by the CEO, he has given clean chit to the 1st accused by stating that compensation released in favour of the 3 rd accused has been accepted as the 43 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 beneficiary/3rd accused was a notified Khathedar. So, the CEO came to the conclusion that there was no any illegality found and that report itself is at Ex.D. 5, wherein it can be found that Sl.No.27 of that document, which reads as under:
"In this case, records reveal that an extent of 4-00 acres of land in Sy.No. 7 of B.K.Palya was granted by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk in favour of Sri. Narayanappa, S/o Thimmarayappa and Saguvalichit was issued on 05-05-1961. Khata of this land stands in his name.
He had sold 2-00 acres of land out of 4-00 acres to Sri. Krishnappa, S/o Venkatara- manappa on 19-02-1971 and khata transferred to his name vide M.R.12/70-71. Khata continued in his name from 78- 79 to 2008-09. This land has been acquired by the KIADB by issuing notifications under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) dtd.7-8- 2006 and 25-9-2008 respectively. The name of khatedar Sri. Krishnappa S/o Venkataramappa 44 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 has been notified in the aforesaid notifications at page No.21, Sl.No.23 and page No.2. A proceedings has been recorded by the then SLAO in No. dtd.15- 12-09 and after verification of right, title, possession of the property, order was been passed to make payment of compen- sation to Sri.Krishnappa, S/o Venkataramanappa.
From the above, it is noticed that compensation has been paid to the notified khatedar. Hence, no illegality is found in making payment of compensation.
27. In my preceding paras, while discussing I had stressed hard on the aspect that an element of deceit, intention to commit an offence of forgery, concoction of documents and lastly to make use of those documents for the purpose of personal gain are concerned, they become influencing factors which the prosecution shall have to prove 45 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. In this regard, as I have taken combined discussion on these five points, I would like to scan the evidence of PW. 17 by name B.N.Krishnamurthy, S/o M.Narasimhaiah who is the IO in this case. This evidence of PW. 17 assumes all importance, because, he is called upon to investigate not only the veracity and truthfulness of exhibits but also should place materials that in how many cases, the 1st accused has issued compensation amount illegally and how the 2nd accused has helped in that direction. As I have made it clear in my earlier discussion that all the 9 other accused whose names were shown in the FIRs, they were also public servants attached to the office of 46 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 KIADB at the relevant period, when Rukmangadha gave complaint in Cr.No.24/2010 against the 1st accused and others. So, in that behalf and as a continuation to that chain of events, this evidence of PW. 17 has to be read as one whole document.
29. This PW. 17 deposed that from August 2010 to July 2011, he was discharging the duty as the Police Inspector, KLA City Division, on 21-09-2010 the PW. 3 Lakshminarayana submits Ex.P. 4, on that basis Cr.No.46/2010 was registered against the 1st accused only. On the basis of that Ex.P. 4, FIR came to be registered and he undertakes the investigation. He by obtaining authorization from the higher 47 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 officers he undertakes the further investigation in this matter. He conducts search and raid of the house and office of the 1st accused and also spoke about the panchanama which he drew in the presence of witnesses. It is also could be seen in his evidence that having seized files from the premises of the 1st accused, they were brought to the office and detailed verification of those documents took place. He collects certified copy in respect of Ex.P. 5 proceedings and also the documents in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. Ultimately, according to this witness, he records the statement of some of the independent agriculturists of both B.K.Halli and B.K.Palya, examines the adjacent land owners and comes to the conclusion that the 48 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences alleged in the charge sheet. Now, when this examination-in-chief is looked into, it looks very simple that as the allegation made by this PW. 17 is really near to the truth. But the fact of the matter is something else. Because, in the cross- examination of this witness, there are such admissions which clearly go to show that both PW. 3 and 17 does not know the existence of two different and separate survey number lands i.e. Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya and Sy.No. 40/358 of B.K.Halli. Some of the admissions of PW. 17 is extracted as under:
"It is true that no where in the complaint, the complainant has stated that, there is over lap in release of compensation to the lands in Sy.Nos. 7/P20 of 49 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 B.K.Palya and Sy.No. 40/358 of B.K.Halli.... It is true that this charge sheet with respect to land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya and 40/358 of B.K.Halli."
30. Now, when Ex.P. 4 is silent in respect of any specific allegations made against the 1 st accused that he has released the compensation amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3rd accused, which act by itself is a overlapping one, clearly go to show that the direction in which the investigation was undertaken by this witness is totally on a different footing.
31. He also admits that initially he suspected the role of other officials who were serving at the KIADB, but their names were dropped and in the cross-examination, he gives an admission that after his entire 50 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 investigation, he could not find any documents pertaining to land bearing Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya and 40/358 of B.K.Halli at the time of search and seizure of the house and office chambers of the 1 st accused.
32. When PW. 3 claims that while lodging Ex.P. 4, he held a mini enquiry, got opinion from the team which looked into the contents of the documents in respect of release of compensation amount by the 1st accused, it clearly go to show that there is some substance. But, when this answer of PW. 17 found in the cross-examination, it is no where near to that. This witness further in his cross-examination gives a candid admission that he found that it was not one 51 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 survey number, but two different survey numbers. The said admission is extracted as under:
"It is true that, there are separate acquisition notifications with respect to lands in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya and 40/458 of B.K.Halli".
33. By giving this admission, documents at Ex.D. 2 to 4 got confronted through this witness. Another important aspect is neither PW. 3 nor PW. 17 had no answer to Ex.D. 8 which is the map of those two villages, wherein distinguishly those two survey numbers marked as Ex.D. 8. Now, this is the tone and tenor of the investigation under taken by PW. 17 and it is for them to establish that how can there be a complaint as-stray. Even giving margin to the contents of Ex.P.4, but when FIR is registered as 52 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 Ex.P.17, there ought to be some corroboration to Ex.P.4 and when it comes to filing of a charge sheet, it must be free from any suspicion.
34. When the entire examination-in-chief of Ex.P.17 is looked into, neither the element of deceit nor he spoke about the role of accused Nos.1 to 3 in forging of signatures, creating and concocting of documents and using that got up documents for the purpose of releasing compensation amount in favour of 3rd accused in a sum of Rs.1,24,00,000/- could be seen. None of these elements are present in the examination-in-chief. This by itself clearly go to show that this IO did not bother to hold investigation into this direction.
53
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
35. In respect of CEO report submitting to the Hon'ble Upa Lokayuktha giving clean chit to the 1st accused that he has issued compensation to the notified Khathedar of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya is concerned, in this regard, neither PW. 3 or PW. 17 has whispered anything. In fact, that enquiry was ordered at the instance of Hon'ble Upa Lokayuktha and this CEO having come to the conclusion that this 3rd accused was the notified Khathedar in respect of his 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya has received a compensation. According to me, re-agitating the matter merely because the sons of Narayana by names Ramu and Subbanna have given some oral complaint to KLA in particular to PW. 3 will not make a valid complaint against the 1st accused. 54
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 According to me, so far as Sy.No. 40/358 is concerned, this is already considered as gomala. So, this land originally vests with the Government. There cannot be any compensation released to anybody, because, even now, it is with the Government. So the claim of PW. 17 that both 1st and 2nd accused being the public servants misused and abused their office, for the purpose of releasing the compensation amount in favour of the 3rd accused falls to the ground.
36. During the course of arguments, the learned 1st accused counsel argued that the process of land acquisition by the KIADB and payment of compensation are concerned, the procedure is totally different. According to this KIADB Act and Rules, the 55 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 lands which are acquired for setting up of industries, those lands will be sold to the entrepreneurs or the persons interested in establishing the industries and out of the sale proceeds, that money will be paid to the land loosers as compensation. On one hand, when KIADB acquires the lands for public purpose, it pays compensation to the land loosers out of the sale proceeds which it receives from selling a particular plot for industrial purpose. So, according to them, the whole allegation made by the KLA that accused Nos.1 to 3 caused huge monetary loss in a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- to the KIADB or to the Government is unfounded. By acquiring the land from the 3rd accused, it retains 2 acres of land which will be resold to entrepreneurs for a particular price. So, 56 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 out of the sale proceeds, compensation will be paid to the 3rd accused. So, here, there is no gain or loss and this is an autonomous body established through a statute to give stimulus to the industrial activities, so as to generate employment to the public.
37. According to me, this limb of argument is more sensible. I should say that the contents of Ex.P. 4 is general in nature, there was a duty casts upon PW. 17 to be result oriented in holding an investigation to know as to where, how this embezzlement has taken place. The beauty of this investigation is that PW. 17 himself does not know how 2 nd accused is connected to Ex.P. 5 proceedings. The role of each of the accused is not well defined both by PW. 3 and PW. 17. Even 57 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 assuming for the sake of arguments, the 2nd accused as a case worker has put incorrect proceeding or endorsement in the Ex.P. 5 order sheet, nothing prevents the Spl.LAO or the 1st accused to have got it corrected. In the instant case, by marking Ex.P. 5, the prosecution has not established that what was over looked by the 1st accused. It is admitted by PW. 3 and PW. 17 that the 3 rd accused was a notified Khathedar and Kabjedar of 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. It is also an admitted fact that as per Ex.D. 2 to 4, 3rd accused's 2 acres of land was notified both under preliminary as well as final notifications of the KIADB. Subsequently, they came to be Gazetted. So, under such circumstances, even under final notification under Sec.28(6) of KIADB Act 58 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 took place, neither the general public nor the interested person filed any objections to that notification or preliminary notification. It goes without saying that as there was no objections to acquiring of the 2 acres of land of the 3rd accused, the KIADB has acquired and compensation in favour of 3rd accused was released. According to me, this itself is the reality and truth, which clearly go to show that Ex.P. 4 is ill-motivated.
38. It is the admitted and normal practice that, whenever the Spl.LAO or any Court issues the compensation by way of cheque to the claimant or the beneficiary, they are called upon to execute an indemnity bond. Even in the present case, the 3rd accused has 59 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 executed an indemnity bond. As on today, it is admitted by PWs.3 and 17 that nobody has given a complaint stating that issuance of compensation amount in favour of 3rd accused is illegal or the order passed by the 1st accused at Ex.P. 5(a) to P.5(c) have been set aside in accordance with law. It is also a reality that even at the time of acquiring the said two acres of land of 3rd accused, his name was referred in RTC pertaining to Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. When such being the case, if according to PW. 17, the 1 st accused has committed illegality, then all these revenue documents must be wrong. But the fact of the matter is that, as on today none of these documents have been set aside. But, they still continued to be in the name of the 3rd accused, which only show 60 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 that the release of compensation amount in favour of the 3rd accused was legal and as per law.
39. Lastly, so far as the report submitted by the CEO to the Honble Upa Lokayuktha, that has attained finality and if there were to be any attack in respect of the sanctity on the said order, the report of the CEO by now either would have been rejected or would have been a direction to initiate proceedings against the 1st accused. But, for Ex.P. 4 and 17, the KIADB department itself has not taken any action in this direction.
40. The main contention of the 2nd accused in particular, that whenever compensation used to be released in favour of the 61 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 beneficiaries by the SLAO including the 1st accused, in and around the KIADB office there will be some real estate agents/ brokers, who takes commission charges from the beneficiaries by extending false promises. So, it is the say of the 2 nd accused that this case more so, Ex.P. 4 has been given as some pressure was brought out by some real estate brokers who were very much active in KIADB Office. So when I analyze this contention of the 2nd accused, this possibility cannot be ruled out.
41. The evidence of PW. 4 witness by name Munegowda, S/o Hanumantharayappa, he claims to be an agriculturist, but does real estate business. According to him, CW.3 is his elder brother, he knew the 3rd accused. In fact this witness tries to inject a new fact 62 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 into the prosecution case and this could be one of the reasons for both PWs.3 and 17 to have entertained a doubt that both Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya and 40/358 of B.K.Halli are one and the same. Both the complainant as well as PW. 17 seem to have just accepted the version of this real estate broker so that Ex.P. 4 was lodged, immediately Ex.P. 17 was registered. This is a mistake which according to this Court both PW. 3 and 17 seem to have committed. According to this witness, he knows accused Nos.1 and 2 and in the year 1971, 3rd accused purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya for a valuable consideration through a sale deed from his vendor Narayanappa and Thimmarayappa. In the year 1994, sons of Muniyappa and Jayaramaiah had filed a 63 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 partition suit against Krishnappa, which also included the lands in Sy.No. 7/P20. He gives this incorrect evidence which is extracted as under:
" In the year 1996, the land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya was changed as land in Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli as that land was in Sy.No. 40/358 of B.K.Halli".
42. This piece of evidence has no corroboration at all and on that basis, this person has given this evidence. Likewise, the mistake and the wrong information given by this PW. 4 does not end itself because, he gives evidence that both Muniyappa and his brother have claimed a compensation of Rs. 62,00,000/- in respect of Sy.No. 40/P358, this is completely wrong. This is not a compensation amount claimed by them and 64 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 even this witness does not know the fact that Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli is completely a gomala land. So, when PW. 4 and 17 trust this person, this is what has taken place. There is nothing wrong in any tom, dick and harry setting the criminal law in motion. But, at least when FIR is registered, when the said matter is slated down for investigation, the IO should properly apply his mind and to conduct investigation as per law. In the instant case, how complainant and PW. 17 believed the version of PW. 4 that both survey numbers are one and the same, which is still a mystery which the PW. 4 and 17 should have explained to this court. But, on the other hand, in their respective cross- examination, they admit that they are different survey numbers situated at 65 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 different villages and they are acquired by the KIADB under different notifications for a different public purposes. So, this is clearly go to show that Ex.P. 4 is baseless.
43. Coming to the cross-examination of PW. 4, I tried to highlight both aspects which goes to the root of the prosecution case. This witness admits that both survey numbers are different which is extracted as under:
" It is true that there is a separate acquisition notification with regard t land in Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli and Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya....It is true that, as per the revenue records, as on the date of acquisition the owners of above said 2 lands are different. I do not know the fact that, both the lands are acquired for different purpose. I do not know as to whether the KIADB has taken possession of land in Sy.No. 40/P358 of B.K.Halli or not."66
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
44. This is the major drawback of this witness in giving evidence before the Court. It was his consistent and firm stand in examination-in-chief that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have helped the 3rd accused to embezzle an amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- by causing huge loss to the exchequer. It was also his version that accused Nos.1 and 2 are also party to this unholy alliance. When uprooting admissions are found in the cross- examination of PW. 4, it is for the prosecution to explain in respect of the quality of evidence given by him.
45. Further, in the cross-examination of this witness conducted by the counsel for the 2nd accused, he attacks his antecedents on the ground that he is more a real estate agent 67 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 than an agriculturist, but this witness admits the same. According to him, he does not know the meaning of real estate. According to this person, even though he had a knowledge that there were other beneficiaries in the same survey number who have duped the Government in claiming false compensation, he had no any clinching documents/evidence against them, so he has not given any police complaint. He has some documents against the 3rd accused only, so he has given complaint to PW. 4. Further in the cross-examination, this 2nd accused counsel elicited line by line as to what is his modus operandi and also involving in extortion. Some of the suggestions posed to this witness is extracted as under:
" It is false to say that myself and 68 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 my brother are doing roll call duty for extracting money from the land losers. If they fail to pay the money, then we used to file a complaint against such persons. It is false to say that, accused No.3 Krishnappa has filed a complaint against me and my brother for forcing him to extract money.... It is false to say that myself and my brother were extracting money from KIADB officials, so they filed a complaint against us".
46. According to me, if this type of witnesses are allowed to speak in respect of complaint, on which a case has been registered, he can only show that either the complainant who lodged the complaint is not aware of its contents or the SHO or the Police Officer who received such complaint has mechanically registered and undertaken investigation without reading its legal implications. Whenever a false complaint is 69 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 lodged, the stakes are heavy. It is not only the precious time of the court and all is wasted by the law enforcing agencies, even the money involved in meeting the expenses causes burden on the exchequer. In the instant case, it was not the grievance of Rukmanghada that accused Nos.1 to 3 have illegally acted and helped the 3 rd accused to claim compensation. Moreover, what made PW. 4 is to suspect the fidelity of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is still not explained by him. Under such circumstances, at best, when the evidence of PW. 4 which is available for appreciation, when gone through, it conveys no meaning at all. When a person of this nature comes to the Court, without knowing Ex.D. 2 to 4 which are the notifications that have taken place in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 70 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of B.K.Palya, wherein 2 acres of land belonged to the 3rd accused was acquired by the KIADB, there is no question of contending that, that Sy.No. 40/358 of B.K.Halli are one and the same. So this evidence of PW. 4 on its careful analyzation is not fit to be accepted.
47. Coming to the evidence of PW. 5 by name Miss.N.Lakshmi, D/o Ningaiah, who was the Spl.Tahsildar when she gave evidence before this Court. According to this lady, in the year 2008, she was the manager in KIADB office and the 1st accused was the Spl. LAO. The Learned Public Prosecutor while addressing arguments repeatedly relied upon the evidence of this witness to show that when the evidences of PWs.4 and 5 are 71 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 taken together, the intention of accused Nos.1 to 3 can be gathered. According to this lady, in the capacity of a Manager, while she was verifying all the land acquisition files, she used to take notice of the fact as to whether verification done by the case worker was in order or not. Likewise, according to this lady, she claims that she used to cross- check the notes put up by the case worker and she used to place the file before the Spl.LAO. Her evidence revolves around the file of the 3rd accused, wherein she states that she came across the file of the 3 rd accused which was in respect of B.K.Palya which was for claiming compensation in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 7/P20. According to this lady, having checked the file, she noticed that there was a pending 72 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 proceedings before the Asst. Commissioner in respect of Prohibition of Transfer of Certain land. According to this lady, the name of the 3rd accused was not appearing in Joint Measurement Sketch. So, she returned that file to the concerned case worker with a direction to re-submit the same after going through the office objections.
48. According to this lady, she has sent a file i.e. proceedings in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 and through this lady Ex.P. 5 relevant entries at Ex.P. 5(a) and (b) came to be marked. The gist of this examination-in- chief is that as Ex.P. 5 office note was not ready for the 1st accused to have affixed his signature, she has sent the file to the case worker. Another aspect which was newly 73 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 highlighted by this witness is that she came to know that there was a pending proceedings before the Asst. Commissioner's office, which was in respect of Prohibition of Transfer of Ceiling Act. Now, as far as this aspect is concerned, no other witnesses have spoken about the same. Even in the evidence of PW.17, there should have been a reference to pending proceedings before the Asst. Commissioner. Now, these are all the doubts arising circumstances which might have made PW.3 register Ex.P.4 vide Ex.P.17. Now, the examination-in-chief of this PW.5 is to highlight before the Court that the 1 st accused has over looked the proceedings and released the compensation amount in favour of 3rd accused. But, coming to her cross- examination, the cat has come out of the 74 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 basket. It is because this witness completely took 'U' turn and gives the admission which is contrary to her examination-in-chief. Some of the admissions given by this lady is extracted as under:
" I am not remembering as to whether I have verified the acquisition records pertains to land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya or not. It is true that, in acquisition notification, there will be a mention of extent of proposed acquired land."
49. This reference to Ex.D. 2 to 4, because, accused Nos.1 and 2 have placed the preliminary and final notifications passed by the KIADB in respect of acquiring of the said land. Further, according to this lady, she does not know both Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya and Sy.No. 40/358 of B.K.Halli are acquired under separate notifications. 75
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 Likewise, according to this lady, she does not know that for what purpose those lands were acquired by the KIADB. So, this evidence of PW. 5 in stead of inspiring the confidence of the Court that Ex.P. 4, 17 are not tainted with malafide has only shown that this complainant PW. 3 has acted in a hurry and has registered the case only on the hearsay of PWs.4 & 5.
50. Coming to the evidence of PW. 6 by name B.M.Subbanna, who is the son of Muniyappa, according to this person, the 3 rd accused was his senior uncle and after the death of his father Muniyappa, all the family properties were transferred in the name of the 3rd accused. Again this witness does not give a clear picture in respect of Sy.No. 76 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. According to this person, they had filed a suit for partition against the 3rd accused and in that suit, an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No. 7 of B.K.Palya fell to their share. Subsequently, Sy.No. of that land was changed as Sy.No. 40.
51. According to me, again this is not only incorrect, but a misleading statement injected on the part of this witness. As I have stated earlier Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya is nothing to do with Sy.No. 40/358, they are two different villages, two different pieces of agricultural lands. This aspect he admits in his cross-examination. So, on one hand, they blow hot and on the another hand they blow cold. This type of evidences cannot 77 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 corroborate the contents of Ex.P. 4. As admitted by PW. 17 in his cross- examination, even though there was no allegation of over lapping of survey numbers in respect of issuance of compensation in favour of the 3rd accused in a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/-, but still the IO contends that he undertook investigation in that direction and filed a charge sheet. It is a matter of great surprise that when a complainant has no grievance in this regard, why should the IO has to conduct an investigation in some other direction which it is for PW. 17 to explain. Through this witness, material documents on the side of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Ex.D. 10 to 13 came to be confronted. The main admission of this witness is extracted as below:
78
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 " I do not know as to when the Sy.No. 7 of B.K.Palya was changed into Sy.No. 40 of B.K.Halli. I do not know the fact that the entire land in Sy.No. 40 of B.K.Halli was a Gomala Land."
52. So this witness's strength is only to mislead the Court. Finally, he also admits that this 3rd accused was owing 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya which later came to be acquired by KIADB and a compensation of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- was released in his favour. Looked from any angle, this evidence of PW. 6 is bereft of impress of truth.
53. Coming to the crucial evidence of another senior person by name Narayanappa, PW. 7, according to him, in the year 1950, the then Government has 79 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 allotted 4 acres of land in favour of his father in Sy.No. 7 of B.K.Palya. Again this witness states that it was changed to Sy.No. 40 of B.K.Halli. But, surprisingly this witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Ultimately, he denies all the suggestions of the Learned Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination and his statement came to be marked at Ex.P. 6. He admits that his father Thimmarayappa had executed a sale deed in favour of the 3rd accused to an extent of 2 acres and he had not filed any objections before the 1st accused in respect of releasing compensation in favour of the 3 rd accused. So, this limited evidence given by PW. 7 settles the score on hand and comes to the aid of the defence to show that there was no any act of deceitment, no person's 80 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 signature came to be forged, no documents were got up for the purpose of claiming compensation, there was no any criminal conspiracy and finally, both 1st and 2nd accused did not make use of any got up documents for the purpose of releasing compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/-
in favour of the 3rd accused.
54. Coming to the evidence of PW. 8 by name S.Ravikumar, who was the Revenue Inspector and according to him, he was a Village Accountant in Bandikodigehalli village in Jala Hobli at the relevant period. He also creates a doubt by giving evidence which are with major contradictions. According to this person, as per the revenue records, 4 acres of land in B.K.Palya was 81 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 allotted in the name of Thimmarayappa, father of Narayanappa, out of it, 2 acres was sold to the 3rd accused and according to this person, there was also change of Sy.No. in view of MR.No.15/96-97. According to this person, the remaining land in Sy.No. 7 which was allotted to Thimmarayappa was in Sy.No. 40 of B.K.Halli. But, in the cross- examination, all this examination-in-chief version of PW. 8 has been uprooted. Because, this witness was confronted with Ex.D. 8 which is the map containing the topography of B.K.Palya and B.K.Halli which are marked at Ex.D. 8(a) and (b). So by going through this Ex.D. 8, he gives answers that those villages are two different villages, so also the survey numbers. In fact, this PW. 8's mission was to support PWs.4, 5 and 7, but 82 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 this witness was unsuccessful in that errand.
55. Coming to the evidence of PW. 9 by name K.Ranganath, he was the Spl.LAO and according to him for the relevant period, he was working as a Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk and on 12-11-2010 he received a letter from the Karnataka Lokayuktha with respect to their Cr.No.46/2010 and he came to know that he has requested him to furnish some clarifications with respect to land in Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. Further, in his examination-in-chief, he got marked his report at Ex.P. 10 and his signature at Ex.P. 10(a). Even this witness tried to introduce a confusion in respect of two survey numbers, 83 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 by stating that they are one and the same and according to this person, the 1 st accused seems to have issued a cheque in respect of release of compensation amount without properly looking into the documents. But, in the cross-examination, he retracts this evidence and deposes that 2 acres of land of 3rd accused was acquired by the KIADB for the industrial purpose. Some of the admissions by this witness is extracted as under:
" It is true that the above said two survey numbers are in different village. It is true that, land survey No.7 of B.K.Palya and Sy.No. 40 of B.K.Halli are acquired by the Government under two separate acquisition proceedings. I do not know the fact that, compensation to the said lands are disbursed separately. It may be true that, the claimants in both the proceedings may be different."84
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
56. So, this witness's evidence is like a cat sitting on the fence. He also gives evidence that compensation to the 3rd accused was released on the basis of forged documents, but, immediately having realized that he is inviting trouble by deposing such new facts to which he has no evidence, he retracts the said evidence. Likewise, according to this witness, he does not rely upon Ex.D. 8, but on the other hand, he admits that 2 acres of land at B.K.Palya in Sy.No. 7/P20 was acquired by KIAD, this evidence which is full of contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies, so definitely not safe for this Court to rely upon.
57. Coming to the evidence of PW. 10 Ramamurthy, S/o Muniyappa who claims to 85 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 be the grand son of Venkatramanappa, according to this person, there was an acquisition proceedings in respect of B.K.Halli lands and 1 acre 20 guntas of land was acquired by the KIADB about 10 years ago and they received a compensation of Rs. 46 lakhs, but this aspect is not in dispute. This evidence looked from any angle may not show that the 1st accused has released compensation in favour of the 3rd accused to the land which has already been acquired and compensation was released.
58. Coming to another evidence of PW. 11, Abdul Kayum, who was the retired Spl.D.C. further has shown that even this witness does not possess the material information and has not looked into the records 86 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 pertaining to these two survey numbers. According to this person, Lokayuktha had called him to narrate the procedure to be followed while acquiring the lands to KIADB. He gave Ex.P. 11 to 13. Further, according to this person, he admits that 2 acres of land of the 3rd accused was acquired by the KIADB. He also goes through Ex.P. 5 which is the order sheet, identified Ex.P. 5(a). But, in the cross-examination, he admits that compensation prices will be fixed by the land fixation committee under the Chairmanship of the D.C. In fact this is the crux of the matter. So far as acquired land by the KIADB is concerned, the land fixation committee had fixed the compensation, in turn it will be released by the Spl.D.C. While releasing the compensation amount, 87 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 indemnity bond will be taken and the important admission given by this witness is extracted as follows:
" It may be true that there are two separate notifications with regard to Sy.No.7/P20 of B.K.Palya and 40/358 of B.K.Halli village".
59. Coming to the evidence of PW. 12 by name Narayanappa, he admits that Sy.No. 7/P20 earlier had 4 acres of land and out of which 2 acres was sold to 3rd accused. This witness completely turns hostile, denies his statement at Ex.P. 14 and does not support the prosecution.
60. So far as the evidence of PW. 13 by name Muniyappa is to show before the Court that he is the resident of B.K.Palya, but failed to remember or depose in respect of 88 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 his own agricultural land and its survey number. According to this witness, he has not given any statement in this case to the Lokayuktha police.
61. Another witness by name Muniraju has been examined as PW. 14 who claims to be the son of PW. 8 and according to him, he was cultivating the lands at Sy.No. 20 of B.K.Palya and this witness evidence was to show that there was such land in Sy.No. 7/P20. But, according to me, even this brief evidence of PW. 14 is of not much help to the prosecution.
62. So far as the evidence of PW. 15 C.L.Ningaraju is concerned, he is the Survey Supervisor attached to the Yelahanka Taluk 89 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 Office and he was on deputation to the Karnataka Lokayuktha. He was directed to visit Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya along with the Lokayuktha Inspector and he spoke about Ex.P. 5(b). According to this witness, he has also submitted his report vide Ex.P.
15. But, this evidence is in no way helpful to substantiate the contents of Ex.P. 4.
63. Next evidence is that of one B.R.Rangaswamy PW. 16, who was the mahazar witness to Ex.P. 16 and spoke about how he assisted the Lokayuktha police in drawing the panchanama while seizing office files. As this Ex.P. 16 panchanama is not in dispute and in the cross-examination of PW. 17, it is elicited by the defence counsel that all the 16 files seized by PW. 3 90 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 does not pertain to Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. But, it makes no sense that whether they have seized those documents in connection with this case or not.
64. Lastly, there are two important witnesses on the side of defence. The DW.1 is T.R.Swamy who was the Chief Engineer with KIADB, through him Ex.D. 8 came to be marked. As I have said earlier, this Ex.D. 8 is the Taluk Map which has got Ex.D. 8(a) and (b) i.e. Bandi Kodige Palya and Bandi Kodige Halli villages. When Ex.D. 8 is gone through, the location of Sy.No. 7/P20 and Sy.No. 40/358 can be made out. Even though the Learned Public Prosecutor made attempts to impeach the credit worthiness of DW. 1 but could not succeed for the simple 91 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 reason that this Ex.D. 8 is issued by the competent revenue authority and i.e. is an authenticated village map.
65. Coming to the evidence of DW. 2 by name H.S.Ramakrishna, who is the 1st accused whose examination-in-chief is to speak in respect of Ex.D. 4 to D.41. So far as Ex.D. 14 to 25 are concerned, they are 12 separate RTCs in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya which show his name. Likewise, Ex.D. 26 is the joint survey sketch and Takthe and Ex.D. 27 and 39 are in respect of Sy.No. 40/358. Lastly, Ex.D. 40 is the Sec.28(5) final notification of the KIADB notifying Sy.No. 7/P20 was belonged to this witness. Ex.D.41 is the Akarband extract of Sy.No. 7/P20. I should say Ex.D. 14 to 42 92 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 evidentiary value are intact because as on today, they have not been set aside in accordance with law. So, the presumption is that they are the lawful entries which have not been assailed by anybody muchless PW. 5 to 8. So, in the cross-examination, the main suggestion that the 1st accused has released the compensation amount in a sum of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in favour of the 3rd accused illegally is meaningless and baseless. I should say Ex.P. 4 is a document on which a criminal law is set in motion, but definitely it is on a wrong footing. Under such circumstances, none of the ingredients of cheating, forging, creating and concocting documents, making a person to believe the got up documents as a genuine documents and causing huge loss to the exchequer. All 93 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 these aspects does not arise at all. Ex.P.4 and P.17 has been lodged and acted upon on an imaginary and illusory basis. Accordingly, I have answered points No.2 to 6 in the negative.
POINT NO.7:-
66. Coming to the role of 1st and 2nd accused, who were the public servants when the charge sheet was filed, for that reason the prosecution has invoked Sec.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations against them is that both accused Nos.1 and 2 dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of 94 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 his office. Now, having gone through the other allegations made against the 3rd accused in particularly that accused Nos.1 and 2 facilitated the 3rd accused to run away with a booty of Rs. 1,24,00,000/-, which being the compensation amount, thereby both accused Nos.1 and 2 have alleged to have abused and misused their public office.
But, this entire allegation falls like heap of cards, because when the entire evidence of PW. 17 is gone through, which is more than enough to form an opinion that, the wrong direction in which the investigation has taken place is nothing to do with the role of accused Nos.1 and 2.
67. The PW.17 in his cross-examination not only admits that when he gone through the 95 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 contents the Ex.P. 4, there was no allegation of overlapping of survey numbers and also the 3rd accused claiming compensation on false grounds. Likewise, it is admitted by this PW.17 that Government will not fund for KIADB for releasing compensation. On the other hand, KIADB gets its own source by selling the acquired land to entrepreneurs and that sale consideration will be made use for paying compensation. This settles the score on hand that there cannot be any loss to the State exchequer.
68. So far as the roles of PWs.4 to 7 are concerned, they have indirectly incited or rather made PW. 3 to lodge baseless Ex.P. 4 only to see that this case is filed against accused Nos.1 to 3. This PW.17 makes it 96 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 very clear that neither in Ex.P. 4 nor in Ex.P. 17 was there any specific allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2. Even so far as Ex.P. 21 to 23 are concerned, which are the different mahazars drawn at the house of the 1st accused at Vasanthanagar and another spot panchanama was drawn at the office chambers of the 1st accused and 3 mahazar was drawn when Ex.P. 5 was seized. It is the evidence of PW,17 that in none of the files seized by him i.e. totally 9 files and 16 files seized by PW. 3, they were not in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. Under such circumstances, the claim of the prosecution that the 1st and 2nd accused helped the 3rd accused to commit a day time robbery is unfounded. I should say, when on a thorough distillation of entire evidence of 97 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 PW. 17 when gone through, it is without any impress of truth, but only has shown that the investigation has been undertaken to an issue which is not at all the grievance of anybody, muchless PW. 3. In fact, in Ex.P. 4 and in the examination-in-chief of PW. 3, there is one consistent evidence and averment that he suspected the 1 st accused in respect of releasing of compensation amount. But, he failed to explain as to why did he suspect the 1st accused and on what basis. Likewise, both PWs.3 and 17 made a mess in making allegations against the 2nd accused. The role of 2nd accused so far as releasing the compensation amount or in respect of Ex.P. 5 is not properly specified. Even if we were to bank upon the evidence of PW. 5, Miss.Lakshmi, as I have already 98 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 stated that even though in her examination- in-chief she spoke in high sounded voice as to how wrongly office note was put in Ex.P.
5. But, in the cross-examination, she clearly admits that she does not possess information in respect of land acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 of B.K.Palya. Even though the prosecution has got marked many documents but it failed to prove the same. It is a settled law that mere marking of documents or not examining executants of those documents can only show that those documents are not proved. In this regard, I rely upon decisions reported in LAWS (KAR) 2016 (2) 292; STATE VS. GURUMALLAPPA and LAWS (SC) 2011 (1) 102; ALAMELU VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE.
99
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
69. So far as evidence of PWs.4 and 6 to 8 looked more as tutored witnesses than a natural witnesses. Looked from any angle there was no iota of truth or semblance between the allegations contained in Ex.P. 4 and the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution. When the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and material documents at Ex.D. 2 to D.41 are gone through, they have shown that two lands were different lands, having different survey numbers, situated at different villages, acquired under different notifications for different public purposes. So, the claim of the prosecution that the 3rd accused was made to enrich by claiming compensation twice is unfounded. So, the prosecution has failed to prove that both 1st and 2nd accused 100 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 have misused their public office and involved in such alleged illegal activities which amounted to criminal misconduct. According, I answer this point No.7 in the negative.
POINT NO.8:-
70. Having gone through the materials, it has only shown that what can cause the colossal damage if application of mind is not present either in registering the complaint or undertaking investigation on a wrong footing. The available documents have shown that there was no rhyme of reason for PW. 3 to suspect accused Nos.1 to 3 that they have committed the alleged offences. Moreover, when the Chief Executive Officer in his report has stated that release of 101 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 compensation by the accused No.1 in favour of the 3rd accused was legal, virtual, it has put an end this issue on hand. Hence, having found demerit, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R The accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences alleged against them.
The accused No.3 died during the pendency of this proceedings, so this criminal case has abated against that accused.
Acting under Sec.235 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.13(1)
(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention 102 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail and the Surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand hereby discharged.
The interim order passed by this Court giving the interim custody of the properties/amount found in the bank account in favour of the applicant dtd. 03-01- 2012 will become absolute after completion of the appeal period. (Dictated to the judgment-writer, transcripted by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th DAY OF APRIL 2022).
(S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
103
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 A NN E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : T.Shyam Bhat
PW.2 : K.P.Mohan Raj.
PW.3 : K.C.Lakshminarayana
PW.4 : Munegowda
PW.5 : N.Lakshmi
PW.6 : B.M.Subbanna.
PW.7 : Narayanappa
PW.8 : S.Ravi Kumar
PW.9 : K.Ranganath
PW.10 : B.M.Ramamurthy
PW.11 : Abdul Kayyam
PW.12 : Narayanappa
PW.13 : Muniyappa
PW.14 : Muniraju
PW.15 : C.L.Ningaraju
PW.16 : B.R.Rangaswamy
PW.17 : B.N.Krishnamurthy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Letter written by PW. 1.
Ex.P.2 : Sanction order to A2.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW. 1.
Ex.P.3 : Sanction order to A1
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW. 2
Ex.P.4 : Complaint
Ex.P.4(a &b) : Signatures of PW. 3 & 17
Ex.P.5 : File pertains to the proceedings of land
in Sy.No. 7/P20.
104
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
Ex.P.5(a & b) : Office Note Nos.13 & 57
Ex.P.5(c to e) : Signatures of PW. 16 on page 70 & PW. 16 on page No.135 & signature of PW. 17.
Ex.P.5(A& B) RTC at page No.113 & page No.106 to : 114 of C/S Ex.P.6 : 161 statement of PW. 7. Ex.P.7 : Attested copy of M.R.No.15/96-97 Ex.P.8 : Attested copy of M.R.No.16/96-97 Ex.P.9 : Attested copy of M.R.No.17/96-97 Ex.P.10 : Report given by PW. 9 Ex.P.10(a &b) Signatures of PW. 9 & 17 Ex.P.11 : Letter of PW. 11.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.12 : Report of PW.11 Ex.P.13 : Detail Report of PW. 11 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW. 11 Ex.P.14 : 161 statement of PW. 12 Ex.P.15 : Inspection report given by PW. 15
Ex.P.15(a to d) Signatures of PW. 15, CW.27, CW28 and CW29 Ex.P.16 : Documents seized panchanama Ex.P.16(a & b) Signatures of PW. 16 & 17 Ex.P.17 : FIR Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.18 & 20 : Requisitions Ex.P.18(a) & Signature of PW. 17 20(a) Ex.P.19 : Search Warrant.
Ex.P.19(a to d) Signatures of PW 17, accused, Prashanth and Puttarudrappa. Ex.P.21 : A1 house search mahazar Ex.P.21(a to d) Signature of PW. 17, accused, Prashant and Puttarudrappa.
Ex.P.22 : A1 Office search mahazar 105 Spl.C.C. No.133/2011 Ex.P.22(a to c) : Signatures of PW. 17, Prashant and Puttarudrappa.
Ex.P.23 : File seized mahazar. Ex.P.23(a to d) : Signatures of Prasanth, puttarudrappa, H.R.Ravi and PW. 17 Ex.P.24 : Documents of files handed over to Ravishankar.
Ex.P.25 : Covering letter from Sr.Registrar. Ex.P.25(a) : Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.26 : Certified copy of Deed. Ex.P.27 : A3 bank account details from Kalpatharu Grameena Bank.
Ex.P.28 : Written explanation of A1 Ex.P.28(a & b) : Signature of A1 & PW17 Ex.P.29 : Covering letter of Lakshminarayana. Ex.P.29(a) : Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.30 : Copies of file of Ramu and Subbanna. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
NIL.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.1 : T.R.Swamy
DW2 : H.S.Ramakrishna.
106
Spl.C.C. No.133/2011
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Photo copy taken from computer. Ex.D.2 : CC of preliminary notification of KIADB Ex.D.3 : CC of proceedings of KIADB Ex.D.4 : CC of final notification of KIADB Ex.D.5 : Copy of document issued by the CEO Ex.D.6 : Mutation register extract Ex.D.7 : Claim form for compensation Ex.D.8 : CC of survey map Ex.D.8(A & B) : Sy.No.7 & 40 of Map Ex.D.9 : Copy of DC Order .
Ex.D.10 : Copy of Notice of RR. Ex.D.11 : Copy of Report of V.A. Ex.D.12 : Copy of report of surveyor. Ex.D.13 : Copy of list of lands in B.K.halli. Ex.D.14 TO 25 : RTCs. Of Sy.No. 7/P20 Ex.D.26 : Original Joint survey sketch & Thakte.
Ex.D.27 TO 39 : RTCs. Pertaining to Sy.No. 40/358 Ex.D.40 : Attested copy of final notification. Ex.D.41 : Extract of Akarbhandh in respect of Sy.No. 7/P20 Ex.D.42 : Extract of Akarbhandh in respect of Sy.No. 40 of B.K.Halli.
(S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.