Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Prathap.B on 22 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.A.), BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.79)
Present: Sri.Ravindra Hegde, M.A., LL.M.,
LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C.A.), Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 22nd day of APRIL 2019
Special C.C. No.161/2017
Complainant: State of Karnataka, represented by
Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: Prathap.B
S/o Late Balaraj,
Aged about 33 years,
Assistant Revenue Officer,
Arakere Sub-Division (Incharge),
Subzonal Office, BBMP,
Bangalore.
R/at No.289, 2nd H Cross,
3rd Main, 3rd Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
(By Sri.Raghunath, Advocate)
Date of commission of offence 19.10.2015
Date of report of occurrence 21.10.2015
Date of arrest of accused 21.10.2015
Date of release of accused on 03.11.2015
bail
Date of commencement of 07.03.2018
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 28.03.2019
2 Spl.C.C.161/2017
Name of the complainant Pradeep.H.R.
Offences complained of Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act
Opinion of the Judge Convicted
Date of Judgment 22.04.2019
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has filed this charge sheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (In short PC Act).
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
Accused-B.Prathap is working as Assistant Revenue Officer in Arakere Sub Division, BBMP, Bengaluru and is a public servant. Maruthikumar S/o Anjanappa was owner of 32 guntas in Sy.No.69/1 in Hulimavu Village and for change of Khatha in his name in BBMP records, Maruthi Kumar had authorised complainant - Pradeep.H.R. to make correspondence with BBMP. On 24.09.2015 complainant went to Arakere Sub-Division,Ward No.195 of BBMP, Bengaluru and met accused who is Assistant Revenue Officer and submitted the documents. Even after 20 days, Khatha was not entered. On 19.10.2015, complainant again met accused and gave DD for Rs.8,09,670/- towards betterment charges. On that day 3 Spl.C.C.161/2017 accused told that they take Rs.1,50,000/- for entering Khatha of one acre and asked complainant to pay Rs.1,00,000/-.
Complainant informed that he will ask his uncle Maruthikumar and thereafter on 20.10.2015, complainant come to the office of accused at 4.00 p.m, but accused was not there. Thereafter, he made phone call to mobile number of accused and informed that he will be giving half of the demanded amount i.e., Rs.50,000/- and accused asked him to bring the amount at 1.00 P.M. on 21.10.2015 and complainant informed that between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. he will bring the amount. Complainant recorded his conversation with accused and got it transmitted to C.D and as complainant was not interested to give bribe, he gave complaint against accused on 21.10.2015 and also produced C.D. On receiving the complaint, Lokayuktha police Inspector registered the case in Cr.No.69/16 and submitted F.I.R. to the Court. Lokayukta Police Inspector secured panchas and made all arrangements to trap accused and on the same day between 3.25 p.m. to 3.35 p.m. in the office of Assistant Revenue Officer in Arakere Sub Division, BBMP, Bengaluru when accused received tainted notes of Rs.50,000/- as bribe from complainant, accused was caught. Tainted notes received by accused were seized and trap procedure was followed and accused was arrested and produced before Court. Investigating Officer continued investigation and after completion of investigation and after securing prosecution sanction order, filed charge 4 Spl.C.C.161/2017 sheet against accused.
3. Cognizance of offences is taken by this Court. Accused appeared and is enlarged on bail. Copies of charge sheet and its enclosures are furnished to Accused. After hearing both sides regarding framing of charge and having found prima- facie materials, charge is framed against accused and read over to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 8 are examined. Exs.P1 to P.28 are marked. M.O.1 to M.O.14 are also marked for the prosecution.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of Accused, as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused has denied incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. Now, Points that arise for my consideration are:-
1)Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, Accused being public servant, working as Assistant Revenue Officer, Arakere Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, has on 19.10.2015, when complainant enquired about the work of entering Khatha in the name of C.W.10-Maruthi Kumar in respect of 32 guntas in Sy.No.69/1 in Hulimavu Village for 5 Spl.C.C.161/2017 which complainant had produced necessary documents on behalf of C.W.10, had demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration for entering Khatha and on 21.10.2015 between 3.25 p.m. to 3.35 p.m. in the office of Assistant Revenue Officer, Arakere Sub-Division, he again demanded and then accepted Rs.50,000/- tainted notes from complainant as a motive or reward to do official act or official favour to complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused being public servant working as Assistant Revenue Officer, Arakere Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, has on 21.10.2015 between 3.25 p.m to 3.35 p.m, in the office of Assistant Revenue officer, Arakere Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru by abusing his position as public servant by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.50,000/- without public interest, from complainant and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
3) What Order?
8. My findings on the above Points are:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, Point No.3: As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS 6 Spl.C.C.161/2017
9. Point No.1 & 2 : Since these Points are inter-linked with each other, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
10. To prove the charge against Accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has examined eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8. P.W.1-.Pradeep.H.R. is the complainant. P.W.4, Maruthi Kumar is the owner of the property, who entrusted the work of getting Khatha to P.W.1. P.W.2-Parashivamurthy.L.R. is the shadow witness. P.W.3- Chandrashekar.K. is the higher officer of accused who is said to have identified the voice of accused in the recordings played before him. P.W.5-Smt.Srividya is the Incharge Assistant Director, FSL, Bengaluru and is the person who has conducted scientific investigation in respect of voice of accused in the recordings and submitted the report by comparing sample voice of accused with questioned voice sent to her. P.W.6-Stanley is Nodal Officer of Bharathi Airtel Limited who has issued call details and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. P.W.8-Kempegowda is the Lokayuktha police Inspector at the relevant time and Investigating Officer in this case. P.W.7-Sunil Kumar.M. was also Lokayuktha police Inspector at the relevant time who has submitted charge sheet before the Court.
11. On behalf of the prosecution, documents at Exs.P1 to P.28 are marked. Ex.P1 is complaint and Ex.P.17 is the F.I.R.
7 Spl.C.C.161/2017 Ex.P.2 is the sheet containing number of currency notes. Pre- trap Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.3. Trap Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.4. House search mahazar is marked as Ex.P.5. The sample voice recording mahazar is marked as Ex.P.6. The consent letter given by P.W.4 to P.W.1 authorising him to approach BBMP on his behalf is marked as Ex.P.7. Report given by P.W.3 on voice identification is marked as Ex.P.9. Attested copy of file pertaining to work of P.W.4 seized in this case is marked as Ex.P.10. Prosecution Sanction Order is marked as Ex.P.11 with consent. Service details of accused is also marked as Ex.P.12. Certificate given by complainant under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to C.D produced by him is marked as Ex.P.8. The report of FSL regarding voice identification is marked as Ex.P.13. Call details of mobile number of accused is marked as Ex.P.15 and the certificate given by Nodal Officer under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P.16. The transcriptions of recordings in the CD produced by complainant is marked as Ex.P.18 and copy of attendance register of accused is marked as Ex.P.19. The spot sketch is marked as Ex.P.20 and the recordings in the digital voice recorder at the time of trap is marked as Ex.P.21. Written explanation given by accused is marked as Ex.P.22. Specimen seal is marked as Ex.P.14 and acknowledgment given by C.W.3 on receiving the seal is marked as Ex.P.23 and requisition given by Investigating Officer to the Court for correction of number of currency notes 8 Spl.C.C.161/2017 is marked as Ex.P.24. The sample voice transcription is marked as Ex.P.25. The Chemical Examination Report is marked as Ex.P.26 and certificate given by P.W.8- Investigating Officer under section 65B is marked as Ex.P.27 and the sketch prepared by Engineer is marked as Ex.P.28. M.O.1 to 14 are also marked for the prosecution. M.O.1 is tainted notes of Rs.50,000/- seized in this case. M.O.2 is the pant of accused. The bottles containing solution taken at different stages of proceedings are marked as M.O.4 to 10. The C.D's are marked as M.O.3 and 11 to 14.
12. The Prosecution Sanction Order issued by competent authority is not disputed by accused and is marked with consent as Ex.P.11. Since Prosecution Sanction Order is marked with consent, validity of the same need not be considered again.
13. The prosecution case stems from complaint given by P.W.1 to Lokayukta police as per Ex.P.1 stating that P.W.4, who is owner of 32 guntas in Sy.No.69/1 of Hulimavu Village had entrusted the work of getting Khata entered in BBMP records to him and when he approached Accused-Assistant Revenue Officer and gave DD for betterment Charges, accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and during phone call, PW.1 agreed to give Rs.50,000/- and Accused asked him to bring the amount on 21.10.2015 and as P.W.1 was not interested in giving bribe, he gave complaint. After registration of the case, P.W.8 secured two panchas as P.W.2 and C.W.3 in office and 9 Spl.C.C.161/2017 C.D. produced by complainant was played and recordings in the C.D. was transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.18 and copy of the C.D. was also taken. Complainant produced Rs.50,000/- in denomination of Rs.1000X50 as the amount brought by him to give as bribe to accused. After verifying the amount and after noting down the number of currency notes as per Ex.P.2, Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on notes and P.W.2 has verifed the notes and then kept it in the right side front pant pocket of P.W.1 and thereafter his hands were washed in solution and solution turned to pink colour and it was seized in bottle. P.W.1 was given instructions by P.W.8 to meet accused and to enquire about his work and give tainted notes only in case of demand and after giving amount to flash signal by wiping his face with kerchief. P.W.1 was also given voice recorder with instructions to switch on the same while meeting accused. P.W.2 was instructed to follow P.W.1 as shadow witness and to observe the happenings and to report later. Pre-trap proceedings was videographed and then transmitted to C.D. Pre-trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.3 and Signatures were taken.
14. After pre-trap mahazar, trap team went towards office of accused in Government vehicle. After reaching near office of accused at a distance of 200 meters, vehicles were parked at around 3.00 P.M. After reminding the instructions and instructing PW.1 to switch on digital voice recorder, P.W.1 and 2 were sent to meet accused. Other members of trap 10 Spl.C.C.161/2017 team scattered themselves near the office of accused and waited for signal. P.W.1 went to meet accused in his office at about 3.20 p.m. P.W.2 followed him. P.W.1 went inside the office, he met accused and wished him and accused took P.W.1 to room in which Dasara Pooja was going on. Both participated in pooja and thereafter accused brought P.W.1 out of the office and there, P.W.1 enquired about his work and accused asked him to come on Wednesday. P.W.1 told him that he has brought the amount and then accused asked him to give the amount. Then P.W.1 gave tainted notes and accused took it in right hand and kept it through left hand in his left side front pant pocket. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave signal to the trap team and trap team came there and P.W.1 shown accused who was on his side, as the person who demanded and received the tainted notes. Trap team surrounded accused and P.W.8 introduced him to accused and ascertained his details and informed the purpose of visit. Then sodium carbonate solution was prepared in bowls near compound in front of Office of Assistant Revenue Officer and after taking sample from the solution, both hands of accused were immersed separately and the solution turned to pink colour and it was seized in bottles. On questioning about the amount, accused informed that he kept the amount in pant pocket and P.W.2 took out the tainted notes from pant pocket of accused and number of notes tallied with Ex.P.2 and amount was seized by keeping in a cover. P.W.8 enquired 11 Spl.C.C.161/2017 about the file pertaining to work of P.W.4 and accused shown the file which was with case worker Hanumanthappa and said file was taken and after taking attested copy of the same as per Ex.P.10, original file was returned. Copy of Attendance Register was also taken. Recordings in the digital voice recorder was transmitted to C.D and transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.21 and signatures were taken. P.W.3- K.Chandrashekar, Revenue Officer was secured and before him recordings in the voice recorder and copy of C.D. produced by complainant while giving complaint were played and after hearing the recordings, he has identified the voice of accused and gave report as per Ex.P.9. Thereafter, C.Ds were seized. On questioning, accused gave written explanation as per Ex.P.22 and written explanation was found not acceptable. Trap proceedings were videographed and transmitted to C.D. Since several public present in Assistant Revenue Officer's office were complaining about demand of bribe by accused for doing their work, P.W.8-Investigating Officer has searched the room of accused and found some un-attended files and taken the copy of the same. Thereafter, accused was arrested by following procedure and Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.4 and signatures were taken and copy of the mahazar was furnished to accused.
15. It is also the Prosecution case that, as P.W.8 suspected about accused keeping huge amount and documents pertaining to properties in his house, he has 12 Spl.C.C.161/2017 decided to conduct search of the house and then entire trap team went to the house of accused and search was conducted and mahazar was drawn as per Ex.p.5. Thereafter, P.W.8 continued investigation and on 20.11.2015 by securing panch witnesses and accused, sample voice of accused was recorded and seized in C.D. and mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.6 and signatures were taken. In the course of investigation, P.W.8 collected certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act from P.W.1 as per Ex.P.8 in respect of C.D. produced by him. In the course of investigation, P.W.8 has collected Call details of mobile number of accused and also certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act from P.W.6, marked as per Ex.P.15 and 16. P.W.8 sent sample voice recordings in C.D. to the Forensic Lab along with the C.D. produced by complainant while giving complaint and also the C.D. containing voice recordings at the time of trap seeking experts opinion on voice comparison. P.W.5 has conducted scientific examination of recordings in the C.D. sent to her and then gave report as per Ex.P.13 by holding that the sample speeches recorded in the C.D. to sent her are similar to the respective speeches of Prathap recorded in the two other C.D's sent to her and thereby opined that sample voice and questioned voice are similar. P.W.8 issued certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the C.D. of sample voice and CD of video recordings at the time of pre- trap and Trap as per Ex.P.27. After completion of 13 Spl.C.C.161/2017 investigation, P.W.8 prepared final report and submitted the same for obtaining Prosecution Sanction Order. After obtaining Prosecution Sanction Order as per Ex.P.11, P.W.7 has filed charge sheet.
16. P.W.1-Complainant has stated the prosecution case in his chief evidence. Except minor deviations here and there, entire prosecution case has been reiterated by this witness. He has stated about entrustment of work by PW.4 to him for getting khatha in respect of 32 guntas in Sy.No.69/1 and he approaching accused and accused demanding bribe. PW.1 has also stated about giving complaint and also about pre-trap proceedings. He has also stated about trap proceedings and has stated that he met accused in his cabin and he enquired about his work with accused and accused asked whether he brought the amount and then he gave amount to accused and accused kept it in his pant pocket and has also stated about subsequent events. P.W.1 has stated that he met accused in his cabin and there, accused received tainted notes. Whereas, as per prosecution case after attending pooja, accused brought P.W.1 outside the office and there, he received tainted notes. Except this minor contradiction, P.W.1 has reiterated prosecution case in his chief evidence. In his cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that though, date of application for Khata seen in page No.161 of charge sheet is mentioned as 27.08.2012, it was given in 2015. He has stated 14 Spl.C.C.161/2017 that he do not know that P.W.4 was asked to pay Rs.62,232/- towards tax, apart from betterment charges. He has stated that on 19.10.2015 he met accused and after giving DD, accused asked for bribe amount. He has stated that on 20.10.2015 he could not meet accused in his office but he talked to him by phone. He has stated that, accused has received tainted notes after coming out from office and thereafter, he gave signal by coming outside the building. He has also stated that, accused has received the amount at the place shown as passage in the sketch and P.W.2 was behind him. He has admitted that on 21.10.2015 Lokayuktha police told him to come after festival and collect khata which will be entered in the name of C.W.10 and he has stated that, himself and C.W.10 had gone to BBMP on Thursday in the next week and took original Khata. Questions are also asked about complaint given by complainant against different public servants. PW.1 has denied that, on 21.10.2015 he went to office of accused and asked him to waive off the tax amount and offered to give some amount and kept the tainted notes in the hands of accused and also denied that while he coming out of the office to give signal, accused also came behind him, by stating that he will not receive amount. He has admitted that when Lokayuktha police came, accused was outside the office as shown in the sketch of Engineer.
17. P.W.2 is shadow witness and he has also supported the prosecution case. He has stated about his presence at 15 Spl.C.C.161/2017 the time of P.W.1 giving tainted notes to accused in the Varandah and accused keeping it in his left side front pant pocket. In Trap mahazar, it is not mentioned that, accused after receiving amount has kept it in left side pant pocket. Except this minor deviation, P.W.2 has reiterated the prosecution case. He has has also stated about voice sample recordings mahazar drawn in the Lokayuktha Office taking sample voice of accused. He has stated that, he has seen the accused keeping the amount in the pant pocket. In his cross- examination, he has stated that, after attending Ayudha Pooja in the office, accused came to varandah with PW.1 within 10 minutes and he has not heard the conversation between them. He has stated that he has seen the accused receiving tainted notes from PW.1.
18. P.W.4-Maruti Kumar has stated that he is owner of 32 gunts of land and he had given authorisation to P.W.1 to get the khata entered in his name and later he came to know that for entering Khata, BBMP officials are demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/- and he gave Rs.50,000/- to PW.1 but objected for giving bribe. In his cross-examination, he has stated that before issuing Ex.P.7, he had not entrusted work to P.W.1. Notice given by BBMP for payment of property tax dues are admitted by witness and stated that he had entrusted the work of paying betterment charges and property tax dues to P.W.1.
19. P.W.3-Chandrashekar. K., higher Officer of accused 16 Spl.C.C.161/2017 has stated about playing C.D. before him and he identifying voice of accused and submitting report as per Ex.P.9 and also about furnishing mobile number of accused to the Lokayuktha police. He has also stated about attested copies of file which are found in page No.134 to 195 of charge sheet and produced as per Ex.P.10. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Khata was entered in the name of Maruti Kumar on 31.10.2013, he has admitted that as on date of trap, no Khata entry work of Maruti Kumar was pending in Arakere Sub-Division. He has admitted that, he has not undergone any training in voice identification.
20. P.W.5-Smt.Srividya is the incharge Assistant Director of FSL, who has stated about comparing sample voice sent to her with the questioned voice in two CD's and submitted the report as per Ex.P.13 stating that voice in sample speech is similar to the questioned voice in the C.D's. In her cross- examination, she denied that in the absence of original device, voice cannot be identified and it cannot be stated, whether C.D's were concocted.
21. P.W.6-Stanley is the Nodal Officer in Bharathi Airtel Limited, who has furnished Call details and also Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He has stated about issuing Call details in respect of mobile No.9972631035 and about giving certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.15 and 16. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is custodian of main server and he is only Nodal officer of 17 Spl.C.C.161/2017 entire state. He has admitted that location details is not mentioned in Ex.P.15 and number of computer or laptop are not mentioned in Ex.P.16.
22. P.W.8-Lokayuktha police Inspector has stated about investigation done by him including registration of the case. In his cross-examination he has admitted that issuing of Ex.P.7, authorisation by P.W.4 is not mentioned in complaint. He has stated that complainant had not produced any mobile containing conversation with accused on 19.10.2015 or 20.10.2015. He denied that, when complainant was coming out of office of accused to give signal, accused was also coming behind him. He has admitted that when he went inside the office of accused, accused was standing in varandah and they surrounded him. PW.8 admitted that, file pertaining to work of P.W.2 was secured from P.W.4- Hanumanthaiah. He has admitted that, on 05.11.2013, P.W.4 was asked to pay Rs.62,232/- towards tax dues and he do not know whether this amount was paid. He has admitted that as per the file seized at the time of trap, work of P.W.4 of entering Khata was already done. P.W.7 has stated about filing of charge sheet after receiving Prosecution Sanction Order.
23. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has to prove that accused being a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Prosecution must also prove that demand and acceptance of 18 Spl.C.C.161/2017 illegal gratification is for doing some official act or for doing official favour to complainant. Under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, there is a presumption available in respect of offence under section 7. The benefit of presumption can be extended in favour of prosecution and onus can be shifted upon accused only when prosecution discharges initial burden of proving that accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Under Section 13(1)(d), accused receiving pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or receiving any pecuniary advantage without any public interest would constitute the offence.
24. In a decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2080 (B.Jayaraj Vs State of Andra Pradesh) relied for accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para No.7 and 8 as under:-
"7.In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. ...".
"8. ... Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section7. The above also will be 19 Spl.C.C.161/2017 conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established"
In view of these observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, case of prosecution is to be appreciated.
25. According to prosecution, P.W.4 is owner of 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.69/1 and he entrusted the work of getting Khata entered in his name in BBMP to P.W.2 through authorisation letter, Ex.P.7. Since, accused was Assistant Revenue officer in Arakere Sub-Division, work of P.W.4 was pending before accused. To prove demand of bribe, prosecution must also show that some work of complainant was pending before accused, as, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for doing official act or for doing official favour would be essential for the offence u/s 7. During trap proceedings, file pertaining to work of P.W.4 was seized from the office of accused as per Ex.P.10. It is mentioned that when Investigating Officer enquired accused about the file, accused directed Revenue Inspector-Hanumanthaih and file which was with the case worker was produced before Investigating Officer. Admittedly, file was not with Accused, as, it was produced by Revenue Inspector, through case worker. Ex.P.10 file disclose several proceedings and actions which have taken place in respect of this property of PW.4. It 20 Spl.C.C.161/2017 show that application for Khata registration was given on 20.1.2012 and in 2013 orders have been passed by Joint Commissioner for registration of Khata subject to conditions. File also disclose that a DD for Rs.8,09,670/- dated 16.10.2015 was given by P.W.4 in name of Commissioner, BBMP, towards Betterment charges. Notice dated 25.09.2014 signed by present accused directing PW.4 to pay Rs.8,09,665.42/- is also seen in page no.143 appearing in Ex.P.10 file. Though it is suggested in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses about tax of Rs.62,232/- payable by P.W.4, in this notice signed by Accused, payment of Betterment charges is only mentioned. Only in Registration of Khata, tax to be paid is mentioned and this is dated 31.10.2013 and there are no materials produced by accused to show that these tax dues were not cleared by P.W.4 earlier.
26. Ex.P.10 show that on the basis of Registration of Khata in 2013, A Khata was not issued in the name of P.W.4 and for getting A Khata, PW.4 had approached Assistant Revenue Officer of Arakere Sub-Division and he had given application and had also produced DD towards betterment charges. Therefore, work of issuing A Khata after receiving Betterment charges was pending as on the date of Trap. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is suggested and admitted by the witness that on 21.10.2015, Lokayukta Police told him to come after festival and collect Khata which will be entered in the name of CW.10. PW.1 has even stated that on Thursday 21 Spl.C.C.161/2017 in the subsequent week himself and PW.4 came to BBMP and received original Khata. This suggestion to PW.1 also makes it clear that, as on 21.10.2015 entering A Khata in the name of P.W.4 was still pending and even after Trap, he was asked to collect original Khata in the next week and accordingly, P.W.1 and 4 visited the BBMP office and received it. These suggestions and admissions coupled with notice issued by Accused on 25.09.2014 directing P.W.4 to pay betterment charges and subsequently P.W.4 furnishing DD for Rs.8,09,670/- on 16.10.2015 would prove that with regard to issuing Khata in respect of 32 gutnas in Sy.No.69/1, work was pending before Arakere Sub-Division in which accused was working as Assistant Revenue Officer. The same accused had issued notice for payment of betterment charges. The application given by P.W.4 on 23.09.2015 is also found in page No.184 in this file and in this application, PW.4 had requested Assistant Revenue Officer, Arakere Sub-Division to enter A Khata in respect of property by receiving betterment charges. Therefore, pendency of work of PW.4 before Accused is sufficiently established in this case. Therefore, contention of accused that no work of PW.4 was pending before accused and there was no occasion for accused to demand bribe cannot be accepted.
27. As per prosecution case, for attending this work of entering A Khata in the name of P.W.4 after receiving DD towards Betterment charges, accused demanded bribe.
22 Spl.C.C.161/2017 According to prosecution, before giving complaint, on 19.10.2015 when P.W.1 produced DD before accused towards betterment charges, he demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- by stating that generally he would take Rs.1,50,000/- for entering Khata of one acre of land and P.W.1 took time and then, on 20.10.2015 in the evening PW.1 made phone call to accused and accused asked about amount and he agreed to give half of the amount i.e., Rs.50,000/-, on the next day in the office. According to prosecution, even at the time of Trap, when P.W.1 went to the office of accused and accused took him to pooja and after attending pooja he brought him outside the office and demanded amount and then P.W.1 gave tainted notes to accused. Therefore, before giving complaint and at the time of trap, accused is said to have demanded illegal gratification.
28. To prove the alleged demand of bribe, prosecution has relied on recordings made by P.W.1 in his mobile while talking to accused on 20.10.2015 which was transmitted to C.D and produced while giving complaint, which is marked as M.O.3. In the course of pre-trap proceedings, recordings in the CD was transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.18. At the time of trap on 21.10.2015, recordings in voice recorder was transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.21 and C.D. was seized as per M.O.12 and produced before the Court. The recordings in the C.D.-M.O.3 and M.O.12 were played before P.W.3 and he is said to have identified voice of accused and gave report. As admitted by P.W.3, he is not an expert in voice identification.
23 Spl.C.C.161/2017 Recordings M.O.3 C.D., P.W.1 has given certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act on 22.10.2015, as per Ex.P.8. In respect of recordings in the voice recorder which was transmitted to C.D as per M.O.12, P.W.8-Investigating Officer has issued certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.27 and this certificate does not bear any date. In the course of investigation, P.W.8 secured accused and panch witnesses and before them sample voice of accused was taken in voice recorder and then transmitted to C.D, which is produced as M.O.14. P.W.8 sent this sample voice in M.O.14 C.D. for comparison with voice recorded in M.O.3 and 12 and P.W.5 after making scientific examination, submitted report as per Ex.P.13 and opined that sample voice in M.O.14 and the questioned voice M.O.3 and M.O.12 C.Ds are similar. On looking to Ex.P.18-transcription of recordings made on 20.10.2015 by PW.1, though there is no clear words uttered by accused demanding bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- or 50,000/-, accused appears to have asked him to bring what he had asked earlier. In Ex.P.21-transcription of recordings made on 21.10.2015 at the time of Trap, there appears to be no specific word of demanding the amount.
29. Learned counsel for accused has relied on the decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 = (2014) 10 SCC 473 (Anvar P.V -Vs- P.K.Basheer and others). In this decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that when secondary evidence of the electronic records are 24 Spl.C.C.161/2017 produced before the Court, they cannot be admitted in evidence, unless the secondary evidence is accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
30. Though PW.1 and 8 have given certificate as required by law, these certificates are to be in compliance with the provisions. Issuing certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not an Empty formality. On looking to Ex.P.8 and 27, they are not in strict compliance of requirement under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Details of the CD and Computer, Number and its make etc., are not furnished in these certificates. Ex.P.8 is issued on 22.10.2015 and not issued on the day on which, CD was produced before PW.8. Ex.P.27 does not bear any date and it is in respect of 3-4 CDs. On looking to both these certificates, they are not in clear compliance of the provisions. Therefore, these C.D's at M.O.3 and M.O.12 which are said to have been compared by Expert, P.W.5 with M.O.14 are not of much help to the prosecution to prove the alleged demand of bribe. With regard to demand of bribe at the time of trap even transcriptions does not show utterance of any specific word of demand. Therefore, to prove the demand of bribe before giving of complaint or at the time of trap these C.D's ar not of much help to the prosecution.
31. Call details are also obtained by Investigating Officer from Bharathi Airtel Limited as per Ex.P.15 and even Nodal Officer has issued certificate under section 65B of 25 Spl.C.C.161/2017 Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.16 and has also given evidence as P.W.6. P.W.6 has clearly stated that on requisition given by Lokayuktha police he had furnished the Call details of 9972631035 as per Ex.P.15 and also furnished certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. P.W.6 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that location details is not mentioned in the call details. Ex.P.15 even does not contain name and address of subscriber, though there is a column in the first sheet of Ex.P.15 for the same. Even if Call details are accepted by relying on evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P.15 and 16, there is no evidence to prove that particular mobile number mentioned in Ex.P.15 belongs to accused. Name and address of subscriber is not mentioned in Ex.P.15 and on the basis of Ex.P.15, it cannot be held that accused is subscriber of this mobile number and he was operating the same. P.W.3. has stated that, he has given two mobile number of Accused in Ex.P.9. In his cross-examination PW.3 has stated that one number was given by BBMP and that number given by BBMP will be displayed in office and any person can contact through that number. However, which is the number given by BBMP to accused is not stated by him. Therefore these call details are also not of much help to the prosecution to prove that accused had talked to PW.1 through this mobile number.
32. In the absence of these electronic records and call details, prosecution have to prove the demand of illegal gratification by accused through evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 26 Spl.C.C.161/2017 P.W.4. P.W.4 has stated that he had given application and he had directed P.W.1 to get A Khata from BBMP office. The file which was seized from the office of accused as per Ex.P.10 show that accused had issued notice demanding payment of betterment charges on 25.10.2014 and in respect of the same, P.W.4 had submitted a DD for Rs.8,09,670/- dated 16.10.2015 and also given application for entering of A Khata on 23.09.2015. In respect of this work, as being authorised by P.W.4, P.W.1 met accused on 19.10.2015. P.W.4 has clearly stated about application given by him and also authorisation given to P.W.1. He has also stated that PW.1 informed him that bribe is demanded to attend the work. P.W. 1 has clearly stated about his meeting with accused on 19.10.2015 along with DD and accused keeping DD in file and demanding Rs.1,00,000/- to enter Khata. Therefore demand of bribe by accused on 19.10.2015 is clearly stated by P.W.1, P.W.1 has also stated that he took time by stating that he have to ask P.W.4 and then he tried to contact him on 20.10.2015 and as accused was not available and he talked to accused in the evening by mobile phone and then again accused asked him the amount and he agreed to bring Rs.50,000/- on the next day. On looking to the cross-examination of P.W.1, there is nothing elicited to make this evidence of PW.1 unacceptable. There is clear evidence of PW.1 about demand of bribe by accused on 19.10.2015 and on 20.10.2015. Contention of accused that, work of registering Khata was done in 2013 and 27 Spl.C.C.161/2017 there was no work pending with him is not acceptable as discussed above. Notice was given by accused himself for payment of betterment charges as found in Ex.P.10 Though, it is argued for accused that evidence of complainant cannot be accepted without corroboration, non-corroboration by any other oral evidence may not be a ground to totally disregard such evidence. More so, when there were no other person to witness such demand made by accused with PW.1. The circumstances like Accused issuing notice to pay betterment charges to PW.4 and PW.1 producing DD before accused would be sufficient corroboration. Moreover, in the entire cross- examination of P.W.1, 4 or other witnesses, any motive of PW.1 or P.W.4 to falsely implicate accused is not brought out. Accused has not contended about any previous enemity, ill- will etc., of PW.1 or P.W.4 towards accused. Under such circumstances, clear evidence of P.W.1 stating that accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for entering Khata, coupled with evidence of PW.4 proves the demand of illegal gratification by accused. Therefore, even in the absence of electronic records, prosecution is successful in proving the demand of illegal gratification by accused prior to giving of complaint.
33. Even with regard to demand of bribe at the time of trap, both P.W.1 has clearly stated that he enquired about the work and accused asked him to come in the next week and then asked whether amount is brought. Therefore, accused demanding bribe at the time of trap is clearly stated by P.W.1.
28 Spl.C.C.161/2017 Therefore, by this evidence and attending circumstances, prosecution has proved the demand of bribe by accused before giving of complaint and even at the time of trap. On looking to cross examination of PW.1 and 4, there is no specific defence for the accused. Though accused can prove his defence by preponderance of probability, in this case, defence of accused is not definite, accurate, probable and acceptable. For all these reasons, prosecution has proved the demand of bribe by accused.
34. Coming to the acceptance, Evidence of P.W.1 and 2 clearly state about receipt of tainted notes by accused. Though P.W.1 in his chief evidence has stated that, he met accused in his cabin and then accused enquired about the amount and then he gave tainted notes to accused, in his cross-examination, P.W.1 has clearly stated that, accused has received the amount after coming out of the Cabin and thereafter he gave signal by coming outside. PW.1 has stated that accused has received the amount at the place shown as 'passage' in Ex.P.28 sketch and he came to the place shown as 'entrance' and then gave signal. Therefore, though P.W.1 has stated in his chief evidence that in the Cabin of accused, amount was given, in his cross-examination he has clearly stated that amount was given after coming out of the Cabin. P.W.1 has clearly stated about he giving amount to accused and accused receiving and then keeping the same in his pant pocket. Evidence of PW.2 corroborates the same. Though in 29 Spl.C.C.161/2017 which pant pocket, amount was kept by accused is not mentioned in Trap Mahazar Ex.P.4, evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 8, show that tainted notes were recovered from pant of accused. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2, there is nothing elicited to show that accused has not received tainted notes from PW.1. On the other hand, it is suggested to P.W.1 that he met accused and asked him to waive off the tax amount of property of CW.10 and by stating that he will give some amount, P.W.1 kept the tainted notes in the hands of accused and then came outside and gave signal and accused also came behind him stating that he will not receive the amount and came to return the same. This suggestion clearly prove that P.W.1 met accused at the time of trap and also gave amount. Accused has not placed any evidence to probablise his contention that, after PW.1 keeping amount in his hands, P.W.1 went out and gave signal and accused also came behind him stating that he will not receive amount. Moreover, contention of accused that there was no work of PW.1 and 4 with him, will run counter to this defence of keeping amount in hand. If accused contends there was no work of P.W.4 or P.W.1 pending before him, there would be no occasion for P.W.1 to approach accused with regard to even property tax of P.W.4 and asking him to waive off of tax. Accused demanding bribe on 19.10.2015 is proved in this case. Therefore, it is clear that, in furtherance of his demand for illegal gratification, at the time of trap, accused received tainted 30 Spl.C.C.161/2017 notes from PW.1 and kept it in his pant pocket. Evidence of P.W.2 corroborates with evidence of P.W.1 regarding acceptance of tainted notes by accused. Even hand wash of accused turning to pink colour, seizing of amount from accused are stataed by PW.1, 2 and 8. Therefore, accused accepting tainted notes of Rs.50,000/- from complainant is clearly proved in this case. Prosecution has even proved the recovery of tainted notes from accused.
35. Learned Counsel for Accused has drawn my attention to a decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in 2016 CRL.L.J.3066,(R. Srinivasan and Anr Vs State by Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Bangalore), in which Hon'ble High Court has held that, capacity to do official favour in order to demand bribe is necessary to be proved. In the present case, pendency of official work of P.W.4 before accused and capacity of accused to do the work are proved to be present.
36. Learned counsel for accused has relied on a decision reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 (P.Sathyanarayana Murthy Vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another). In this decision, wherein complainant was not examined as he had expired earlier before the trial, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.23 has held as under :-
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravemen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(1) and
(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, 31 Spl.C.C.161/2017 unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail.
Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under".
It is also held in this decision in para 25 that:
"25. In our estimate, to hold on the basis of the evidence on record that the culpability of the appellant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) &(ii) has been proved, would be an inferential deduction which is impermissible in law. ...".
It is also held in para 26 as under:
"26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswar Vs.State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused".
32 Spl.C.C.161/2017
37. In another decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 3368 (State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma ) it is held as under:
"7.The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. 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 by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. ..."
38. On going through all these decisions, they are not of any help to accused. As held in these decisions, demand of bribe by accused which is sine-quo-non is present in the present case. Accused accepting tainted notes is clearly proved by the evidence of complainant-P.W.1 and shadow witness-P.W.2. Even hand wash of accused, recovery of tainted notes, seizure of file from the office and pendency of work, corroborate with the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to demand and with evidence of P.W.1 and 2 with regard to acceptance of bribe amount by accused. Therefore, not only the demand but also acceptance and recovery of tainted notes are all proved in the present case.
39. Under Section 20 of PC Act, when accused is proved to have accepted any gratification other than legal 33 Spl.C.C.161/2017 remuneration from any person it shall be presumed that he accepted the same as a motive or reward as mentioned in Sec.7. Therefore on proof of demand and acceptance, presumption would also arise to the effect that such demand and acceptance is as a motive or reward to do an official act or to do any official favour. As demand and acceptance are proved by prosecution, even benefit of presumption under Sec.20 is available to the prosecution. Though accused can rebut the presumption by preponderance of probability, accused in this case has failed to explain the reasons for P.W.1 meeting him and giving tainted notes in his hand and about the notice given by him to P.W.4 to pay betterment charges and also application given by P.W.4 to the accused for issue of A Khata. Contention of accused that he had attended the work of entering Khata in 2013 itself is not acceptable as it was suggested to P.W.1 that after the trap, within one week Lokayuktha police asked him to take original Khata from BBMP office. Therefore, accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.20 of PC Act. On considering all these aspects, prosecution has proved the demand of bribe amount by accused and also proved the acceptance of illegal gratification by accused.
40. For all these reasons, prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec.7 of PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accused by abusing his position as public servant, by corrupt means has obtained pecuniary advantage 34 Spl.C.C.161/2017 from complainant without having any public interest and thereby committed criminal mis-conduct as per section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, commission of offence by accused under Section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is to be convicted for the offences alleged against him. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
41. Point No. 3:- For the discussion and findings on Point Nos. 1 and 2, accused is to be convicted. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER Accused is found guilty for the offences under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Acting u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
M.O.1 cash of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be confiscated to the State Government after expiry of appeal period.
M.O.2 to 14 are worthless and are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of 35 Spl.C.C.161/2017 appeal period.
Put up for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of April 2019) (Ravindra Hegde) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
*** 36 Spl.C.C.161/2017 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the accused, Learned counsel for accused and Learned Public Prosecutor on sentence to be imposed on accused.
Accused and learned counsel for accused have submitted that accused is having dependant family and he have to look after his family and he is of middle age and is having huge responsibilities and therefore, lenient view may be taken in sentencing him.
On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused being a public servant has committed heinous offence of taking bribe and he is involved in corrupt practice and therefore maximum punishment is to be imposed.
Commission of offence by accused under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is proved in this case and accused is found guilty for said offences. Offences are committed in October 2015. By amendment to PC Act by Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, minimum and maximum imprisonment provided for the offence under section 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are enhanced with effect 37 Spl.C.C.161/2017 from, 16.01.2014. Since these offences are committed by accused subsequent to Amendment, amended provisions will apply. Offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is now punishable with minimum imprisonment of 3 years and maximum of 7 years and also with fine. Offence under Sec.13 (1)(d) which is punishable under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is now punishable with minimum imprisonment of 4 years and maximum of 10 years and also with fine. As per Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, where sentence of fine is imposed under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the court in fixing amount of fine shall take into consideration amount which accused has obtained by committing the offence.
Accused was Assistant Revenue Officer in BBMP at the time of commission of alleged offence and was aged about 33 years. The demand of illegal gratification was for Rs.1,00,000/- and at the time trap, he received Rs.50,000/-. Though amount received by accused is Rs.50,000/-, total bribe demanded was Rs.1,00,000/- to attend the work of issuing Khata. On looking to the nature of duties and position of accused as Assistant Revenue Officer in BBMP, effect of corrupt act of accused on the society is grave and serious. While imposing sentence in this type of corruption cases, Society's cry for justice should also be kept in mind. When officers tasked with Revenue matters do not act with integrity, 38 Spl.C.C.161/2017 the whole society will suffer. Corruption deserves no sympathy and leniency. There are no such mitigating circumstances to show any leniency in imposing sentence on this accused.
On considering all these aspects and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence and its consequences on the society, accused can be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and can be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for the offence under Sec.13 (1)(d), punishable under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence 39 Spl.C.C.161/2017 under Sec.13(1)(d), punishable under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Both Substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Accused is entitle for the benefit of set-off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. for the period for which he was in Judicial custody in this case.
Copy of judgment be furnished to accused forthwith.
(Ravindra Hegde) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil &Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru 40 Spl.C.C.161/2017 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 - Pradeep.H.R.
P.W.2 - Parashivamurthy.L.R
P.W.3 - Chandrashekar.K.
P.W.4 - Maruthi Kumar
P.W.5 - Srividya
P.W.6 - Stanley
P.W.7 - Sunil Kumar.M
P.W.8 - Kempegowda
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 - Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) - Sign of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P2 - Sheet containing number of notes
Ex.P.2(a & b) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(c) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P3 - Pre-trap mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) - Sign of P.W.1
Ex.P.3(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P4 - Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) - Sign of P.W.1
Ex.P.4(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P5 - House search Mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.5(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P6 - Voice Recording Mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.6(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P7 - Authorisation letter
Ex.P.7(a) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P8 - Certificate U/sec.65B of I.E.Act
Ex.P.8(a) - Sign of P.W.1
Ex.P9 - Report of P.W.3
Ex.P.9(a) - Sign of P.W.3
41 Spl.C.C.161/2017
Ex.P.9(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P10 - Attested copy of file pertaining
to work of PW.4.
Ex.P.10(a) - Sign of P.W.3
Ex.P11 - Prosecution Sanction Order
Ex.P12 - Service particulars of accused
Ex.P13 - FSL report
Ex.P14 - Specimen Seal
Ex.P15 - Call details
Ex.P16 - The certificate u/sec.65B of I.E.Act.
Ex.P.16(a) - Sign of P.W.6
Ex.P17 - F.I.R.
Ex.P.17(b) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P18 - Transcriptions
Ex.P.18(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P19 - Copy of Attendance Register
Ex.P.20 - Rough Sketch
Ex.P.20(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P21 - Transcription of voice recording
Ex.P21(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P22 - Explanation of accused
Ex.P22(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P23 - Acknowledgment
Ex.P.23(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P24 - Requisition to Court
Ex.P.24(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P25 - Transcription sheet of sample voice
Ex.P.25(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P26 - Chemical Examination Report
Ex.P27 - Certificate U/sec.65B of I.E.Act
Ex.P.27(a) - Sign of P.W.8
Ex.P28 - Spot Sketch
Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence:
-NIL-
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
-NIL-
42 Spl.C.C.161/2017 Material Objects marked by Prosecution:
M.O.1 - Cash of Rs.50,000/-
M.O.1(a) - Cover
M.O.2 - Pant
M.O.2(a) - Cover
M.O.3 - C.D.
M.O.3(a) - Cover
M.O.4
to M.O.10- Bottles containing solution
M.O.11
to M.O.14 - C.D.
M.O.11(a)
to M.O.14(a)- Cover
(Ravindra Hegde),
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (PCA),
Bengaluru
***