Bangalore District Court
State By Ashoknagar Police vs Nos.1 And 2 For The Offences Punishable ... on 16 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of December 2017.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.B.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.6416/2013
Date of Offence : 18-2-2013 to 27-2-2013
Name of complainant : State by Ashoknagar Police
Station, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Kum.Loopa Mudra Gogai
d/o Ajit Gogoi, aged 25 years,
r/o No.1704, 'B' block,
ETA Garden, Bengaluru,
own address No.10, Sunari,
Shivasagar taluk and district,
Assam,
2. Sujanthkumar
s/o Sumanthkumar,
aged 25 years,
r/o Nagasandra,
near Murugeshpalya,
old Airport rod, Bengaluru
own address: Brahmani Posi
village, Mayurabanch district,
Orissa. (split up)
Offences complained off: U/s.120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 and 474 r/w Sec.34
of IPC and u/sec.66 of I.T. Act.
2 C.C.No.6416/2013
Plea of accused No.1 : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 16-12-2017
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention to make wrongful gain to earn money opened a company by name Niyarson I.T. Services and created Registration Certificate of Establishment and interviewed C.W.8 obtained a room in Longford town, Oshagnesi road, No.11, divyasree Chambers 'A' Wing, 2nd floor from C.W.8 and conducted interview of several candidates between 26-11-2012 to 25-2-2013 and collected Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per candidate and appointed C.Ws.9 to 14 as official bearers and played a fraud on the 3 C.C.No.6416/2013 candidates to get job and got deposited from them and issued appointment letters and also letters of training and postponing the same on one or other pretext by creation of several documents. The accused have collected nearly Rs.13,95,000/- from various candidates and played a fraud on them without getting any job. Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2. On the basis of the said complaint, the Ashoknagar Police have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act in Crime No.103/2013. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences.
3. After appearance of the accused, necessary documents as relied by the prosecution are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused 4 C.C.No.6416/2013 No.1. The accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 75 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1, during the course of trial, the C.Ws.3, 8, 70 and 75 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P33 and identified M.Os.1 to 17. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time, hence they were dropped.
5. During pendency of the trial, case against the accused No.2 is split up as his presence was not secured. Hence the present case is continued only against the accused No.1.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused No.1 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 has not adduced any defence evidence on her behalf. Hence, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused No.1.
5 C.C.No.6416/2013
7. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act?
2. What Order ?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention to make wrongful gain to earn money opened a company by name Niyarson I.T. Services and created Registration Certificate of Establishment and for interviewed C.W.8 obtained a room in Longford town, Oshagnesi road, No.11, divyasree Chambers 'A' Wing, 2nd floor from C.W.8 and 6 C.C.No.6416/2013 conducted interview of several candidates between 26-11-2012 to 25-2-2013 and collected Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per candidate and appointed C.Ws.9 to 14 as official bearers and played a fraud on the candidates to get job and got deposited from them and issued appointment letters and also letters of training and postponing the same on one or other pretext by creation of several documents. The accused have collected nearly Rs.13,95,000/- from various candidates and played a fraud on them without getting any job and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act.
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act, the C.W.3 is examined as P.W.1, who is a mahazar witness, has identified his signature on mahazar which is marked as Ex.P1 and his signature is at Ex.P1(a). P.W.1 further deposed that he does not know for 7 C.C.No.6416/2013 what purpose the police have drawn the mahazar in his presence. Since P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the mahazar, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission of the court, but in the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited to prove the mahazar.
11. C.W.8 is examined as P.W.2 who is an employee of Vatica Business Centre during 2010. He further deposed and reiterated the contentions taken in the course of complaint and got marked certain documents as per Exs.P2 to P4. Hence, I need not recapitulate those facts at this stage. P.W.2 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect:
£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EAVèõÀ£° À è ºÉýzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÀßqÀzÀ°è §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£À£Àß ¸ÀzÀj ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ N¢ 8 C.C.No.6416/2013 ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¤¦-2jAzÀ 4 £ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¤¦-2jAzÀ 4gÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.1.
12. C.W.70 is examined P.W.3 who is an employee of Oracle India Private Limited who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.2. To test the veracity of P.W.3, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 has deposed to the following effect:
¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAzÀ¨ðÀs zÀ°è C±ÉÆÃPï £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀæPÀgt À zÀ°è ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
£À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀzjÀ D¥Àsgï ¯Élgï£À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁåAiÀÄÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀwÛUÀÆ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.9 C.C.No.6416/2013
¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgt À PÀÆÌ, DgÉÆæUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzÀs EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦6gÀ §UÉÎ £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of P.W.3 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence, because P.W.3 pleaded ignorance about the alleged offences.
13. C.W.75 is examined as P.W.4 who is an Investigating Officer. In the course of his evidence he has deposed with regard to his official duty discharged by him during the course of investigation and got marked Exs.P7 to 33 and M.Os.1 to 17. P.W.4 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused in detail, but there is no material and acceptable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of Investigating officer is not sufficient, because the evidence of P.W.4 is in respect of official duty discharged by him and moreover, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused No.1. Therefore, in view of the above discussions 10 C.C.No.6416/2013 and reasonings I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act. Hence, it is held that the accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused No.1 and his surety stands cancelled.
Separate order will be made in respect of M.Os.1 to 17 as against the accused No.2 in split up case.11 C.C.No.6416/2013
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of December 2017).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Karthik, P.W.2, Jumeda Jamal, P.W.3, Shankara Subramaniyan, P.W.4, Ravi K.B;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Spot mahazar, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P2- Ex.P4, Rent receipts, Ex.P5, Report, Ex.P5(a), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P6, Duplicate offer letter, Ex.P7, Complaint, Ex.P7(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P8, FIR, Ex.P8(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P9, Seizure mahazar, Ex.P9(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P10, Mahazar, Ex.P10(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P11 & Ex.P12, Letters issued by Tata Consultancy, Ex.P13, Letter issued by IBM, 12 C.C.No.6416/2013 Ex.P14, Letter issued by Samsung India, Ex.P15, Letter given to Labour Inspector, Ex.P15(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P16, Certified copy Certificate of Registration, Ex.P17, Offer letter secured from C.W.25, Ex.P18, Offer letter secured from Latha, Ex.P19, Offer letter secured from C.W.15, Ex.P19(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P20, Offer letter secured from C.W.16, Ex.P21(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P22, Offer letter secured from C.W.18, Ex.P22(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P23, Offer letter secured from C.W.19, Ex.P23(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P24, Offer letter secured from C.W.20, Ex.P24(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P25, Offer letter secured from C.W.21, Ex.P25(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P26, Offer letter secured from C.W.22, Ex.P26(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P27, Offer letter secured from C.W.23, Ex.P27(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P28, Offer letter secured from C.W.24, Ex.P28(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P29, Offer letter secured from C.W.28, Ex.P29(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P30, Offer letter secured from C.W.29, Ex.P30(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P31, Offer letter secured from C.W.30, Ex.P31(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P32, Offer letter secured from C.W.31, Ex.P32(a), Fee receipt, Ex.P33, Offer letter secured from C.W.32, Ex.P33(a), Fee receipt; 13 C.C.No.6416/2013 Material Objects Produced:- M.O.1, Laptop and data card, M.O.2, Photo, M.O.3, Voucher book, M.O.4, 2 stamp papers, M.O.5, Cheque leaf, M.O.6, Applications, M.O.7, ID card, M.O.8, SBI ATM card, M.O.9, Register book containing details of Candidates and amount, M.O.10, Letter containing details of amount, M.O.11, HP laptop, M.O.12, Google pages of IBM company, M.O.13, Inbox print out, M.O.14, Sent box print out, M.O.15, Attachment file print out, M.O.16 & M.O.17, Offer letters;
Witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the defence: - NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.14 C.C.No.6416/2013
16/12/2017 State by Sr.APP Accused No.1 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information Technology Act.
Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused No.1 and his surety stands cancelled.
Separate order will be made in respect of M.Os.1 to 17 as against the accused No.2 in split up case.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.
15 C.C.No.6416/201316 C.C.No.6416/2013