Bangalore District Court
State Karnataka Represented By vs Mr. R. Nagaraju S/O Ramakrishnappa on 17 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT, (C.C.H. 24), BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2018.
PRESENT:
SMT. MANJULA ITTY, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
Special Judge,
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Spl.C.C. No.153/2011
COMPLAINANT: State Karnataka represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. D. Ramesh Babu, Public
Prosecutor)
/Vs/
Accused: Mr. R. Nagaraju S/o Ramakrishnappa,
aged about 44 years, the then Second
Division Revenue Inspector,
Thanisandra Sub-Division, Bruhath
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Bengaluru (Panchayath Secretary
Grade-2), presently working at
Ramohalli village Panchayath,
Bengaluru South Taluk lien at Kolar
District Panchayath, Kolar District.
(By Sri Raghunath, Advocate for
accused)
2 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
Date of offence 22.10.1998
Date of report of 22.10.1998
offence
Date of arrest of the -
accused
Date of release on 05.09.2011
bail
Total period of -
custody
Name of the
complainant
Date of 24.08.2016
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closing of 09.02.2018
evidence
Offences complained 13 (1)(e) read with section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act
of
Opinion of the Judge Accused is
State represented by Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri.R.N Advocate for accused
3 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
JUDGMENT
1. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the accused during his tenure as a public servant for the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and on 22.10.2008 accused was found in possession of pecuniary resources and property in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs. 66,51,008/- and his expenses during the said period was Rs. 31,70,743/-, thus sum total of asset and expenditure was Rs. 98,21,751/- and during this period his known source of income was Rs. 13,90,446/- and hence, he was found in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of 4 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 income to the extent of Rs. 84,31,305/- which is 606.37% by misusing his official position and committed the alleged offence.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused, who hails from a middleclass agricultural family, being public servant joined the services in Grama Panchayath on 01.12.1998 as Secretary Grade-II and reported to duty on 01.12.1998 in the office of the Grama Panchayath, Hosapete, Siddlaghatta Taluk. At the time of registering the case, he was working as Second Division Revenue Inspector, at Thanisandra Grama Panchayath, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru on deputation. Based on a credible information that the accused has amassed wealth illegally, Lokayuktha police have collected information and documents with respect to accumulation of property by the accused. Source report was submitted by Police Inspector Prasanna V. Raju to the 5 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Superintendent of Police, City division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, who in turn, under the provisions of Section 17 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ordered Sri. Mohammed Irshad, police inspector to register and investigate the said case and accordingly, a case is registered in Cr.No.71/2008 by the police inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru and submitted the FIR was forwarded to the Court. Thereafter, search was conducted in the house of the accused bearing Door Nos.15 and 16, Hanuma Nilaya, 1st 'C' Main Road, Nanjappa Reddy Layout, Vijaya Bank Colony, Horamavu, Bengaluru and a mahazar was drawn. Cash of Rs. 3,00,000/-, out of Rs. 3,12,000/- found in the house of the accused was seized and remaining amount of Rs. 12,000/- returned to the accused. Gold weighing 558.08 grams out of 680.85 grams, silver articles and some documents were seized from the house of the accused. On 22.10.2008, police 6 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha conducted search at the Grama Panchayath office, Thanisandra Grama Panchayath, Thanisandra, Bengaluru. The investigating officer prepared a mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. The police inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha Bengaluru conducted investigation by collecting documents from various Departments and after obtaining explanation from the accused and obtaining sanction order to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence from his competent authority, completed the investigation and laid charge sheet before the Court against the accused.
3. The presence of accused was secured who is represented by his counsel. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the case was posted to hear before charge and after hearing both sides, my learned predecessor-in-office has framed charge against the 7 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 accused on 19.08.2014 for the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 which was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and got marked documents at Exs. P 1 to P 87. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The accused examined himself as DW 1 in support of his defence, but has not produced any documents.
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides and taking into consideration of the evidence on record coupled with the documents and the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, the following points arise for consideration. 8 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being public servant, working as Second Division Revenue Inspector, Thanisandra Sub- Division, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (Panchayath Secretary Grade-2) for the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and on 22.10.2008 accused was found in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs 66,51,008/- and his expenses during the said period was Rs 31,70,743/-, thus sum of income and expenditure was Rs 98,21,751/- and during this period his known source of income was only Rs 13,90,446/- and hence he was found in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs 84,31,305/- which is 606.37% acquired by him by misusing his official position and committed criminal 9 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 misconduct and thereby the accused has committed the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being public servant working as Second Division Revenue Inspector, Thanisandra Sub-Division, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (Panchayath Secretary Grade-2) has amassed assets worth Rs. 84,31,305/- which is 606.37% disproportionate to the known source of his income during the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 and he has not satisfactorily 10 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 accounted for the possession of the property thereby the accused has committed the alleged offence.
8. Before going to decide on the merits of the case, it is necessary to decide the validity of the sanction order at Ex.P.3 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru District Panchayath, Bengaluru.
9. Since the accused is public servant the prosecution is under initial obligation to establish that valid sanction has been obtained to prosecute the accused. Prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW 2 K. S. Suryanarayana Rao and the sanction order at Ex P3 in order to establish that there was valid sanction to prosecute the accused. The evidence of PW 2, the then Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru city is that, he received the documents such as FIR, Search Mahazar, Final Report and statement of witnesses pertaining to this case from Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore seeking permission to prosecute the accused is 11 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 not under challenge. It is stated in his evidence that after going through the papers made available to him he arrived at a conclusion that prima facie grounds existed to accord prosecution sanction. His evidence is that at the time of the incident the accused was working as Revenue Inspector, Thanisandra Sub-Division, B.B.M.P, Bengaluru. He categorically deposes that he is the competent authority having power of removal of the accused from service and accordingly he issued sanction order at Ex P3.
10. On completion of the prosecution evidence and defence evidence when the case was posted for final arguments, the counsel for the accused raised a contention that PW2 was not the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. He brought to the notice of this court that the accused was working as Revenue Inspector, Thanisandra Sub-Division, B.B.M.P, Bengaluru under deputation and his lien rests with the Kolar Zilla Panchayath as he had joined service as Panchayath 12 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Secretary Grade II at Shidlagatta Taluk, Hosapete Grama Panchayath at Kolar and hence the Deputy Secretary, Kolar Zilla Panchayath is the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. He also took my attention to page 99 of Ex. P75, the Report of the Investigating Officer wherein the above fact is stated. Hence the prosecution evidence was reopened suo motto by this court to get clarification with respect to this aspect and PW2 was summoned to appear before court with the original file pertaining to the prosecution sanction order. He was further examined and Ex. P 85 to 87 were marked. He deposed that the accused was earlier working as Grade-2 Secretary, Zilla Panchayath, Kolar and as per the official memorandum dated 18.10.2007 and 25.10.2007 marked as Exs P85 and 86 respectively, accused was posted to K. Narayanapura Grama Panchayath, Bengaluru East Taluk as Grade-2 Secretary. It is in his evidence that on 07.03.2011 the Investigating Officer had made an application before the Deputy Secretary, Kolar Zilla Panchayath seeking prosecution sanction against the 13 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 accused but the Deputy Secretary, Kolar Zilla Panchayath had intimated the ADGP Lokayuktha that the accused is transferred to the Thanisandra Sub-Division, B.B.M.P, Bengaluru as Revenue Inspector and hence the Bangalore City Division Zilla Panchayath is the competent authority to accord sanction. The office copy of the said order is produced by PW2 which is marked as Ex. P 87. On the basis of these documents, the ADGP had made application before PW2 seeking sanction to prosecute the accused. He further testifies that since he is the competent authority having a power of removal of the accused from his service, after perusing the records before him he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. His competency in issuing the sanction order is not seriously challenged in the cross examination conducted thereafter by the counsel for the accused. Thus, upon appreciation of his evidence it is clear that he is the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of the accused and accordingly after perusal of the documents placed before him, he accorded sanction for 14 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 prosecution. On the strength of the evidence of PW 2 coupled with Exs. P3, P85 to P87, I have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that sanction at Ex. P3 is valid. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded to discharge its burden in establishing that there is a valid prosecution sanction order to prosecute the accused.
11. Now, coming to the case of the prosecution that the accused has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused has amassed wealth in his name and in the name of his family members illegally during the check period.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Rao Guhe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017)14 SCC 442 has held that " from the design and purport of section 13(1)(e), it is apparent that primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct 15 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 thereunder would be indubitably on prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income and it is only on discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of the offence"
13. In view of the said position of law, while considering the commission of an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is relevant to note that the initial burden to prove that either the accused or any member of his family at any point of time had been in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income, lies on the prosecution. If the initial burden is not discharged by the prosecution the onus does not shift to the accused to offer his explanation as to how he could have been in possession of either directly or through some other 16 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 members of his family in possession of the property disproportionate to the known source of income. According to the prosecution the accused had amassed assets worth Rs. 66,51,008/- during the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 and the details of the same is as under:
Table No. 1
Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs) No. Immovable properties Site No.17 and 18, Khatha No.2677, Property No.69/2C, measuring 60 x 40' situated at 1,32,000.00 Dasarahalli village, K.R.Puram 1 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Value of the building constructed in the aforesaid property. 5,18,093.00 Property No.11, measuring 50 x 30, Yalahanka CMC Khatha No. 1825/922/1965/11, 2nd division,
2 Maruthi Nagara, Yalahanka Hobli, 2,62,500.00 Bengaluru North Taluk 17 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Property No.9 and 10, measuring 60 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated at Rachenahalli village, 1,56,000.00 3 K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Value of the building constructed 21,22,577.00 in the aforesaid property Property No.12, measuring 30 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated 78,000.00 at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram 4 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Value of the building constructed in the aforesaid property 11,90,895.00 Residential house No.5/7, Raghupathi Agrahara, 5 Channasandra Grama Panchayath, Kolar Taluk Movable properties Bank Accounts SBI, Dhooravani Nagara Branch, 6 S.B. Account No.01190056549 683.00 New Khatha No.10637694570 S.B. Account No. 7 104001011000406 Vijaya Bank, 8,732.00 Byatarayanapura Branch.
S.B.Account No. 01190043022 S.B.I Rajajinagara Branch, 8 836.10 Industrial Estate Branch S.B.Account No.10441078482 S.B.I 9 Rajajinagara Branch, Industrial 22,819.10 Estate Branch 18 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Vehicles Toyoto Innova Car No.KA.01. MC 10 4,50,000.00 7160 11 Santro Car No.KA.03.Z.9225 1,95,000.00 12 Bajaj Calibre No.KA.02.DB 4463 43,760.00 Scooty pep scooter No.KA.02.EN 13 31,970/-
7903 TVS-TVS Victor GX Registration 14 43,610/-
No.KA.04.ET5569 Others 15 Cash 3,12,000/-
16 Value of gold ornaments seized 6,80,850.00 17 Value of silver ornaments 4,733.30 18 Household articles 3,82,350.00 11 NSC Certificate value of Rs 19 1,100.00 100/- each Fixed deposit for having 15 electricity meters bearing R.R. No.8EDLG32317 to 8EDLG32331 to 20 the building constructed in 3,420.00 property No.12, Khatha No.907, Rachenahalli village, Ramakrishna Hegde Nagara, Bengaluru Fixed deposit for having two electricity meters bearing R.R. No.RR.No.8 EDLG 29337 and 8EDLG29237 to the building 21 4,180.00 constructed in property No.17 & 18, Khatha No.2688, Property No.49/2C1, Dasarahalli, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru 19 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Fixed Deposit to BSNL Telephone 22 3,000.00 No.23112829 Fixed Deposit to Gas connection 23 1,900.00 consumer No.44810 Total Rs 66,51,008.50
14. The Counsel for accused submits in that he has no dispute with respect to assets and its value mentioned in serial No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 19 and 21. He states this in his written arguments filed u/s 314(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, these are accepted as such and the dispute with respect to other items are to be considered and to be discussed in detail.
15. The assets mentioned in serial No. 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20 and 23 stands in the name of Smt. B. R. Tanuja, wife of accused. The defence does not dispute with respect to the amount calculated by the Investigating Officer under these heads but the learned counsel for accused seriously objected the clubbing of assets standing in the name of his wife and contends that those were acquired by her through 20 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 her legitimate source of income. It is his contention that Smt. Tanuja is a civil engineer by profession holding Diploma in Civil Engineering and she runs an engineering concern 'Nishu Associates' and to buttress his contention he relies upon the prosecution documents Exhibited as Ex. P52 and Ex. P46. Ex. P52 is the letter issued by the Joint Director of the BBMP Bangalore, wherein it is revealed that the BBMP had issued a certificate to Smt. B. R. Tanuja as a Registered Supervisor as per Schedule IV of the Building Bye-laws of the BBMP. The copies of documents submitted by her to get the eligibility to be registered as a Supervisor under the BBMP also forms the part of Ex. P52. Ex. P46 is the details of income tax returns submitted by Smt. B. R. Tanuja to the Income Tax Department showing her income. The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that these documents reveals that the wife of accused was running "Nishu Associates" and which got huge profits and Smt. Tanuja acquired properties out of her own income and the income was also declared to the income tax department 21 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 promptly and hence, clubbing her assets into the assets of accused and holding him answerable is unlawful. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing to show that there was any institute by name "Nishu Associates" as claimed by the accused and a license is obtained for name sake to convert the ill-gotten money of the accused in the name of a fictitious firm.
16. The Ex. P52 is a license obtained by the wife of accused from the BBMP recognizing her as a Registered Supervisor and the same is obtained by her by submitting necessary certificates and documents before the BBMP such as her Diploma certificate, marks card, experience certificates, etc. All these are marked before this court and from the perusal of these documents nothing is brought out with respect to "Nishu Associates". These only reveal that Smt. Tanuja is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and she is an approved Registered Supervisor under the BBMP. Ex. P 46 is the income tax returns filed by Smt. Tanuja and 22 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 nowhere in the tax returns the name of "Nishu Associates"
finds mention. It can be seen that income is derived from an Engineering concern. The tax returns are pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08 and filed on 11-02-2009, after the registration of this case. There is not even a single piece of evidence before this court to show that in fact there exist an institution by name "Nishu Associates". Since, the prosecution says that it is a fictitious firm it is the duty of the prosecution to show that there is no such firm in existence. Prosecution has made its earnest effort by bringing in PW11 and PW12, Additional Commissioner of Karnataka States Commercial Tax Department and Superintendent of Service Taxes respectively and Ex. P 53 and P 54 are the documents marked. Ex. P 53 shows that no service tax registration has been issued in the name of either "Nishu Associates" or Smt. B. R. Tanuja. It is also clear from the said document that a search has been made with respect to PAN number of Smt. B. R. Tanuja to find out the same but in vain. Ex. P54 shows that no such concern by name "Nishu Associates" or under 23 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 the name of Smt. B. R. Tanuja has been registered under the Karnataka State Commercial Taxes Department. The accused got himself examined as DW1 and he testifies that his wife Tanuja is running an institution in the name and style "Nishu Associates" and the same is having license under the BBMP. He further deposes that she had purchased properties out of her incomes she earned from "Nishu Associates". He admits in his cross examination that he has not submitted his Assets and Liability Certificates regularly every year to his department and he also admits that he has not obtained any permission from his department before acquiring property in his name or before his wife acquiring property in her name. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigating officer issued notices to the accused on 30.10.2008, 27.07.2009, 22.02.2010, 05.04.2010, 21.04.2010, 14.05.2010, 29.06.2010, 26.07.2010, 07.09.2010, 18.10.2010, 02.11.2010, 15.11.2010 and 17.02.2011 to submit the explanation to the enclosed annexures. Further the investigation had issued notices on 24 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 18.11.2008, 13.05.2010, 26.07.2010, 05.10.2010, 18.10.2010, 26.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 to both the accused and his wife to furnish the particulars and explanations with regard to movable and immovable properties and other particulars and the source of income but the accused has not submitted any explanation or furnished the particulars as sought for by the investigating officer. The accused in his testimony admits that he had received 13 notices from the Investigating Officer seeking explanations with respect to the properties standing in his name and in the name of his wife. He further testifies that his wife had given written reply twice to those notices and admits that he has no documents to substantiate this. He further states that he did not submit his explanation before the Investigating Officer as he had an apprehension in his mind that the Investigating Officer may arrest his wife. He further admits in his cross examination that he does not know the nature of business carried out and transactions of made by "Nishu Associates". He also pleads ignorance with respect to when this "Nishu 25 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Associates" was established. He further admits that he had not furnished any details with respect to "Nishu Associates"
to the Investigating Officer.
17. Smt. Tanuja, wife of the accused is not examined to prove the existence of "Nishu Associates" in which accused attributes the lion's share of the assets calculated by the Investigating Officer. No documents are produced by the defence to show the transactions carried out by the said "Nishu Associates". The accused claim that his wife was having her own independent source of income right from 1994 itself. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act says that whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts he asserts must prove that fact and section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Here the prosecution claims that the properties standing in the name of wife of the accused were purchased 26 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 from the money of the accused since, she had no independent source of income of her own and the accused claims that his wife being a civil engineer was running an institution in the name and style "Nishu Associates" and she was also working with Arch Plans as Architectural and Civil Drafts Person from 1994 to 1996 and from 1997 to 1998 she was working with Samarth Associates as AutoCAD Operator and hence, she had her own independent source of income from which acquired properties. Neither accused nor his wife had furnished any documents either before the Investigating Officer during investigation or before court during trial to show the existence of the source of income of Smt. B. R. Tanuja. To show that there is no such concern named "Nishu Associates" the prosecution relies upon oral evidences of PW11 and PW12 and documents Ex. P53 and P54 and discharged its initial burden as per section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act that there exists no such firm named "Nishu Associates". Now as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act it is for the accused to prove the existence of the said 27 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 "Nishu Associates" and income of his wife by leading evidence oral or documentary. The experience certificates of showing that she had worked for Samarth Associates and for Arch Plans during 1994 to 1998 are part of Ex. P52 which she had furnished before the BBMP for obtaining Registered Supervisor license. These are only photocopies of the documents and these does not speak with respect to the income she had derives during the said period not the details of salary she was drawing. The Counsel for the accused submits that Smt. Tanuja has submitted statements with respect to her income before the Income Tax Department and the same is collected by the Investigating Officer and marked as Ex. P46 which reveals that during the financial year 2007-08 she had got income of Rs. 82,210/- from her business concern and therefore, the accused has discharged his burden proving that Smt. Tanuja was in fact earning income on her own. It is also urged by the learned counsel that the accused is bound to discharge his burden not beyond reasonable doubt, but by providing evidence in the 28 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 degree of preponderance of probability. From perusal of the documents on record it can be seen that she has not filed any returns pertaining to her income prior to 2008. She has submitted Ex. P 46 documents only on 11.02.2009. She has not stated the name of the concern from which she was receiving income. Hence, only on looking into the income tax returns filed by Smt. Tanuja it cannot be concluded that she earned income of her own since, the source of income cannot be verified from the returns. Further, relaying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha reported in (2017)6 SCC 263 that the declaration of income in Income Tax Returns cannot be considered while appreciating evidence in a case where the accused is charged under the provisions of the PC Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "ITRs and IT order do not constitute fool proof defence in DA cases. ITRs and IT orders would not ipso-facto either conclusively prove or disprove charge of disproportionate assets (acquisition of assets disproportionate to known source of income) and can 29 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 at best be pieces of evidence which have to evaluated along with other materials on record. The scrutiny and orders passed by IT authorities do not certify or authenticate that source thereof to be lawful and thus no significance vis-a'-vis a charge u/s 13(1)(e)". Therefore, the explanation of the accused with resect the income of his wife, that too filed after the registration of this case cannot be considered. Since, the accused has not led any positive evidence either oral or documentary to show that his wife was having her own source of income, I am of the considered opinion that the assets mentioned in serial No. 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20 and 23 standing in the name of Smt. Tanuja has to been rightly included in the assets of the accused by the Investigating Officer.
18. The value of Toyota Innova car bearing registration No. KA 01 MC 7160 Rs. 4,50,000/- has been included by the Investigating Officer into the assets of the accused in serial No. 10 of Table No. 1. The learned defence 30 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 counsel strongly opposed this saying that the vehicle does not belong to accused or any of his family members and the Investigating Officer has wrongly included the value of the same into the assets of the accused.
19. The prosecution case is that this vehicle originally belonged to one S. V. Prakash, who had purchased the said car by raising loan from Kotak Mahindra, Bengaluru and the accused purchased the said car in the name of his wife from the said S. V. Prakash in the year 2008 for a consideration of Rs 4,50,000/- and who had delivered the possession of the said vehicle to the wife of the accused on the date of sale itself. It is the prosecution case that the ownership of the vehicle was not changed to the name of Smt. Tanuja nor she obtained any of delivery note of the same from the registered owner Prakash. Therefore, the value of the said vehicle is taken into the asset of the accused. The said S. V. Prakash is citied as CW25 by the prosecution but he was not examined before this court to prove that he had sold the vehicle to either accused or his wife for the value as asserted 31 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 by the prosecution. The said vehicle was found parked at the courtyard of the accused during raid and hence the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the registered owner of the vehicle and citied him as CW25. Unless and until there are admissible evidence produced before this court either oral documentary by the prosecution to prove that this car belonged to accused or any of his family members the contention of the learned defence counsel holds much force and hence, the value of the same cannot be included in the assets of the accused.
20. Cash of Rs. 3,12,000/- was found in the possession of the accused during search of his residential premises by the Investigating Officer and the said amount is included in serial No. 15 of table No.1 and the learned counsel for accused raised serious objection with respect to this. PW3, Sri. Mohammad Irshad, the Investigating Officer had deposed that during search of the residential premises of the accused he found cash of Rs. 3,12,000/- in the cupboard of the bedroom of the accused and he seized Rs. 32 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 3,00,000/- and he returned Rs. 12,000/- to accused on his request. PW7, Suresh Babu who has laid charge sheet against the accused before court has deposed that even after sending him 13 notices seeking explanation the accused did not offer any explanation with respect to his asset, income and expenditure and hence, he included Rs. 3,12,000/- in the assets of the accused. The learned counsel for accused argued that the said amount was procured by his father by selling tomatoes grown in his field to the APMC and hence, the amount belonged to his father. He further submits that the accused had produced the receipts issued from the APMC in the name of his father was produced before the Investigating Officer during investigation and the Investigating Officer instead of accepting it, lodged complaint before local police alleging that the receipts produced are forged one and a case was registered against father of the accused as Kolar city police station crime No. 94/2010. He further argues that his father was acquitted in the said case with a finding that the bills produced were 33 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 genuine. During cross examination PW7, the Investigating Officer admitted this fact that a case was registered against father of the accused and the said case was pending trial at the time of filing charge sheet of this case. It is suggested by the learned counsel for the accused that said case ended in acquittal of the father of the accused to the Investigating Officer to which he pleads ignorance with respect to the closure of the case. Suggestions put to witnesses in cross examination are no evidence at all and on the basis of such suggestions no inference can be drawn in favour of or against the accused.
21. Since no corresponding source of income was produced by the accused the prosecution alleges that the cash of Rs. 3,12,000/- found in the possession of the accused comes under the ill-gotten money of the accused. The accused is having the exclusive knowledge of the source from which the amount happened to come into his possession. When his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, he gave explanation that 34 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 the cash of Rs.3,12,000/- unearthed from his possession belonged to his brother. This statement of accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for evidence of the prosecution. When accused stepped into the witness box and got himself examined as DW1 he reiterated the explanation that the money belonged to his father and he had produced all the receipts with respect to that before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer instead of accepting them, foisted a false case against his father alleging the forgery of the bills to legalize his son's illegal assets. His evidence is that his father was acquitted in the said case by the jurisdictional magistrate.
22. No documents are produced on behalf of the accused to prove that the case against his father ended in acquittal with a finding that the receipts are genuine. Since, the Investigating Officer has denied to the suggestion that he had no knowledge with respect to the closure of the said 35 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 case, the accused has to produce positive evidence to prove the fact asserted by him which validated his assertion of the fact that cash amount does belongs to him and hence to be excluded from his assets. Resorting to section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the accused to prove the fact which is exclusively within his knowledge that the case ended in acquittal declaring that the bills produced are genuine since, it is not disputed that at the time of filing charge sheet the said case was pending. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has rightly placed this amount under the head of the assets of the accused.
23. In serial No. 15 of Table No. 1, the Investigating Officer has included the value of the gold ornaments as Rs. 6,80,850/- into the assets of the accused. As per the prosecution case 680.85 grams of gold ornaments were found in the possession of the accused and the ornaments were weighed and valued by a goldsmith who was examined as PW4 before court to prove the same. It can be seen that PW4 was examined-in-chief by the learned and cross- 36 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 examination was adjourned and he was not available for cross-examination later hence the evidence of PW4 which was not subjected to cross-examination has to be abjured. It is the prosecution case that the gold was valued at Rs. 1000/- per gram and hence Rs. 6,80,850/- was included into the assets of the accused. The counsel for strongly objected the value arrived at by the Investigating Officer and he submits that the Investigating Officer has valued the gold at the rate as on the date of search, but the gold ornaments were acquired by the accused much earlier and 200 grams of gold ornaments were gifted to his wife at the time of their marriage by her parents and this was disclosed by him in his Assets and Liability statements filed by him from time to time to his department. Ex. P33 is the service particulars of the accused furnished by the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru. In column No.8 of the said document, it is mentioned that the accused has not submitted the assets and liabilities statement except for the year 2001 from the date of his joining public service to till 37 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 the date of raid. The copy of the assets and liabilities statement furnished by the accused to the department is available in the File No.1. From the available evidence it can be seen that the accused got married to Smt. Tanuja in the year 1999 and his Assets and Liability Statement pertaining to the year 2001-02 submitted by him to his department shows that he had declared 200 grams of gold ornaments are gifted to his wife during marriage and 1 kilogram of silver articles are given to her by her parents. Hence, this has to be deducted from his assets. The accused has not given explanation to the rest of the 480.85 grams of gold found in his house at the time of raid. Therefore, I find it right to include value of 480.85 grams of gold into the assets of the accused. Now, coming to the value of gold, the Investigating Officer has valued at the rate of Rs.1000/- per gram assuming that the ornaments were purchased in the year 2008 which the learned counsel for the accused disputes. The standard rate of gold in the year 2008 was at Rs. 1,250/- per gram and the Investigating Officer has 38 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 valued Rs. 250/- less than the value. Since, the prosecution has not brought in any evidence to show that the said gold ornaments were purchased in the year 2008 of a little earlier to that period, the benefit has to be given to the accused and the gold has to valued at the rate prevailing in the 1998, ie., the first year of the check period. As per the data published by the Income Tax department the standard rate of gold prevailing in India in the year 1998 was at Rs. 500/- and hence, gold ornaments have to be valued at Rs. 2,40,425/-
24. Since, the accused had declared in his Assets and Liability Statement pertaining to the year 2001-02 that 1 kg of silver articles were gifted to his wife by her parents the entire amount mentioned in serial No. 17 has to be discarded.
25. With respect to value of house hold articles found the residence of the accused the Investigating Officer has valued them at Rs. 3,82,350/- and the learned counsel of accused contends that the Investigating Officer has shown 39 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 an exaggerated value. Ex. P1 mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer at time of search of the residence of the accused in presence of the witnesses and the accused shows that the Investigating Officer has valued items assigning the minimum value for each item and the accused has not produced any documents to show that he had purchased them in a lower price than valued by the Investigating Officer. The accused has not even given in his testimony the approximate value of the house hold items he possessed while had stepped into the witness box and got himself examined as witness on his behalf. Hence, it can be considered that the Investigating Officer has rightly valued the same.
26. With regard to serial no. 21 the learned counsel for accused has brought to the notice of this court that there is excess of Rs. 1000/- included under this head. The Investigating Officer has stated that Rs. 3000/- was deposited by the accused before the BSNL to obtain landline connection, but from perusal of the documents submitted 40 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 and marked by the prosecution as Ex. P19 which contains 7 sheets at last sheet, it is revealed that the accused had deposited Rs. 2000/- and hence, only Rs. 2000/- can be included into the assets of the accused.
27. Therefore, from the above calculations prosecution has proved that the following assets mentioned in Table No. 2 below and value of the same is Rs. 57,54,877.20 Table No. 2 Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs)
No.
Immovable properties
Site No.17 and 18, Khatha
No.2677, Property No.69/2C,
measuring 60 x 40' situated at 1,32,000.00
1 Dasarahalli village, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk
Value of the building constructed in the aforesaid property. 5,18,093.00 Property No.11, measuring 50 x 30, Yalahanka CMC Khatha No. 1825/922/1965/11, 2nd division, 2 2,62,500.00 Maruthi Nagara, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk 41 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Property No.9 and 10, measuring 60 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated at Rachenahalli village, 1,56,000.00 3 K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Value of the building constructed 21,22,577.00 in the aforesaid property Property No.12, measuring 30 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated 78,000.00 at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram 4 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Value of the building constructed 11,90,895.00 in the aforesaid property Movable properties Bank Accounts SBI, Dhooravani Nagara Branch, 5 S.B. Account No.01190056549 683.00 New Khatha No.10637694570 S.B. Account No. 6 104001011000406 Vijaya Bank, 8,732.00 Byatarayanapura Branch.
S.B.Account No. 01190043022 7 S.B.I Rajajinagara Branch, 836.10 Industrial Estate Branch S.B.Account No.10441078482 S.B.I 8 Rajajinagara Branch, Industrial 22,819.10 Estate Branch Vehicles 9 Santro Car No.KA.03.Z.9225 1,95,000.00 10 Bajaj Calibre No.KA.02.DB 4463 43,760.00 Scooty pep scooter No. KA 02 EN 11 31,970.00 7903 42 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 TVS-TVS Victor GX Registration 12 43,610.00 No.KA.04.ET5569 Others 13 Cash 3,12,000.00 14 Value of gold ornaments seized 2,40,425.00 15 Household articles 3,82,350.00 11 NSC Certificate value of Rs 16 1,100.00 100/- each Fixed deposit for having 15 electricity meters bearing R.R. No.8EDLG32317 to 8EDLG32331 to 17 the building constructed in 3,420.00 property No.12, Khatha No.907, Rachenahalli village, Ramakrishna Hegde Nagara, Bengaluru Fixed deposit for having two electricity meters bearing R.R. No.RR.No.8 EDLG 29337 and 8EDLG29237 to the building 18 4,180.00 constructed in property No.17 & 18, Khatha No.2688, Property No.49/2C1, Dasarahalli, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru Fixed Deposit to BSNL Telephone 19 2,000.00 No.23112829 Fixed Deposit to Gas connection 20 1,900.00 consumer No.44810 Total 57,54,877.20
28. According to the prosecution the accused had derived Rs. 13,90,446/- as income during the check period 43 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 and the details of the same is as under:
Table No. 3
Sl.
Description of Income Value (in Rs.)
No
Income from salary
B.B.M.P Thanisandra Sub-
1,10,304.00
division, Bengaluru City
Belamaranahalli Grama
-
Panchayath, Kolar District
Executive Officer, Taluk
1,11,849.00
Panchayath, Bengaluru South
Executive Officer, Bengaluru East 2,13,553.00 Taluk Panchayath Executive Officer, Bengaluru 1 North Taluk Panchayath, 35,351.00 Yalahanka Bengaluru Urban Zilla
-
Panchayath Office, Bengaluru Office of the Yagavakote Grama Panchayath, Chinthamani, 42,160.00 Chikkaballapura District Hosapete Grama Panchayath,
-
Shidlaghatta Taluk Rental Income House, 1st Main Road, 11th Cross, 2 Hegde Nagara, Arebic College, 17,500.00 Bengaluru City 45 Khatha No.2007, Anjaneya Temple Road, Hegde Nagara, 3 60,000.00 Bengaluru East Taluk 44 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 House, 1st Main Road, 11th Cross, Hegde Nagara, Arebic College, 4 48,850.00 Bengaluru City 45 No.907, 12th Cross,K', I Main Road, R.K.Hegde Nagara, 5 27,600.00 A.C.Post, Bengaluru City Agricultural Income Agriculture income of the 6 accused 1,207.85 Income from sericulture 7 1,25,923.00 Horticulture Income Horticulture income of the accused and his family members 8 4,933.33 from the year 1998-99 to 2001- 02 Bank Loans M/s Bajaj Auto Finance, Kivraj 9 Mansion, Kasturaba Road, 23,000.00 Bengaluru City Interest amount received from the Banks SBI Dhooravani Nagara Branch, S.B.Account No.01190056549 11 2,920.00 New Khatha No.10637694570 Vijaya Bank, Byatarayanapura Branch, S.B.Account 12 58.00 No.104001011000406 45 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 SBI Rajajinagara Branch, Industrial Estate Branch, S.B 13 19,920.96 Account No.01190043022 SBI Rajajinagara Branch, Industrial Estate Branch 14 7,742.00 S.B.Account No.10441078482 Others Chit amount and interest from the Chit Group taken by Smt. 15 4,75,000.00 Tanuja wife of the accused Income earned from dairy 16 farming by the accused 62,573.94 Total 13,90,446.08
29. The learned counsel for accused submits in his written arguments that he accepts the entire income as per the statements furnished by the Investigating Officer in his Final Report except the income mentioned under serial No. 5 of Table No. 3. Under serial No. 5, the Investigating Officer has mentioned the rental income derived by the accused situated at No. 907, 12th Cross K, 1st Main Road, R. K. Hegde Nagar, A. C. Post, Bangalore as Rs. 27,600/- The learned 46 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 counsel for accused contends that the wife of accused entered into an agreement with her tenant on 03-01-2008 which shows that an advance of Rs. 25,000/- was received by her and a monthly rent of Rs. 2,650/- was fixed to be paid every month and hence she received a total sum of Rs. 48,850/- from the date of agreement till the date of raid, but the Investigating Officer has considered only Rs. 27,600/- The Investigating Officer has given clarification in his Final Report that even though the tenants were not available for investigation, he had accepted the rental agreement and considered the advance amount as such, but he gives no explanation as to why he did not consider 9 months' rental income. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused the Investigating Officer has calculated only one months' rent into the income of the accused. On thorough perusal of the typewritten rental agreement deed which is in volume 4 at page 87 of the charge sheet and which forms part of Ex. P76, it can be seen that an agreement is made between Smt. Tanuja and Sri. Mohammad Pasha on 03-01- 47 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 2008 by which it is agreed that an advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- and monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the lessee to the lessor. There is correction in the name and address of the lessee handwritten in ink showing the name one Syed Firoze striking off the name of Mohammad Pasha and advance amount being corrected to Rs. 25,000/- and monthly rent to Rs. 2650/- These corrections are not authenticated subsequent rectification either by the lessor or the lessee. Hence, the corrected figures cannot be considered and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 22,500/- being the advance amount and 9 months' rent at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month has to be included under the rental income. Therefore, Rs. 42,500/- is to be calculated instead of Rs. 27,000/- under serial No. 5.
30. The learned counsel for accused during his arguments raised objection with respect to the quantum of agricultural and horticultural income calculated by the Investigating Officer stating that the documents produced by the prosecution at Ex. P 61 to P 66 shows that he derived 3 48 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 times more amount as considered by the Investigating Officer but purposely the Investigating Officer has showed a value much lesser than the amount depicted in these documents.
31. The Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that the RTCs pertaining to the land shows that the property is in the name of the father of the accused and accused is one of the members of the family. He further clarifies in his cross examination that since, accused had not given his explanation sought by the Investigating Officer in the form of schedule No. 1 to 23, the Investigating Officer had taken 1/3rd of the total agriculture, sericulture, horticulture and dairy farming income of the accused. There is no evidence documentary or oral, showing that the entire income earned from the properties belonged solely to the accused. Since, the documents with respect to the properties stands in the name of the father of the accused, the accused has to produce evidence to show that the entire income is earned by him alone. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has 49 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 rightly considered to take 1/3rd share of the income into the account of the accused considering the fact that his brother and his father are entitled to 1 share each out of the income earned from the property.
32. Hence, the prosecution has proved the following income of the accused mentioned in Table No. 4 below and value of the same is Rs. 14,02,426.08 Table No. 4 Sl.
Description of Income Value (in Rs.)
No
Income from salary
B.B.M.P Thanisandra Sub-
1 division, Bengaluru City 1,10,304.00
Belamaranahalli Grama
Panchayath, Kolar District -
Executive Officer, Taluk
1,11,849.00
Panchayath, Bengaluru South
Executive Officer, Bengaluru East Taluk Panchayath 2,13,553.00 Executive Officer, Bengaluru North Taluk Panchayath, 35,351.00 Yalahanka Bengaluru Urban Zilla
-
Panchayath Office, Bengaluru
50 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
Office of the Yagavakote Grama
Panchayath, Chinthamani,
42,160.00
Chikkaballapura District
Hosapete Grama Panchayath,
Shidlaghatta Taluk -
Rental Income
House, 1st Main Road, 11th Cross,
Hegde Nagara, Arebic College,
2 17,500.00
Bengaluru City 45
Khatha No.2007, Anjaneya
Temple Road, Hegde Nagara,
3 60,000.00
Bengaluru East Taluk
House, 1st Main Road, 11th Cross,
Hegde Nagara, Arebic College,
4 48,850.00
Bengaluru City 45
No.907, 12th Cross,K', I Main
Road, R.K.Hegde Nagara,
5 42,500.00
A.C.Post, Bengaluru City
Agricultural Income
Agriculture income of the
6 1,207.85
accused
Income from sericulture
7 1,25,923.00
Horticulture Income
Horticulture income of the
accused and his family members
8 4,933.33
from the year 1998-99 to 2001-
02
51 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
Bank Loans
M/s Bajaj Auto Finance, Kivraj
9 Mansion, Kasturaba Road, 23,000.00
Bengaluru City
Interest amount received from the Banks SBI Dhooravani Nagara Branch, S.B.Account No.01190056549 11 2,920.00 New Khatha No.10637694570 Vijaya Bank, Byatarayanapura Branch, S.B.Account 12 58.00 No.104001011000406 SBI Rajajinagara Branch, Industrial Estate Branch, S.B 13 19,920.96 Account No.01190043022 SBI Rajajinagara Branch, Industrial Estate Branch 14 7,742.00 S.B.Account No.10441078482 Others Chit amount and interest from the Chit Group taken by Smt. 15 4,75,000.00 Tanuja wife of the accused Income earned from dairy 16 farming by the accused 62,573.94 Total 14,02,426.08 52 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
33. According to the prosecution the accused had incurred Rs. 31,70,743/- as expenditure during the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 and the details of the same is as under:
Table No. 5
Sl.
Description of Expenses Value in Rs. No. Stamps & registration charges Site No.17 and 18, Khatha No.2677, Property No.69/2C, measuring 60 x 40' situated at Dasarahalli village, 1 12,805.00 K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.11, measuring 50 x 30, Yalahanka CMC Khatha No. nd 1825/922/1965/11, 2 division, 2 26,180.00 Maruthi Nagara, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Property No.9 and 10, measuring 60 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated 3 at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram 15,140.00 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.12, measuring 30 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated at 4 Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram 7,680.00 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk 53 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Taxes Residential House No.5/7, 5 Raghupathi Agrahara, Channasandra 708.00 Grama Panchayath, Kolar Taluk Site No.17 and 18, Khatha No.2677, Property No.69/2C, measuring 60 x 6 40' situated at Dasarahalli village, -
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.12, measuring 30 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated at 7 -
Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.9 and 10, measuring 60 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated 8 at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram - Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.11, measuring 50 x 30, Yalahanka CMC Khatha No. nd 1825/922/1965/11, 2 division, 9 -
Maruthi Nagara, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Amenities Expenses Water charges Water charges paid during the residency in House No.1, 3rd Main 10 Road, Shivanagara, Rajajinagara 1,950.00 Bengaluru.
54 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
Electricity charges Electricity consumption charges paid in respect of Meter No.RR 11 No.8AEH27096, No.15-16 Khatha 2,053.00 No.224, Horamavu, Vijaya Bank Colony, Bengaluru City-43 House No.1, 3rd Main Road, 12 15,533.00 Shivanagara, Bengaluru.
Mobility Expenses: Car/ Bike/ Etc. Insurance Expenses 775.00 13 TVS Scooty Pep No.KA.02.EN. 7903 786.00 TVS-TVS Victor Gx Reg No.KA. 04.ET 14 932.00 5569 Insurance paid for Bajaj Caliber 15 -
No.KA.02.EB.4463 16 Bajaj Caliber KA.02.EB.4463 6,805.00 Scooty pep Scooter No.KA.02.EN 17 2,308.00 7903 TVS Victor GZ Engine No.KA.04.ET 18 4,234.00 5569 Expenditure on mobile phone calls 19 BSNL Mobile No.9448362829 67,443.00 20 Reliance Mobile No.9341257522 2,410.00 Landline Telephone expenditure B SNL Landline Phone No. 23112829 21 44,336.00 55 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Interest paid on the bank loan M/s Bajaj Auto Finance Kivraj 22 Manion, Kasturaba Road, Bengaluru 30,272.00 City Income Tax Income tax paid to the Income Tax Department by Smt. Tanuja -
23
Income Tax paid to the Income Tax
Department by the accused -
24 Family expenditure 3,47,585.00
Expenditure on gas consumption
25 Gas connection consumer No.44810 19,945.00
26 Gas connection consumer No. 47688 1,044.00
Education Expenses
Royal Concord International School, 15,455.00
Kalyanagara, Outer ring road,
27
Bengaluru city 16,335.00
Chamu Play Home, 8th Main Road, 2,910.00
28 Shivanagara, Bengaluru city
4,660.00
New Florence English school, 8th
29 Main Road, Shivanagara, Bengaluru 14,940.00
City
56 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
Unaccounted expenditure
SBI Rajajinagara Branch Industrial Estate Branch, S.B. Account No.01190043022 Self-cash withdrawal vide cheque No.902826 1,00,000.00 Self-cash withdrawal vide cheque No.926434 1,50,000.00 30 Self-cash withdrawal vide cheque No.926436 5,00,000.00 Self-cash withdrawal vide cheque No 715015 from S.B Account 31 No.10441078482, SBI Rajajinagara 4,40,000.00 Branch, Industrial Estate Branch House Rent paid by the accused House No.15-16 Khatha No.224, 32 Horamavu, Vijaya Bank Colony, 8,00,000.00 Bengaluru City-43 House No.1, 3rd Main Road, 33 Shivanagara, Rajajinagara, 83,215.00 Bengaluru Other Expenditures 34 Metro Card No.1011786250 92,814.00 ASB Chit Fund Ltd, P.B.No.9159, 35 No.159, Magadi Main Road, 3,37,549.00 Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru city Kasturi Cable Networks Erappa 36 1,700.00 Reddy Layout, Bengaluru city 57 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Expenditure paid to the BBMP for 37 obtaining the Supervisor License by 250.00 Smt. Tanuja Total 31,70,743.00
34. The learned counsel for accused has submitted in his written arguments that he is no disputes with respect to expenditure mentioned in serial No.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 33 and 36.
35. The learned counsel for accused strongly disputes with respect to expenditure mentioned in serial No. 3, 4, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 32, 34, 35 and 37 and submits that these expenditures are incurred by Smt. Tanuja, wife of the accused and hence, cannot be accounted under the expenditure of accused. He further submits that as she had her own independent source of income and as she had not depended her husband she used to bear almost all house hold expenses such as paying electricity bills, water bills, telephone bills of hers and of the accused, education 58 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 expenses of their children, etc. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly objected to this contention of the counsel and submits that unless and until the accused discharges the onus shifted on him to show that his wife was earning such a huge amount of income as claimed by him, by leading admissible evidence his claim has to be rejected in toto. As it is already discussed in the earlier part of this judgement while considering the assets of the accused, there is nothing on record to show that the wife of the accused had her own source of income and hence the submission of the learned counsel for accused cannot be accepted. Further the learned counsel submits in the argument before court and in his written submissions that expenditure of Rs. 30,272/- mentioned in serial No. 22 i.e., repayment of vehicle loan paid incurred by his wife. She had availed a loan of Rs. 23,000/- towards the motorbike and she made payments towards the loan. He further submits that the cumulative reading of Ex. P36 and Ex. P27 throws light to this fact and 59 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 hence, the Investigating Officer has wrongly calculated this amount into the account of the accused.
36. It can be seen that the loan amount of Rs. 23,000/- which was availed by Smt. Tanuja has been included in the income of the accused, even though the said loan amount is disbursed in the name of the wife of the accused. Now he claims that the repayment of the said loan amount should not be tagged into his expenditure. This contention cannot be appreciated since, he is disputing the inclusion of value of the motorbike into his assets as it is in the name of his wife and inclusion of repayment of loan amount raised on the said motorbike into expenditure as the amount is paid by his wife but at the same time he claims that the loan amount disbursed in the name of his wife has to be included into his income. He cannot blow hot and cold at the same time and hence I am of the considered opinion that the expenditure incurred by the wife of the accused mentioned in serial No. 3, 4, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 60 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 26, 32, 34, 35 and 37 are rightly considered into the expenditure of the accused by the Investigating Officer.
37. The counsel for the accused has disputed the inclusion of expenditure mentioned in serial No. 27, 28 and 29 of Table 5. These are the educational expenditure of children of the accused paid by the accused. The prosecution relies upon Ex. P14, 15 and 17 to prove the educational expenses incurred by the accused. These are the documents of Royal Concord International School, Chamu Play Home and New Florence English School which shows the details of fee payments made towards the education expenses of children of the accused. The learned counsel for accused reasons that these documents are statement of account for payment of fess and these statements are hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further he submits that as the whole documents are inadmissible in evidence the court need not look into the fact as to who paid the amount. He also points out that these documents lack legal 61 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 sanctity since the witnesses concerned were not examined by the prosecution to prove the educational expenses incurred by the accused.
38. Even though these documents are produced in the letter pad of institution mentioned therein, that cannot be brought under the purview of documentary evidence, because these are not documents but only statements given respective Head of the Institutions. Had the prosecution annexed the copies of receipts or extracts of ledgers along with these statements, then those copies of receipts or extracts of ledgers could have been considered as documentary evidence. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused Ex. P14, 15 and 17 are hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since, those statements bear signature of witnesses. These are only oral statements in the form of writing given by the witnesses and signed by them and therefore, cannot be admitted into evidence. Ex. P15 is the copy of an extract of a register 62 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 which shows the donation paid in the name of Kum. Neha and Kum. Sneha. It is a document which depicts payment of Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1,900/- As this is a xerox copy of the register which bears no attestation to show its authenticity, this being a secondary piece of evidence without an explanation for non-production of original or duly attested copy of the document, also cannot be admitted into evidence. Hence the amount of Rs. 15,455/-, Rs. 16,335, Rs. 2,910/- and Rs. 4,660/- cannot be included under the expenditure of the accused.
39. Under the head unaccounted expenditure Rs. 11,90,000/- has been attributed on the accused which finds mention in serial No. 30 and 31 of Table 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that these are the withdrawals made by the wife of the accused from her 2 savings bank accounts maintained in her name with the State Bank of India, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate branch. No explanation is offered either by accused or his wife with respect to source 63 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 of such a huge amount or for what purpose such a huge amount was utilized. The submission of the learned counsel for accused is that it is Investigating Officer to investigate as to how the money was utilized and from where Smt. Tanuja got the money and the unverified expenses cannot be taken into the account of expenditures of the accused. Smt. Tanuja has withdrawn these amount as per four self-drawn cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 4,40,000/-. The Investigating Officer has stated that he could not find out or relate to any of the documents or evidences collected by him during investigation with these amounts. The accused does not dispute the withdrawal of these amounts from the bank and hence, again it is within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and his wife as to where this amount was spent or how this amount was spent and from where she got such a huge amount of money, which burden accused is duty bound to discharge. It is not the case of the defence that these amounts were drawn and kept by the wife of accused from time to time from her 64 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 account to take care of any of the expenditures enumerated in Table No. 5. Even though this being the situation, the investigating officer is duty bound to conduct the investigation with respect to the withdrawals of these amounts either by questioning wife of the accused or by collecting information from the bank as to when these amounts came to be deposited into the account of Smt. Tanuja in bank and how this amount was deposited in the bank, whether it is by a cash or from any other means such as Demand Draft, RTGS transfers or transfer from any other accounts, etc. As per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, it is the prosecution which has to discharge the initial burden, then only, the onus of proof shifts to the accused and he has to explain the facts which are within his knowledge. Further, the investigating officer had not examined the wife of the accused during investigation. The Investigating officer was not prevented from arraying her in the witness list after taking her statements as to how this amount happened to come into her account and for what purpose she had 65 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 withdrawn from the account as she was not arrayed as co- accused with her husband. It can be seen that she was not given any opportunity to explain the same. It is true that the investigating officer had sent 13 notices to accused seeking explanation from the accused and his wife, but no explanations were given by them. Even if she had given any written explanation that would be of no consequences before this court since, it would be hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was the bounden duty of the investigating officer to take her oral statement and find out the source and expenditure of the above-mentioned amounts. Accused got himself examined as DW 1 on behalf of his defence and the prosecution did not chose to use this opportunity to seek clarification with respect to this amount through him. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination with respect to this amount and hence, I am of the considered view that this amount has to be ignored as there is no proper explanation by the prosecution to show that this 66 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 amount was in fact spent by either accused or by any of his family members.
40. The learned counsel for accused argues that the prosecution has no case that the accused did Benami transactions in the name of his wife by purchasing property in her name nor the prosecution alleges offence of abatement against his wife and hence, on that ground the assets standing in the name of wife of accused and expenditure incurred by wife of accused cannot be attributed on the accused without she being arrayed as co-accused. It is settled position of law that the existence of properties in the name of the wife of accused will fall under the exception to the prohibited Benami transactions as it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable or movable property in the name of his spouse from his known source of income. To attract an offence of abatement against a person, definition of abatement as enumerated u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has to be looked into. Abetment may be by instigating a person, conspiring with 67 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 the person or intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence as provided u/s 107 of the IPC. Offence of abetment depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted. Here the prosecution has no case that the accused amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income with the knowledge of his wife hence, the reasoning submitted by the learned counsel for accused holds no water.
41. Hence, the prosecution has proved the following expenditure of the accused mentioned in Table No. 6 below and value of the same is Rs. 19,26,452.00 Table No. 6 Sl.
Description of Expenses Value in Rs. No. Stamps & registration charges Site No.17 and 18, Khatha No.2677, Property No.69/2C, measuring 60 x 40' situated at Dasarahalli village, 1 12,805.00 K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk 68 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Property No.11, measuring 50 x 30, Yalahanka CMC Khatha No. nd 1825/922/1965/11, 2 division, 2 26,180.00 Maruthi Nagara, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Property No.9 and 10, measuring 60 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated 3 at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram 15,140.00 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.12, measuring 30 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated at 4 Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram 7,680.00 Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Taxes Residential House No.5/7, 5 Raghupathi Agrahara, Channasandra 708.00 Grama Panchayath, Kolar Taluk Site No.17 and 18, Khatha No.2677, Property No.69/2C, measuring 60 x 6 40' situated at Dasarahalli village, - K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.12, measuring 30 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated at 7 -
Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Property No.9 and 10, measuring 60 x 40' bearing Khata No.907, situated 8 -
at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk 69 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Property No.11, measuring 50 x 30, Yalahanka CMC Khatha No. nd 9 1825/922/1965/11, 2 division, -
Maruthi Nagara, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Amenities Expenses Water charges Water charges paid during the residency in House No.1, 3rd Main 10 1,950.00 Road, Shivanagara, Rajajinagara Bengaluru.
Electricity charges Electricity consumption charges paid in respect of Meter No.RR 11 No.8AEH27096, No.15-16 Khatha 2,053.00 No.224, Horamavu, Vijaya Bank Colony, Bengaluru City-43 House No.1, 3rd Main Road, 12 15,533.00 Shivanagara, Bengaluru.
Mobility Expenses: Car/ Bike/ Etc. Insurance Expenses 775.00 13 TVS Scooty Pep No.KA.02.EN. 7903 786.00 TVS-TVS Victor Gx Reg No.KA. 04.ET 14 932.00 5569 Insurance paid for Bajaj Caliber 15 -
No.KA.02.EB.4463 16 Bajaj Caliber KA.02.EB.4463 6,805.00 Scooty pep Scooter No.KA.02.EN 17 2,308.00 7903 70 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 TVS Victor GZ Engine No.KA.04.ET 18 4,234.00 5569 Expenditure on mobile phone calls 19 BSNL Mobile No.9448362829 67,443.00 20 Reliance Mobile No.9341257522 2,410.00 Landline Telephone expenditure 21 B SNL Landline Phone No. 23112829 44,336.00 Interest paid on the bank loan M/s Bajaj Auto Finance Kivraj 22 Manion, Kasturaba Road, Bengaluru 30,272.00 City Income Tax Income tax paid to the Income Tax
-
23 Department by Smt. Tanuja Income Tax paid to the Income Tax
-
Department by the accused 24 Family expenditure 3,47,585.00 Expenditure on gas consumption 25 Gas connection consumer No.44810 19,945.00 26 Gas connection consumer No. 47688 1,044.00 House Rent paid by the accused House No.15-16 Khatha No.224, 29 Horamavu, Vijaya Bank Colony, 8,00,000.00 Bengaluru City-43 House No.1, 3rd Main Road, 30 83,215.00 Shivanagara, Rajajinagara 71 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Other Expenditures 31 Metro Card No.1011786250 92,814.00 ASB Chit Fund Ltd, P.B.No.9159, 32 No.159, Magadi Main Road, 3,37,549.00 Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru city Kasturi Cable Networks Erappa 33 1,700.00 Reddy Layout, Bengaluru city Expenditure paid to the BBMP for 34 obtaining the Supervisor License by 250.00 Smt. Tanuja Total 19,26,452.00
42. Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence produced and proved by the prosecution, it can be ascertained that the total income of the accused during the check period was Rs. 14,02,426.00, the assets in possession of the accused during the check period was found to be of Rs. 57,54,877.20 and the total expenditure incurred by the accused was at Rs. 19,26,452.00.
72 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
Sl. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
No.
1. Assets acquired during the 57,54,850.20
check period
2. Expenses incurred during 19,26,452.00
check period
3. Sum of assets and 76,81,302.20
expenditure of the accused
4. Income earned during the 14,05,346.08
check period
5. Assets disproportionate 62,75,856.12
6. Percentage 446.57%
43. Under these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 62,75,856.12 which is at 446.57% by adducing satisfactory and convincing evidence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
44. Point No 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
73 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011
ORDER Acting under section 248(2) Cr.P.C, the accused, R. Nagaraju is convicted for the offence defined under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Case is posted to hear the accused on sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, printout taken, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of September, 2018) [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 74 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused is present.
Sri Raghunath, learned advocate for the accused and Sri D. Ramesh Babu, the learned Public Prosecutor are present.
Heard with regard to sentence.
Sri. Raghunath N., learned advocate for accused submits that the accused is having aged parents and his wife is suffering from kidney diseases. He is having two school going female daughters. There is nobody to take care of his daughters in his absence. He is also not keeping good health and hence, learned counsel for accused submits to show lenient view while imposing sentence on him.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Looking to the percentage of disproportionate assets, accused being a lower grade Officer of Revenue Department working as Revenue Inspector has acquired huge amount wealth. Therefore, accused do not deserve any lenient view 75 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 while imposing sentence and prays to impose maximum sentence prescribed under law to the offence committed by him and also prays to impose maximum fine.
Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusing the evidence on record this Court has already held that the accused has committed the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused being public servant working as Revenue Inspector has amassed assets disproportionate to his income to the extent of 446.57%. Taking into consideration of percentage of disproportionate assets, nature and gravity of the offences committed by the accused, he is not entitled for any leniency from this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
SENTENCE Acting under section 248(2) Cr.P.C, the accused R. Nagaraju is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 (Four) years for the offence defined under 76 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 section 13 (1)(e) and punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay fine of Rs.62,75,000/- (Rupees sixty-two lakhs seventy-five thousand) in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
Furnish free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of September, 2018) Sd/-
[MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 77 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : M.Munendrappa PW.2 : K.S.Suryanarayana Rao PW.3 : Mohammed Irshad PW.4 : Srimanth Patil PW.5: D.Sridhar PW.6: Prasanna V.Raju PW 7: S.Suresh Babu PW 8: Smt.Gayathri PW 9: S.S.Tipper PW 10: Narasimha Murthy PW 11: Puttegowda PW 12: M.H.Srikantaiah PW 13: S.V.Surya Prakash List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P 1 : Mahazar drawn at House No.15 & 16 dtd 22.10.2008 Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P1(b) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P2: Mahazar dtd 22.10.2008 drawn at BBMP office, Thanisandra Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1 78 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW.3 Ex P3 : Sanction order Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P4 : Orders Ex P5 : Source Report Ex P5(a): Signature of PW 6 Exs P6 and P7 : Two search warrants Ex P8 : Details of LPG No.44810 Ex P9 : Metro super market purchasing details dtd 3.11.2008 Ex P10: APR - Income details of AGO Ex P11 : Letter to Commissioner of Income Tax calling for IT returns particulars dtd 13.11.2008 Ex P12 : Details of FD deposits at Vijaya Bank Ex P 13: Details of expenses on education Ex P 14: School fee's report dtd 18.11.2008 by Chamu play Home School Ex P 15 : Sri Rama Agency consumer No.47688 Ex P16 : AGO Letter dtd 19.11.2008 requesting to change designation Ex P17.: New Florence Engineering School -
Education fee report Ex P18 : Details of reliance mobile expenses Ex P19 : Letter dtd 2.12.2008 of BSNL Department Ex P20: Insurance payments in respect of Car KA.01.MC.7160 79 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Ex P 21: Oriential Insurance Ltd Letter dtd 3.12.2008 Ex P 22: RTO (West) Letter dtd 6.12.2008 Ex P23 : Mobile billing details of BSNL Ex P24 : Insurance payment of TVS Victor KA 04 ET 5569 Ex P 25 : Salary details furnished by Zilla Panchayath, Kolar Ex P 26 : Salary details of AGO from July 2007 to October 2008 furnished by B.B.M.P Ex P 27 : Details of S.B.Account in respect of wife of accused issued by S.B.I Ex P 28 : Details of deposit furnished by SBI, Rajajinagara Branch Ex P 29 : KA 01 MC 9160 Innova R/C extract with registration details of RTO (Central) Ex P 30: Details of registration in respect of site No.11 issued by Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka Ex P 31 : Letter dtd 30.4.2010 in respect of stamp duty charges and registration charges of Dasarahalli site. Ex P 32 : Cerified copy of sale deed in respect of site No.9 and 10 and registration charges Ex P 33 : Letter dtd 27.05.2010 of CEO Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru District Ex P 34 : RTO (East) District letter dtd 28.05.2010 in respect of Santro car KA 03 2 9225 (B-Extract) & registration cost 80 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Ex P35 : Maintenance charges in respect of KA.02.EB.4463 vehicle issued by RTO (West) Ex P 36 : Insurance charges dtd 28.7.2010 issued by Bajaj Finance Limited.
Ex P 37 : BESCOM - Meter Installation charges dtd 6.8.2010 Ex P 38 : BESCOM Meter bill EEH 27096 dtd 6.8.2010 Ex P 39 : Fuel expenditure maintenance cost in respect of santro car issued by RTO (west) Ex P 40 : Details of fuel expenses in respect of KA.02.EN.7903 issued by RTO(West) Bengaluru Ex P 41: Investment details of GI-07/I Ledger report of ASB Chits P ltd dtd 15.11.2010 Ex P 42 : Receipt dtd 22.10.2008 Ex P 42(a) Signature of PW 4 Ex P 43. Building valuation report Ex P 43(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) Signatures of PW 5 Ex P 44: Proceedings Ex P 45: Insurance Details issued by M/s Royal Sundaram Insurance Ex P 46 : Income tax return's details Ex P47 : SBI - Saving bank account details Ex P 48 : NSC Details from post office Bengaluru South division.
Ex P 49: Oriental Insurance Details. Ex P 50 : Metro letter dtd 01.12.2010 81 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 Ex P 51: Kasturi cable charges details. Ex P 52 : BBMP Letter dtd 4.12.2010 Ex P 53 : Letter of commissioner of Service Taxes Ex P 53(a) : Signature of PW 12 Ex P 54: CTO Letter dtd 15.3.2011 Ex P 54(a) : Signature of PW 11 Ex P 55: B Register extract from RTO (Yeshwanthpur) Ex P 56 : Triton - TVS Letter dtd 17.2.2011 vehicle purchasing documents/receipts Ex P 57 : B.B.M.P Byatarayanapura letter dtd 01.12.2010 Tax paid details Ex P 58 : Letter of Smt.Akka Mahadevamma dtd 2.12.2010 Ex P 59 :BESCOM - Electric Expenditure report Ex P 60 : AGO - Pay/Salary details Ex P 61 : Agriculture income report Ex P 62 : Sericulture income report Ex P 63: Horticulture income report Ex P 64 : Horticulture rate list issued by APMC, Kolar Ex P 65: RTC documents issued by the Tahasildar, Kolar. Ex P 66 : Letter dtd 10.2.2011 issued by Raghupathi Agrahara Milk Dairy Ex P 67 : Police notices issued to accised. Ex P 68: Police notices issued to accused Ex P 69 : Reply issued by accused Ex P 70 : Police notices.
82 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011Ex P 71 : Reply to notice for schedule's Ex P 72 : Reply furnished by accused Ex P 73 : Reply to notices Ex P 74 : Reply furnished by accused Ex P 75 : Final report Ex P 75(a) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P 76 :Entire documents of record -4 Ex P 77 : Entire documents of volume No.3 Ex P 78 : Letter addressed to agriculture department Ex P 79: Letter addressed to Sericulture Depargtment Ex P 80 : Horticulture Report dtd 28.1.2011 Ex P 81 : Letter issued by I.O dtd 5.2.2011 Ex P 82 : Letter issued by I.O dtd 5.2.2011 Ex P 83 : Family expenditure report Ex P 83(a) Signature of PW 13 Ex P 84 : F.I.R Ex P 85: Proceedings of P.O, R.D.P.R dtd 18.10.2007 Ex P 86: Proceedings of CEO, Bengaluru Urban Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru Ex P 87: Letter of Zilla Panchayath, Kolar dtd 2.4.2011. List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL 83 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011 List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W 1. R.Nagaraj List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
NIL Sd/-
[MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 84 Spl.C.C.No.153/2011