Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka Represented vs M.Yogananda S/O Late on 22 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-24)
Dated this the 22nd day of September 2015
PRESENT:
Shri V.G. BOPAIAH, B.Sc.LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge,
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru
SPL.C.C. NO.147/2010
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka represented
by Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police Wing City
Division, Bengaluru.
(By Sri D. Ramesh Babu, Special
Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: M.Yogananda S/o Late
M.K.Madaiah, Aged 48 years (As
on this day), Second Division
Assistant, Office of the District
Employment Officer, Asiatic
nd
building, 2 floor, Janatha
Bazaar, Kempegowda Road,
Bengaluru, resident of No : 53/3,
'A' type, P.W.D. Residential
Quarters, Jeevan Bheema Nagar,
Bengaluru-75.
(By Sri C.G.Sundar, Advocate)
2 Spl.C.C.147/2010
JUDGMENT
1. CW 13 (PW 5) U.D.Krishna Kumar, Police Inspector then working in Karnataka Lokayuktha, Police Wing, City Wing, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet dated 09.04.2010 before this Court on 12.04.2010 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7, for the offence defined under section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act').
2. During crime stage the accused was arrested and produced in the home office of this Court on 01.02.2010 and subsequently he was remanded to judicial custody. By the order dated 09.02.2010 of this Court the accused has been enlarged on bail. After the submission of the charge sheet cognizance is taken and the charge sheet came to be registered in Spl.C.C.147/2010. In pursuance of the summons issued by this Court the accused has appeared before this Court and engaged 3 Spl.C.C.147/2010 advocate for his defence. By the order dated 09.07.2010 my learned predecessor in office, again the accused has been released on bail. Copy of the charge sheet is furnished to the accused.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused was appointed as Second Division Assistant on compassionate grounds on 21.04.1986 in the Department of Employment and Training. The Commissioner of Employment and Training (Employment Division) is the appointing and disciplinary authority. In the year 2010, the accused was working as Second Division Assistant in the office of the District Employment Exchange Officer (Technical), situated in Asiatic building, 2nd floor, Janatha Bazaar, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru and as such the accused at that time was public servant within the ambit of section 2(c) of the Act. CW 1(PW1) D.R.Eregowda resident of Doddachakanahalli of Hassan District had registered his name on 13.02.2009 in the office of the Employment Officer, office of the District Employment Exchange 4 Spl.C.C.147/2010 Officer (Technical), Bengaluru i.e., in the office of the accused where the accused was working. On 01.02.2010 PW 1 filed application (sheet no.1 of Ex P15) with the District Employment Officer, Asiatic building, 2nd floor, Janatha Bazaar, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru seeking transfer of his registration to the office of the District Employment Officer, Hassan. On the same day the District Employment Officer Asiatic building, 2nd floor, Janatha Bazaar, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru instructed PW 1 to place sheet no.1 of Ex P15 before the accused. On the same day PW 1 placed sheet no.1 of Ex P15 before the accused. Afterwards, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs 400/- payable within 5.00 PM on 01.02.2010 in order to transmit sheet no.1 of Ex P15 to the District Employment Officer, Hassan. Feeling offended by the said demand PW1 set law into motion and accordingly on the same day at 2.45 P.M he approached PW 5 and lodged complaint (Ex P1). On the basis of Ex P1 PW 5 registered the case against the accused in crime no.05/2010 for the above alleged 5 Spl.C.C.147/2010 offences and submitted FIR (Ex P14) to this Court in a sealed cover. CW 2 (PW 2) B.Albert Raj and CW 3 (PW
3) P.Somashekar are secured by PW 5 as shadow witness and trap witness respectively to the police station of PW 5. PW 1 placed cash of Rs 400/- (MO 2) before PW 5. PW 5 got entered the numbers of MO 2 on a sheet of paper Ex P4. PW 5 got prepared solution with water and sodium carbonate powder through CW 12 Police constable R.Srinivasa Murthy. PW 5 obtained sample of that solution in the bottle (MO 3). On the instructions of PW 5 CW 10 S.P.Paramesh police constable attached to the office of PW 5 applied phenolphthalein powder on the notes at MO 2. PW 3 placed MO 2 in the left side packet of shirt of PW 1. On the instructions of PW 5 PW 3 immersed fingers of hands in the residual solution. The finger wash of PW 3 turned to pink colour. PW 5 seized the finger wash of hands of PW 3 in the bottle (MO 4). PW 5 instructed PW 1 to give MO 2 to the accused only in the event of demand by the accused. PW 5 also instructed to PW 1 6 Spl.C.C.147/2010 to wipe the face with kerchief in the event of the accused accepting MO 2. PW 5 placed digital voice recorder to PW 1 with instructions to keep the same live at the time of approaching the accused. PW 5 instructed PW 2 to accompany PW 1 and to watch what transpires between the accused and PW 1. PW 5 conducted pre trap mahazar (Ex P2) in his police station. On the same day i.e., on 01.02.2010 at 4.40 PM PW 5 left his police station along with his staff, PWs 1 to 3 destined at the office of the accused. At 4.45 PM PWs 1 and 2 entered the office of the accused where the accused was found. The accused demanded Rs 400/- from PW 1. PW 1 requested to scale down at Rs 300/- which requested has not been obliged by the accused. Afterwards, PW 1 gave MO 2 to the accused. The accused received MO 2 in his right hand and afterwards PW 1 came out of the office of the accused at 5.25 P.M and wiped face with kerchief and communicated the acceptance of MO 2 by the accused. Afterwards, PW 5 along with his staff and PW 3 entered the office of the 7 Spl.C.C.147/2010 accused. The accused was pointed out to PW 5 by PW
1. PW 5 disclosed his identity to the accused. PW 5 got prepared solution with water and sodium carbonate powder through CW 11 women police constable by name Smt.Shylakumari attached to the office of PW 5. PW 5 obtained sample solution in the bottle (MO 5). On the instructions of PW 5 the accused immersed fingers of his right hand in the solution kept in one bowl and immersed fingers of his left hand in the solution kept in another bowl. Finger wash of both hands of the accused turned to light pink colour. PW 5 seized right hand finger wash of the accused in the bottles (MOs 6 and 7). PW 5 seized left hand fingers wash of the accused in the bottles (MOs 8 and 9). PW 5 questioned the accused about MO 2. In response the accused told that MO 2 is in the left side drawer of the table. On the instructions of PW 5 PW 3 took out MO 2 from the left side drawer of the table of the accused. PW 5 seized MO 2 and kept the same inside the cover (MO 1). PW 5 got rubbed the inner portion of the drawer of the table 8 Spl.C.C.147/2010 with cotton (MO 13). Afterwards, when MO 13 was dipped in the solution the solution turned to light pink colour. PW 5 seized the wash of MO 13 in the bottles (MOs 10 and 11). PW 5 obtained copy of the file (MO
15) of PW 1. PW 5 also seized two sheets of copies of attendance register (Ex P16) maintained in the office of the accused. PW 5 got transmitted the contents of the voice recorder and pen camera operated by PW 1 during demand for MO 2 by the accused to the compact disc (MO 16). PW 5 also got transmitted the contents of voice recorder and pen camera to the sheet (Ex P7). The accused gave statement (Ex P5) before PW 5. Thereafter, PW 5 conducted trap mahazar (Ex P3) in the office of the accused. PW 5 arrested the accused and produced in the home office of this Court under the escort of his staff. Further investigation disclosed prima facie case and after obtaining the sanction order (Ex P
8) PW 5 has filed the charge sheet. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused being public servant on 01.02.2010 in order to extend official favour to PW 1 in 9 Spl.C.C.147/2010 the matter of transmitting sheet No.1 of Ex P15 to the District Employment Officer, Hassan demanded and accepted MO 2 in his office between 4.45 PM and 5.25 PM.
4. On 26.07.2012 when charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7, for the offence under section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed, read over and explained to the accused the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of the above charges, the prosecution has examined CW 1 D.R.Eregowda, CW 2 B.Albert Raj, CW 3 P.Somashekar, CW 4 S.R.Umashankar and CW 13 U.D.Krishna Kumar respectively as PWs 1 to 5. The prosecution has got marked the complaint of PW 1 as per Ex P1, signature of PW 1 as per Ex P1(a), pre trap mahazar as per Ex P 2, signature of PW 1 as per Ex P2(a), signatures of PW 2 as per Exs P2(b) to 2(e), 10 Spl.C.C.147/2010 signatures of PW 3 as per Exs P2(f) to 2(i), signature of PW 5 as per Ex 2(j), trap mahazar as per Ex P 3, signatures of PW 2 as per Exs P3(a) to 3(i), signatures of PW 3 as per Exs P3(j) to 3(r), signature of PW 1 as per Ex P3(s) and signature of PW 5 as per Ex P3(t), sheet containing details of currency notes as per Ex P 4, signature of PW 2 as per Ex P4(a), signature of PW 3 as per Ex P4(b), signature of PW 5 as per Ex P4(c), explanation of the accused given in writing before PW 5 as per Ex P5, signature of PW 2 as per Ex P5(a), signature of PW 3 as per Ex P5(b), portion of the statement of PW 3 recorded by PW 5 under section 162 Cr.P.C as per Ex P6, compact disc containing the transmitted version of the voice recorder as per Ex P7, signature of PW 3 as per Ex P7(a), signature of PW 5 as per Ex P7(b), sanction order as per Ex P8, signature of PW 4 as per Ex P8(a), portion of the statement of PW 1 recorded by PW 5 under section 162 Cr.P.C as per Exs P9, P10, P11, P12 and P13 respectively, FIR as per Ex P14, signatures PW 5 as per Exs P14(a) and (b), two 11 Spl.C.C.147/2010 sheets of xerox copies of attendance register maintained in the office of the accused as per Ex P16, service particulars of the accused as per Ex P17, work allotment order as per Ex P18, sketch of the place of trap drawn by PW 5 as per Ex P19, report of the chemical examiner consisting of two sheets as per Ex P20, cover in which MO 2 cash of Rs 400.00 is placed as per MO 1, cash of Rs 400/- (Rs 100 x 4) as per MO 2, bottle containing sample solution prepared for the purpose of pre trap mahazar as per MO 3, bottle containing finger wash of hands of PW 3 as per MO 4, bottle containing sample solution prepared for the purpose of trap mahazar as per MO 5, bottle containing right hand finger wash of the accused as per MO6, one more bottle containing right hand finger wash of the accused as per MO7, bottle containing left hand finger wash of the accused as per MO8, another bottle containing left hand finger wash of the accused as per MO9, bottle containing the wash of the inner portion of the table drawer of the accused as per MO 10, another bottle containing the wash of the 12 Spl.C.C.147/2010 inner portion of the table drawer of the accused as per MO 11, cover in which MO 13 cotton is place as per MO 12, cotton which is used to rub the inner portion of the table drawer of the accused is marked as per MO 13, metal seal as per MO 14, cover in which MO 16 is placed as per MO 15, compact disc containing the contents of voice recorder and pen camera as per MO 16, cover in which MO 18 is placed as per MO 17 and Compact disc containing the videograph of pre trap and trap as per MO 18.
6. During examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C he has denied the material incriminating circumstances which appeared against him in the evidence of PWs 1 to 5. He has not chosen to examine any witnesses on his behalf.
7. Heard the arguments addressed by Sri.D.Ramesh Babu, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Relying upon the evidence of PW 2 he contended that though PW 1 has turned hostile the 13 Spl.C.C.147/2010 evidence of PW 2 establishes the demand and acceptance of MO 2. Relying upon the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 he contended that seizure of MO 2 from the accused stands established and therefore since the accused has not offered any material to rebut the presumption under section 20 of the Act presumption under section 20 of the Act leans in favour of the prosecution.
8. Heard the arguments of Sri.C.G.Sundar, the learned Counsel for the accused who contended that since the PW 1 has turned hostile and since the evidence of PW 2 suffers from serious infirmities the alleged demand and acceptance of MO 2 by the accused stands not established. He contended that in the absence of demand and acceptance mere seizure of MO 2 from the accused will not lead to draw presumption under section 20 of the Act.
9. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side 14 Spl.C.C.147/2010
10. Facts and evidence on record takes me to formulate the following points for determination:
1. Whether the prosecution has established that on 01.02.2010 between 4.45 PM and 5.25 PM the accused being public servant working as Second Division Assistant in the office of the District Employment Exchange Officer (Technical), situated in Asiatic building, 2nd floor, Janatha Bazaar, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru, in order to extend official favour to P1 1 D.R.Eregowda i.e., in the matter of transmitting the application at page No.1 of Ex P15 of PW 1 to the District Employment Officer at Hassan demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs 400/- at MO 2 from PW 1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 7 of the Act?
2. Whether the prosecution has established that on the above date, place and time the accused being public servant abused his position as public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs 400/- at MO 2 without public interest 15 Spl.C.C.147/2010 from PW 1 which amounts to criminal misconduct as defined under section 13(1)(d) of the Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Act?
3. What order?
11. My findings are:
Point No 1: In the negative Point No 2: In the negative Point No3: As per the order below for the following:
REASONS
12. Point Nos 1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of discussion I have chosen to discuss point nos 1 and 2 together.
13. Filing of sheet no.1 of Ex P15 by PW 1 with the District Employment Exchange Officer, Asiatic building Janatha Bazaar, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru is not under challenge. During cross examination it is brought out that on 01.02.2010 PW 16 Spl.C.C.147/2010 1 placed sheet no.1 of Ex P15. Evidence of PW 1 that he met the Employment Exchange Officer at Bengaluru who in turn asked to approach the concerned branch is not under challenge. Evidence of PW 1 that he lodged complaint at Ex P1 is equally not under challenge. That portion of his evidence stands strengthened on the basis of evidence of PW 5 whose evidence would show that on the basis of Ex P1 he registered case against the accused in crime no.5/2010 and submitted FIR at Ex P14 for the above alleged offences. That portion of evidence of PW 5 is not under challenge. The evidence of PW 5 that after registration of the case he secured PWs 2 and 3 to his police station is not under challenge. Likewise, evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that they appeared before PW 5 is not under challenge. The evidence of PW 1 that he tendered cash of Rs 400/- at MO 2 before PW 5 is not under challenge. The evidence of PW 5 that PW 1 placed MO 2 before him and evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that PW 1 placed MO 2 before PW 5 is equally 17 Spl.C.C.147/2010 not in challenge. The evidence of PW 5 that he got entered the numbers of MO 2 on Ex P4 is not under challenge. The evidence of PW 5 that as primitive step of investigation he got applied phenolphthalein powder on the notes at MO 2 through CW 10 and thereafter PW 3 placed MO 2 in the left side pocket of shirt of PW 1 and subsequently when PW 3 immersed fingers of hands in the residual solution finger wash of hands of PW 3 turned to pink colour is not under challenge. The evidence of PW 1 that pre trap mahazar at Ex P2 was drawn in the police station of PW 5 and the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that they equally attested Ex P2 and evidence of PW 5 that he conducted pre trap mahazar at Ex P2 is equally not under serious challenge and therefore on the strength of evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that as primitive step of investigation PW 5 conducted pre trap mahazar at Ex P2.
18 Spl.C.C.147/2010
14. Fact that as on the date of the alleged trap the accused was public servant is not in dispute. Therefore, initial burden is on the prosecution to establish that the charge sheet is based on valid sanction order as per the mandate of section 19 of the Act. In order to discharge the said burden the prosecution relies upon the sanction order at Ex P8 issued by PW 4 S.R.Umashankar who at the relevant point of time was working as Commissioner of Employment and Training at Bengaluru. Prosecution also relies upon the oral testimony of PW4. The evidence of PW 4 that after his office received the letter of the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru seeking sanction for prosecution of the accused he has gone through the enclosed copy of the complaint, copy of pre trap mahazar, copy of trap mahazar, copy of report chemical examiner, copy of the sketch of place of incident, copies of statements of witnesses, copy of statement of the accused and copy of the concerned 19 Spl.C.C.147/2010 file has not been seriously assailed during his cross examination. His evidence that he was empowered to accord sanction is not under challenge. That portion of his evidence gets strengthened by service particulars of the accused at Ex P17 in which it is found in column no:6 that the Commissioner, Employment and Training Directorate is the competent authority to accord sanction. It is in the evidence of PW 4 that after having gone through the above documents he found that there existed prima facie case and accordingly he issued sanction order. Though it is in his cross examination that letter dated 11.02.2010 issued by CW 6 V.M.Galagali the in charge District Employment Officer addressed to the Investigating Officer was not brought to his notice that portion of his evidence will not uproot the basic matrix of his evidence. Suggestion made to him suggesting that without properly appreciating the papers he issued Ex P8 in a casual and mechanical manner has been denied by him. I find that after 20 Spl.C.C.147/2010 application of mind PW 4 thought fit to accord sanction and therefore on the basis of his evidence coupled with Ex P8 I hold that charge sheet is based on valid sanction order at Ex P8.
15. While it is found in the complaint at Ex P1 that there was demand for Rs 400/- by the accused, for the reason well within the knowledge of PW 1 he has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. It is his evidence that after he was approached the concerned branch he noticed three staff one among them asked Rs 400/- and the accused was one among those three staff. He specifically states during his evidence that the accused has not demanded Rs 400/- at any time. It is his evidence that after entering the office of the accused along with PW 2 he placed MO 2 on the table of the accused and thereafter offered signal. Regarding the colour of finger wash of the hands of the accused it is his evidence that the finger wash of 21 Spl.C.C.147/2010 the hands of the accused turned to red colour. This portion of his evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW 5 whose evidence is that finger wash of the hands of the accused turned to light pink colour. After treating PW 1 hostile when he was subjected to cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor though he admits that as per the demand of the accused he paid MO 2 to the accused and that finger wash of the hands of the accused turned to pink colour that portion of his evidence in the absence of proper corroboration by the testimony of PW 2 credence cannot be attached with credence to the evidence of PW1 elicited after treating hostile.
16. It is the evidence of PW 2 who is the shadow witness that after he entered the office of the accused when PW 1 spoke to the accused regarding the employment exchange card the accused demanded Rs 400/- and in tune to the said demand PW 1 gave MO 2 which is received by the accused in 22 Spl.C.C.147/2010 the left hand and placed the same inside the drawer of the table. It is not in the evidence of PW 2 that after receiving MO 2 the accused counted the same with both hands. In the absence of the same the evidence of PW 2 that finger wash of both hands of the accused turned to pink colour cannot be accepted. While it is the specific evidence of PW 5 that finger wash of both hands of the accused turned to light pink colour the evidence of PW 2 is that finger wash of the accused turned to pink colour. Light pink colour and pink colour cannot be equated and therefore this discrepancy will necessarily extend benefit of doubt to the accused and in the presence of the said discrepancy it is difficult to hold that the PW 2 has corroborated the testimony of PW 1 as spoken to after subjecting for cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Evidence of PW 3 would show that the accused took out MO 2 from the drawer of the table and produced before PW 5. It is in the evidence of PW 5 that it is PW 3 23 Spl.C.C.147/2010 who took out MO 2 from the left side drawer of the table. The evidence of PW 3 that it is the accused who placed MO 2 before PW 5 cannot be accepted. PW 3 states further that finger wash of both hands of the accused turned to red colour. Thus, he has turned hostile. When subjected to cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor after treating hostile though he admits that finger wash of the hands of the accused turned to light pink colour that admission is nothing but week piece of evidence and therefore will not lend assurance to the case of the prosecution. PW 1 has denied having given statements under section 162 Cr.P.C before PW 5 at Exs P11 to P13. PW 3 has denied having given statement under section 162 Cr.P.C before PW 5 at Ex P6.
17. Though, evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 would point out and establish that MO 2 was seized from the possession of the accused the same alone will 24 Spl.C.C.147/2010 not lead to draw presumption under section 20 of the Act in the absence of convincing and unimpeachable evidence that in response to the specific demand by the accused PW1 gave MO 2 to the accused which has been accepted by the accused. Thus, the basic ingredient which is known as demand and acceptance is lacking and therefore contention of the prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted MO 2 to extend official favour cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The case of this nature needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt in par with any other criminal case. Evidence of PW 2 in cross examination would show that apart from this case he assisted as witness in three other cases. This aspect also needs to be borne in mind while appreciating his evidence. Suffice to mention that PW 2 has not properly unfolded the alleged demand and acceptance of MO 2 by the accused in order to extend the official favour. Sheet No.1 25 Spl.C.C.147/2010 of Ex P15 would show that the work of PW 1 was attended by the District Employment Officer, Bengaluru on the very day. Sheet No.2 of Ex P15 would show that work was attended on the very day. Though it is the contention of the prosecution that in order to despatch sheet no.1 of Ex P15 the accused demanded and accepted MO 2 the same, in the absence of convincing and cogent evidence the said contention cannot be accepted.
18. PW 5 has spoken to trap proceedings, seizure of material documents, consignment of material objects to the chemical examiner, examination of the witnesses. Though inherent infirmities are not noticed in the evidence of PW 5 his evidence in view of the glaring discrepancies emerged in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 necessarily is of no avail to the case of the prosecution.
26 Spl.C.C.147/2010
19. Thus, upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which he is charged. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, I answer point nos 1 and 2 in the negative.
20. Point No 3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Under section 235(1) Cr.P.C the accused by name M.Yogananda is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The accused is also acquitted of the offence defined under section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. MO 2 is confiscated to the State. MOs 14, 16 and 18 are ordered to be returned to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Police Wing, City 27 Spl.C.C.147/2010 Division, Bengaluru. MOs 1, 3 to 13, 15 and 17 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed.
Order regarding the disposal of MOs 1 to 18 shall be given into effect after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, print out signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of September, 2015) [V.G.BOPAIAH] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : D.R.Eregowda PW 2 : B.Albert Raj PW 3 : P.Somashekar PW 4 : S.R.Umashankar PW 5 : U.D.Krishna Kumar
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P 1 : Complaint of PW 1 Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P2 : Pre trap mahazar Ex P2(a) : Signature of PW 1 Exs P2(b) to 2(e) : Signatures of PW 2 28 Spl.C.C.147/2010 Exs P2(f) to 2(i) : Signatures of PW 3 Ex P2(j) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P3 : Trap mahazar Exs P3(a) to 3(i) : Signatures of PW 2 Exs P3(j) to 3(r) : Signatures of PW 3 Ex P3(s) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3(t) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P4 : Sheet containing details of currency notes Ex P4(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P4(b) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P4(c) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P5 : Explanation of the accused given in writing before PW 5 Ex P5(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P5(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P6 : Portion of the statement of PW 3 recorded by PW 5 under section 162 Cr.P.C Ex P7: Compact disc containing the transmitted version of the voice recorder Ex P7(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P7(b) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P8 : Sanction order Ex P8(a) : Signature of PW 4 Exs P9 to P13 : Portions of the statement of PW 1 recorded by PW 5 under section 162 Cr.P.C Ex P14 : FIR Exs P14 (a) and (b) : Signatures PW 5 29 Spl.C.C.147/2010 Ex P16: Two sheets of xerox copies of attendance register maintained in the office of the accused Ex P17 : Service particulars of the accused Ex P18: Work allotment order Ex P19: Sketch of the place of trap drawn by PW 5 Ex P20 : Report of the chemical examiner consisting of two sheets List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO 1 : Cover in which MO 2 cash of Rs 400.00 is placed MO 2 : Cash of Rs 400/- (Rs 100 x 4) MO 3 : Bottle containing sample solution prepared for the purpose of pre trap mahazar MO 4: Bottle containing finger wash of hands of PW 3 MO 5 : Bottle containing sample solution prepared for the purpose of trap mahazar MO 6 : Bottle containing right hand finger wash of the accused MO 7 : One more bottle containing right hand finger wash of the accused MO 8 : Bottle containing left hand finger wash of the accused MO 9 : Another bottle containing left hand finger wash of the accused MO 10 : Bottle containing the wash of the inner portion of the table drawer of the accused 30 Spl.C.C.147/2010 MO 11: Another bottle containing the wash of the inner portion of the table drawer of the accused MO 12 : Cover in which MO 13 cotton is placed MO 13: Cotton which is used to rub the inner portion of the table drawer of the accused MO 14: 'E' Metal seal MO 15: Cover in which MO 16 is placed MO 16 : Compact disc containing the contents of voice recorder and pen camera MO 17 : Cover in which MO 18 is placed MO 18 : Compact disc containing the videos of pre trap and trap List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused: Nil List of documents marked on behalf of accused: Nil [V.G.BOPAIAH] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
31 Spl.C.C.147/2010 32 Spl.C.C.147/2010