Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka New Town Police ... vs Sandeep Nagaraj.H.A on 8 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 8th day of MAY 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.7949/2016
Complainant : State by Yelahanka New Town Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused : Sandeep Nagaraj.H.A.,
S/o H.S. Nagaraj,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.1235, 7th 'B' Cross,
Near Karnataka Bank,
'B' Sector, Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. B. Naveen Kumar, Advocate )
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/s.353, 419 of IPC. 2 C.C.No.7949/2016
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 01/06/2015, at about 5.15 p.m. in the evening, when Police officer and his staff i.e. C.W. 6 to 8 were discharging their official duty i.e. registering the case against persons who violates IMV rules under interception at Doddabalapura Road, Near Puttenahalli, within the limits of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, accused came there in a Maruthi 800 car bearing No.K-04-MB-7252, introduced himself to C.W. 6 to 8 as he is an IPS officer from Delhi, he has been transferred to Karnataka as per the orders of Home Minister Sri. George, asked them to conduct inspection of vehicle, he himself started inspecting the vehicles by deterring them for discharging their official duty, as such, C.W. 6 Sri. Gopal Krishna PSI, contacted C.W. 1 Sri. Mohan Kumar, Police Inspector, informed about accused, as a result C.W. 1 immediately visited the said spot, questioned the accused, during that time also, accused impersonated himself as ADGP, Anti Terrorist Squad, told them that, he has been authorized by Principal Secretary Sri. Ravindra to inspect the vehicles, showed I.D. card bearing Karnataka State Emblem, C.W. 1 Sri. R. Mohan Kumar asked accused 3 C.C.No.7949/2016 to take the I.D. card out of his purse, accused being enraged, picked up quarrel with C.W. 1, raised his voice, C.W. 1 on suspecting the act of accused, informed control room to inquire about accused, as such, accused became panic, told them that he will be sitting inside the car, went near the car and escaped from the said spot and thereby accused impersonated himself as if he is an IPS officer, deterred C.W. 6 to 8 from discharging their official duties and committed aforesaid offences. Therefore, C.W. 1 Sri. R. Mohan Kumar has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against the accused. During the course of investigation I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, seized one car and subjected the same under P.F. No.41/2015, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is on bail and he is represented through his counsel.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance 4 C.C.No.7949/2016 of the offences punishable U/sec. 353, 419 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined C.W. 7 as P.W. 1. Though, the prosecution in order to prove its case has cited as many as 12 witnesses, except C.W. 7, none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 to 6, 8 to 12 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and even proclamation. It is to be observed that, the charge is framed in the year 2018 and till now C.W. 1 to 6, 8 to 12 have been secured and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Therefore, they have been discharged from deposing evidence.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence 5 C.C.No.7949/2016 adduced against him and he has not chosen to lead his side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 01/06/2015, at about 5.15 p.m. in the evening, when Police officer and his staff i.e. C.W. 6 to 8 were discharging their official duty i.e. registering the case against persons who violates IMV rules under interception at Doddabalapura Road, Near Puttenahalli, within the limits of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, accused came there in a Maruthi 800 car bearing No.K-04-MB-7252, introduced himself to C.W. 6 to 8 as he is IPS officer from Delhi, he has been transferred to Karnataka as per the orders of Home Minister Sri. George, asked them to conduct inspection of vehicle, he himself started inspecting the vehicles by deterring them for discharging their official duty, as such, C.W. 6 Sri. Gopal Krishna PSI, contacted C.W. 1 Sri. Mohan Kumar, Police Inspector, informed about accused, as a result C.W. 1 immediately visited the said spot, questioned the accused, during said time also, accused impersonated himself as ADGP, Anti Terrorist Squad, told them that, he has been authorized by Principal Secretary Sri. Ravindra to inspect the vehicles, showed I.D. card bearing Karnataka State Emblem, C.W. 1 Sri. R. Mohan Kumar 6 C.C.No.7949/2016 asked accused to take the I.D. card out of his purse, accused being enraged, picked up quarrel with C.W. 1, raised his voice, C.W. 1 on suspecting the act of accused, informed the control room to inquire about accused, as a result, accused became panic, told them that he will be sitting inside the car, went near the car and escaped from the said spot and thereby deterred C.W. 6 to 8 from discharging their official duties and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused impersonated himself as if he is an IPS officer, deterred C.W. 6 to 8 from discharging their official duties and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC?
3. What Order?
10.My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3: As per final order for the following 7 C.C.No.7949/2016 REASONS
11.Points No.1 and 2: Both these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
12. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 12 witnesses and successful in examining only one witness i.e. C.W. 1. This case has been registered on the back ground of accused impersonating himself as if he is an IPS officer, deterred C.W. 6 to 8 from discharging their official duties.
13. In this connection C.W. 7, Head Constable, is examined as P.W. 1, wherein he has deposed about deputing himself along with C.W. 6, 8 and 9 on day patrol duty i.e. registering the case against persons who violates IMV rules under interception at Doddabalapura Road, Near Puttenahalli, within the limits of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, further he has deposed as per the complaint averments.
14. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it can be noticed that, accused projected himself as an IPS officer, when he was asked to furnish his identity card, accused escaped from the said spot. During 8 C.C.No.7949/2016 cross-examination it can be noticed that, this P.W. 1 was on duty interceptor vehicle which contained laser gun and a camera, which covers and captures the vehicles at the distance of 300 meters. On the contrary, no such evidence is forth coming before this court to show that, accused came in a Maruthi 800 vehicle, also he escaped from the said spot when he was asked to furnish identity card. In the cross-examination P.W. 1 admits that, interceptor vehicle was under repair which was no where shown during investigation by the I.O. As such, the sole evidence of this witness without evidence of complainant and other independent eye witnesses is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
15. It is pertinent to note that, C.W. 1 Sri. R. Mohan Kumar, who has set the law into motion has not appeared before this court to put forth his case against accused which literally weakens the case of prosecution, consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the offences alleged against accused. In the absence of material evidence of complainant and other independent eye witnesses and mahazar witnesses, this court cannot hold the accused as guilty minded.
9 C.C.No.7949/2016
16. That apart, though the prosecution has cited as many as 12 witnesses, except C.W. 7, none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 to 6, 8 to 12 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and even proclamation. It is to be observed that, on 10/01/2018 this court has framed charge and this court has extended fullest assistance to secure the witnesses by issuing summons, warrants and even proclamation which can be seen from the order sheet. As such, they have been discharged from deposing the evidence. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge leveled against the accused with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
17.Point No.2: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 353, 419 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.10 C.C.No.7949/2016
Interim custody of car seized and subjected under P.F. No.41/2015, to the accused is made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of May 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Srinath
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.11 C.C.No.7949/2016
Judgment pronounced in Open
Court vide separate:-
ORDER
Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C.,
accused is found not guilty and
acquitted of the offences punishable
U/s. 353, 419 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the
accused and surety shall stands
cancelled.
Interim custody of car seized and
subjected under P.F. No.41/2015, to the accused is made absolute.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
12 C.C.No.7949/2016