Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch vs Nos.1 And 2 Were Colluded Together With ... on 23 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 23rd day of June 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.13061/2012
Date of Offence : 17-8-2011
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch
(F and M Squad), N.T. Pet,
Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Noushad Pasha
s/o late Abdul Wahab,
aged 36 years, r/o No.37,
20th main, Madivala,
Bengaluru 68,
2. Mohammed Naseem
s/o Mohammed Khayum,
aged 22 years, r/o No.4,
4th floor, 5th cross, EX Service
Colony, Dinnur main road,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru,
Permanent address:
Nahar Khathiya, Thana road,
Longri Jan, Dibrugar,
Assam State,
3. Dr.Ibrahim Pasha s/o Abdul Ali,
aged 40 years, No.199/34,
10th cross, Wilson Garden,
2 C.C.No.13061/2012
Opp. Hombegowda High School,
Wilson Garden, Bengaluru 27.
(Accused Nos.1 and 2 split UP)
Offence complained off: U/s.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
Plea of accused No.3 : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 23-6-2018.
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (F and M Squad), N.T. Pet, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 17-8-2011 the accused Nos.1 and 2 were colluded together with malafide intention and accused No.3 mispresented that they were working in Windsor Institute of Management, K.R. Puram as Directors and assured the grandson of C.W.3 Anirudda Prasad to get MBBS seat in K.R.L.M. quota and transacted to pay Rs.36,00,000/- and as such received 3 C.C.No.13061/2012 Rs.13,60,000/- in the presence of C.Ws.2 and 3 and agreed to receive the balance amount in installments for every year and similarly the accused No.1 has received Rs.2,50,000/- and accused No.3 has received Rs.70,000/- and give false information that they would get MBBS seat in Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, but failed to comply the same by playing a fraud. Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed a complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, Ashok Nagar Police have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.422/2011. Thereafter, the matter has been referred to Central Crime Branch (F and M) Bengaluru for investigation. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offence.
3. During the pendency of the trial, the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 was not secured inspite of repeated issuance of summons and warrants. Therefore, case against 4 C.C.No.13061/2012 accused Nos.1 and 2 was split up and the present case is continued only against the accused No.3.
4. After appearance of the accused No.3, necessary documents as relied by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused No.3 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused No.3. The accused No.3 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. C.Ws.1 to 20 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.3, during the course of trial, C.Ws.1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 18 have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of warrants. Therefore, they are dropped.
5 C.C.No.13061/2012
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused No.3 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.3 has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused No.3.
7. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
2. What order ?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that on 17-8-2011 the accused Nos.1 and 2 were colluded together with malafide intention and accused No.3 6 C.C.No.13061/2012 mispresented that they were working in Windsor Institute of Management, K.R. Puram as Directors and assured the grandson of C.W.3 Anirudda Prasad to get MBBS seat in K.R.L.M. quota and transacted to pay Rs.36,00,000/- and as such received Rs.13,60,000/- in the presence of C.Ws.2 and 3 and agreed to receive the balance amount in installments for every year and similarly the accused No.1 has received Rs.2,50,000/- and accused No.3 has received Rs.70,000/- and gave false information that they would get MBBS seat in Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, but failed to comply the same by playing a fraud and thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, C.W.1/complainant is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 has reiterated the allegations made and contentions taken in the course of complaint and got marked Ex.P1. Therefore, I need not recapitulate those facts again at this stage. Since 7 C.C.No.13061/2012 P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution fully, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination P.W.1 has categorically admitted with regard to identification of accused No.3 with regard to fraud played on the complainant.
11. In order to disprove the case of the prosecution and to test the veracity of P.W.1, the learned counsel appearing for the accused No.3 has cross-examined P.W.1 in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.3 has deposed in para No.2, page No.5 and 6 to the following effect:
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ 3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ MAzÀÄ £ÀAiÀiÁ ¥ÉʸÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀPÝ ÉÌ ¸ÁQë £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The categorical admission of P.W.1 as above disproves their allegation with regard to payment of money directly to the accused No.3.8 C.C.No.13061/2012
12. Similarly, in further cross-examination in page No.6, P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect:
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥ÀÁmïð£Àgï DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÉý AiÀiÁªÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝÌPÉÌ ¸ÁQë vÁªÀÅ ¹¹© PÀZÉÃjAÀiÀÄ°è 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥ÉÇÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÀÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÃ£Ý É. The evidence of P.W.1 as above clearly establishes and proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 is not at all concerned with any transaction entered into by the accused No.1 with the complainant, because there is no documentary evidence to prove their relationship.
13. In further cross-examination in page No.6, P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect:
3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀtPÉÌ DzÀAvÉ 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 9 C.C.No.13061/2012 AiÀÄÁªÀwÛUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgt À PÉÌ DzÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀwÛUÀÆ 3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ EZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ±À¥x À ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è £ÀÁ£ÀÄ 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è £À£ÀUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ 3£Éà DgÉÆæUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The unequivocal admission of P.W.1 as above disproves the allegations made against the accused No.3.
Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.3.
14. C.W.2 is examined as P.W.2 who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.1 with regard to alleged offence. In the course of chief-examination itself in page No.2, P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect: 10 C.C.No.13061/2012
¸ÀzÀj WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÁæ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ¥ÉÇä£À°è ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¹ÃlÄ PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀ ¨ÀsgÀªÀ¸ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄ DrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæÁ¸Á-1 ¥ÉÇä£À°è ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ¥ÀmÁÖUÀ CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄwÛg° À ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÇãÀÄ r¸ïPÀ£ÉPïÖ ªÀÄÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀÄÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀz Û É.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above clearly shows that his evidence is only a hear say evidence. Moreover, his evidence is only against the accused No.1, but not against the accused No.3.
15. The counsel appearing for the accused No.3 has cross-examined P.W.2 in brief, in which P.W.2 has deposed in para No.2, page No.3 to the following effect: 11 C.C.No.13061/2012
£Á£ÀÄ 3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ F
¢£ÀzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The unequivocal admission of P.W.2 as above clearly shows that there was no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused No.3 for the alleged offence.
16. C.W.4 is examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 has deposed in chief-examination to the following effect:
£Á£ÀÄ ZÁ¸ÀÁ-1 EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À£ï 2011gÀ°è MAzÀÄ ¸À® ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É. ¸ÀzjÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ZÁ¸Á-1gÀªgÀ ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ£À JA©©J¸ï£À ¥ÀæªÉñÀPÁÌV £À£ÀߣÀÄß §AzÀÄ ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ §ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ PÀqÉ «ZÁj¹ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¹ÃlÄ ®¨Àså«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ£É.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above with regard to information given by the complainant with regard to 12 C.C.No.13061/2012 availability of medical seats. In fact P.W.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution, hence he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited to prove the guilt of the accused No.3.
17. C.Ws.6 and 7 are examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 who are the mahazar witnesses. Since P.Ws.4 and 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the mahazar, they were treated as hostile witnesses and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited to prove the mahazar. Therefore, the evince of P.Ws.4 and 5 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.3 and also mahazar.
18. C.W.18 Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.6 who has deposed to the effect that he has registered the case on the complaint filed by the complainant and conducted the mahazar and handed over the case papers to CCB for further 13 C.C.No.13061/2012 investigation. The evidence of P.W.6 is only with regard to handing over the case papers to CCB for further investigation, which is not at all sufficient to prove the gilt of the accused No.3 for the alleged offence. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 6 as well as documents produced before the court are not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasonings, I am of the firm opinion that the accused No.3 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged offence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
19. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.14 C.C.No.13061/2012
The bail bonds of the accused No.3 stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of June 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Smt.M.Indira Prasad, P.W.2, P.S.V.Sagar, P.W.3, Ajith Kumar, P.W.4, B.Manikanta, P.W.5, Pramod Kumar, P.W.6, H.S.Jagadeesh;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Complaint,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P2, Spot mahazar,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2(b), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P2(c), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P3, Portion of statement of P.W.3,
Ex.P4, FIR,
Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P5, Memo issued by COP;
15 C.C.No.13061/2012
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL.
List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:-NIL (V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.16 C.C.No.13061/2012
23/6/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused No.3 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused No.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused No.3 stands cancelled.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Bengaluru.17 C.C.No.13061/2012 18 C.C.No.13061/2012