Bangalore District Court
State By Vidhana Soudha P.S vs Is Acquitted on 5 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 5th Day of September 2019
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.46882/2010
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 46882/2010
2. The date of commission 17052010
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Vidhana Soudha P.S.
4. Name of the accused H.Venkatappa Nayak s/o
Rajashekar Dore, aged about
49 years r/at No.26, 2nd floor,
4th main, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka
Layout, Vijayanagara,
Bangalore - 40.
5. The offence complained of U/s. 468, 420 and 471 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted.
8. Date of such order 05092019
For the following:
2 C.C.No.46882/2010
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by Police Inspector of Vidhana Soudha PS against the accused for an offence Punishable U/Sec.468, 420 and 471 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The accused worked as Special Officer in the office of Chief Minister when Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa was holding the post of Chief Minister, at that time the accused have obtained letter head of Chief Minister through scan by deleting the notes and stored the said scanned letter head in the CD, therefore forged the said document for the purpose of cheating and the accused forged that he was working as Special Officer to the Chief Minister and handed over the letter head to cW4 knowingly such letter head is forged one, with an intention to cheat CW4 and 5 accordingly on 1505 2010 handed over the said letter head to CW4 and 5 and cheated them and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 468, 471 and 420 IPC.3 C.C.No.46882/2010
3. Accused was on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and MO1. Accused has been questioned u/sec. 313 of Cr.PC.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The point that would arise for my consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether prosecution proves that beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused worked as Special in the Office of Chief Minister when Sri. B.S. Yediyurappa was holding the post of Chief Minister, at that time you have obtained letter head of Chief Minister through scan by deleting the notes and you have stored the said scanned letter head in the CD, therefore you have forged the said document for the purpose of cheating, 4 C.C.No.46882/2010 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.468 of IPC?
2. That on the above said date, time and place, you accused forged yourself that you were working as Special officer to the Chief Minister and you handed over the letter head to C.W.4 knowingly such letterhead is forged one, thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.471 of IPC?
3. That on the above said date, time and place, you accused forged the letter head with an intention to cheat C.W.4 and C.W.5, accordingly on 15/5/2010 you have handed over the said letter head to C.W.4 and C.W.5 and cheated them, thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC?
4. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
5 C.C.No.46882/2010
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: In order to avoid the repetition of facts all the 3 points taken together for common discussion. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and got marked 12 documents and one CD as MO1.
9. As earlier discussed above in the present case on hand, it is the case of the prosecution that earlier the accused was working as Special Officer to the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri.B.S.Yeduyarappa, at that time the accused has taken the blank letter head of the then Chief Minister and by using the same created the tippani, so as to get transfer of CW4. As such, he has committed the offence as alleged.
10. In the present case on hand, the prosecution first and foremost has to prove that it is the accused only who has created Ex.P2. In the present case on hand, the PW1 who is the complainant in this case herself has turned hostile and 6 C.C.No.46882/2010 not supported to the case of the prosecution. Further, during the course of cross examination of this witness interestingly has deposed as under:
"It is true I have no personal knowledge who actually forged Ex.P2. It is further true, now I cannot say who actually brought Ex.P2 and P3 to my chamber."
11. It is further pertinent to note that the complaint came to be marked as Ex.P1. In the complaint also there is no allegation the against the accused person herein.
12. Further, the prosecution has examined CW2 as PW2, this witness in his evidence deposed regarding the receiving of Ex.P2 and after verifying he found that the signature does not belongs to the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yeduyarappa. As such, he has brought to the knowledge of PW1.
13. The prosecution has further examined CW3 as PW3. This witness is the beneficiary and this witness deposed that 7 C.C.No.46882/2010 earlier he was working as teacher at Shorapura and thereafter she has been promoted as Supervisor and posted to Ponnampete, Kodagu Dist. Since, she was suffering from ill health as such she has not joined as Supervisor, in the meanwhile he got contacted with the accused and as per the instructions they met the accused and at that time accused has handed over the visiting card to them. Later this witness came to know that Ex.P2 recommendation letter was forged. This witness has been subjected to cross examination and during the course of cross examination she has deposed as under:
"It is true I have not personally seen who actually prepared Ex.P2. It is further true, I have no personal knowledge who actually forged the signature of Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa on Ex.P2. It is true personally I do not know whether CW4 has handed over Ex.P2 and P3 to the Director Office. It is further true, I have no 8 C.C.No.46882/2010 personal idea whether CW4 has received said letter from accused. It is further true, I have no personal knowledge that accused has handed over Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 to CW4."
14. By going through the above said version of PW3 it can be seen that this witness has no personal knowledge of the occurrence of the incident and she has not made any single allegation against the accused regarding the preparation of Ex.P2. Likewise, the CW4/PW4 has also deposed the same version.
15. The prosecution has further examined CW5 as PW5 who is the mahazar witness, this witness has turned hostile. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure mahazar and spot mahzar as per Ex.P6 and P7.
16. The prosecution has further examined CW6 as PW6. This witness is the relative of CW3 and he has deposed as 9 C.C.No.46882/2010 per the version of PW3 and further during the course of cross examination also this witness deposed as under:
"I have not seen the alleging letter given by the accused. I have no personal knowledge about the said letter given by the accused. Further deposed that the accused has not received any amount in this regard."
17. By going through the above said evidence given by this witness also this witness has no personal knowledge about the occurrence of the incident.
18. The prosecution has further examined CW10 as PW7. This witness in his evidence has deposed that in the year 2010 he was working as Assistant at Chief Minister's office, at that time the Vidhana Soudha Police came to office and shown the Ex.P2 letter and requested this witness to confirm the signature of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa. As such, this witness by verifying the same deposed that the 10 C.C.No.46882/2010 said signature does not belongs to Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa. This witness has been subjected to cross examination and during the course of examination this witness has deposed as under:
"ನನನ ಸಹಯನನ ನ ಪರರಕ ಮಡನವ ಪರಣತಯನನ ನ ಹಹಹದರನವದಲಲ . ನನನ ನಪ 2 ಅನನ ನ ನಹರಡನವ ಪವರದಲ ಅಹದನ ಮನಖಖ ಮಹತತ ಗ ಳ ಅಸಲ ಸಹಯನನ ನ ಪಡದನ ನಪ 2 ಜಹತ ಹಹರಲಕ ಮಡ ನಹರಡಲಲ ."
19. By going through the above said admission made by this witness it can be seen that this witness has not compared the original signature of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa with ExP2. As such this witness cannot give any opinion regarding the forged signature of the then CM, because this witness is not a Forensic Science Officer. As such, the evidence of this witness is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
20. The prosecution further examined CW8 as PW8. This witness has turned hostile and not supported to the case of 11 C.C.No.46882/2010 the prosecution and further the prosecution has examined PW9 and 10 who is the IOs. These witnesses have deposed regarding the investigation part done by them.
21. In the present case on hand, first and foremost the prosecution has to prove that Ex.P2, the signature does not belongs to the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa. In order to prove the above said contention the Investigation Officer has not collected the admitted signatures by the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa and he has not sent the said signature along with Ex.P2 for comparison to Forensic Science Laboratory in order to get the scientific opinion. Further it is pertinent to note that in the present case on hand, the IO has not collected any single piece of evidence so as to prove that from where the Ex.P2 came to be prepared i.e., the hard disc of the computer has not been seized. Further in the present case on hand, the IO has not taken any pain to examine the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa and get the opinion with regard to 12 C.C.No.46882/2010 Ex.P2 which is a very important part of the investigation and in the absence of the admitted signatures of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa simply and orally it cannot be said that the signature found on Ex.P2 is not the signature of Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa. By going through the above said observation this court is of the opinion that there is a serious lacuna on the part of the IO. In the absence of the admitted signature of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa and in the absence of the evidence of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa simply it cannot be said that Ex.P2 is the forged signature and that too accused only has prepared the said Ex.P2. Because as earlier discussed above, none of the witnesses have deposed that it is the accused only who has prepared Ex.P2.
22. All the witnesses have clearly deposed that they have no personal knowledge regarding who has forged Ex.P2. Such being the case simply it cannot be said that it is the accused only who has prepared Ex.P2. In the absence of the 13 C.C.No.46882/2010 material witnesses and further in the absence of the admitted signature of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa and further in the absence of the evidence of the then Chief Minister Sri.B.S.Yediyurappa the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, without any option I have no hesitation to answer point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
23. Point No.4: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec. 468, 420 and 471 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused and his surety bonds stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 5 th day of September 2019.) (M.Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.14 C.C.No.46882/2010
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : Dr.Shamala Iqbal P.W.2 : D.M.Shivakumar P.W.3 : Malati C.S. P.W.4 : Siddalingappa P.W.5 : Swamy Vivekananda P.W.6 : Sandeep P.W.7 : Vinay Kumar P.W.8 : Raju P.W.9 : Balakrishnegowda P.W10 : Ramachandraiah
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 : Letter
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P.3 : Letter by Malathi
Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P.4 : Further statement of PW1
Ex.P.5 : Letter dt: 22062010
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P.6 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW5
Ex.P.7 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW5
Ex.P8 : Statement of PW5
Ex.P9 : Report
Ex.P10 : FIR
Ex.P10(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P11 : Report
Ex.P12 : Letter Head
15 C.C.No.46882/2010
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL
5. Material Object:
MO1 : CD VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.16 C.C.No.46882/2010
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting u/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec. 468, 420 and 471 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused and his surety bonds stands cancelled.
VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city