Bangalore District Court
Shankar vs Prabhu on 23 January, 2026
KABC030305532015
Presented on : 27-04-2015
Registered on : 27-04-2015
Decided on : 23-01-2026
Duration : 10 years, 8 months, 26 days
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2026
Present:-
Sri.SOMANATHA, B.A. (Law), L.L.B.,
IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
CC NO.10911/2015
Complainant State by Ramamurthynagara
Police Station,
V/s.
Accused-2 Sri. Srinivasa Rao,
S/o. K.C. Hanumesh,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.1-145,
Near Govt. High School,
Near Peresandra,
Chikkaballapura.
(Rep. by Sri. C.S.N. Advocate)
1) Sri Prabhu (Split up in CC
No.22548/2019)
- CC-10911/2015
-2-
Date of Report of Offence : 05-02-2013
Date of filing Charge Sheet : 20-11-2013
Name of the Complainant : Sri. R. Shankar
Offences complained of : Section 408 of IPC
Date of commencing of recording
Evidence : 26-03-2025
Date of closing of Evidence : 19-01-2026
Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.2 found not
guilty.
*******
JUDGMENT
This case is arose out of Crime No.043/2013 of Ramamurthynagara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 408 of IPC based on the gist of facts stated in the FIR which has set this criminal case in motion against the accused No.1 and 2.
2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and 2 were working as ATM custodian in the CMS Info System Pvt Ltd, Cookstown, Bengaluru in the year 2012, CMS Info System Pvt Ltd had entrusted loading and storage of cash in the route No.1 of SBI ATM according to the cash movement order and indent, on 20.12.2012 accused No.1 and 2 were taken copies of the cash
- CC-10911/2015
-3- movement order, indent and cash for loading and storing in route No.1 of SBI ATM from CW4 who was then in-charge of CMS Info System Pvt Ltd, Cookstown, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 and 2 have not loaded and stored the cash amount of Rs.8,500/- plus Rs.7,500/- in SBI ATM No.S10U001316006 located at Ramamurthynagara and Rs.15,000/- in SBI ATM No.S10J001316056 plus Rs.16,000/- in SBI ATM No.S10J001316055 located at Vijinapura, Ramamurthynagara and they have used total amount of Rs.47,000/- for their personal benefit. Thereby, accused No.1 and 2 have committed offence of criminal breach of trust against the CMS Info System Pvt Ltd, Cookstown, Bengaluru, CW4 directed the CW3 to conduct the audit, when the audit was conducted through CW2 it was found shortage of an amount of Rs.47,000/- in the SBI ATM of Route No.1 located at Ramamurthynagara and Vijinapura of Ramamurthynagara, CW2 has sent a report regarding the shortage of funds to the CW1 who was then Deputy Manager of CMS Info System Pvt Ltd, Cookstown, Bengaluru.
3. The Ramamurthynagara Police had booked the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC based on the written complaint of Sri.R.Shankar. The
- CC-10911/2015
-4- Investigating Officer registered the FIR, recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the documents. Having material in the investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence alleged.
4. Upon receipt of the court summons, the accused No.2 has entered appearance before the court. The relevant copies have been furnished under Section 207 of Cr. P.C. to the accused No.2. Split criminal case against the accused No.1 in CC No.22548/2019. The charge for the offence under Section 408 of IPC framed, explained and read over to the accused No.2 before the court. Upon which accused No.2 has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before the court.
5. In the instant case, the prosecution examined CW8 as PW1, CW4 as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Despite issuing summons, warrants and proclamation warrants the presence of CW1 to CW3, CW5 to CW7 were not secured. Thereby, CW1 to CW3, CW5 to CW7 were dropped from the charge sheet. Evidence on prosecution side closed.
- CC-10911/2015
-5-
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the 313 statement was read over and explained to the accused No.2 in Kannada language. The accused No.2 has denied the incriminating evidence available on record as false.
7. Heard. Perused the material available on record.
8. The points that arises for the consideration are :
1) 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕಿತ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಕುಕ್ಸ್ ಟೌನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಿಎಂಎಸ್ ಇನ್ನ್ಫೋ ಸಿಸ್ಟಂ ಪ್ರೆೃವೇಟ್ ಲಿಮಿಟೆಡ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಕಸ್ಟೋಡಿಯನ್ ಗಳಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 20.10.2012 ರಂದು 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರಾಗಿ ಕಂಪನಿಯ ಇನ್ ಚಾರ್ಜ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-4 ರವರಿಂದ ರೂಟ್ ನಂ.1 ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಣ ತುಂಬುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕ್ಯಾಷ್ ಮೂವ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್, ಇಂಡೆಂಟ್ ಪ್ರತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಕ್ಯಾಷ್ ಅನ್ನು ಪಡದುಕೊಂಡು ರೂಟ್ ನಂ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿನ ಎಸ್ ಬಿಐ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಗಳಿಗೆ ಕ್ಯಾಷ್ ಮೂವ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್, ಇಂಡೆಂಟ್ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹಣವನ್ನು ತುಂಬದೆ ರಾಮಮೂರ್ತಿನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣಾ ಹತ್ತಿರದ ಎಸ್ ಬಿಐ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಪಾಯಿಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಎಟಿಎಂ ನಂ.ಎಸ್10ಯು001316006 ನಲ್ಲಿ 8,500/- ರೂ. ಹಣ, ಎಟಿಎಂ ನಂ.ಎಸ್10ಯು001316006 ನಲ್ಲಿ 7,500/- ರೂ. ಹಣ, ರಾಮಮೂರ್ತಿ ನಗರ ವಿಜಿನಾಪುರದ ಎಸ್ ಬಿಐ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಪಾಯಿಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಎಟಿಎಂ ನಂ.ಎಸ್10ಜೆ001316056 ನಲ್ಲಿ 15,000/- ರೂ.
ಹಣ ಹಾಗೂ ಎಟಿಎಂ ನಂ.ಎಸ್10 ಜೆ001316055 ನಲ್ಲಿ 16,000/- ರೂ. ಹಣ ಒಟ್ಟು 47,000/- ರೂ. ಹಣವನ್ನು ಎಟಿಎಂ ಮೆಷಿನ್ ಗಳಿಗೆ ತುಂಬದೆ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸ್ವಂತಕ್ಕೆ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಆರೋಪಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ದ್ರೋಹ ವೆಸಗಿದ್ದು, ಭಾ.ದಂ.ಸಂ ಕಲಂ 408 ರಡಿ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳನ್ನೆಸಗಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು ಅಭಿಯೋಜನೆಯು ನಿಸ್ಸಂಶಯವಾಗಿ ರುಜುವಾತುಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆಯೆ?
2) ಏನು ಆದೇಶ?
- CC-10911/2015
-6-
9. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 :- IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- CW1-Deputy Manager of CMS Info System Pvt Ltd, Cookstown, Bengaluru lodged complaint against the accused No.1 and 2 before the Ramamurthynagara Police Station, CW2 said to be conducted the audit pertaining to the misappropriation of funds committed by the accused No.1 and 2, CW4 directed the Assistant Manager of audit - CW3 to conduct the audit, CW4 was the then incharge of the CMS Info System Pvt Ltd, Cookstown, Bengaluru. CW1 to 3 have not stepped into the witness box in response to the summons, warrants and proclamation warrants issued by the court. Complaint allegations have not been substantiated through the evidence of the complainant. Internal Audit report is only starting point for identifying the fraud. Internal Audit Report cannot be treated as conclusion proof of guilt because Internal Audit team is employed by particular organization and they are reporting it to the management of particular organization. So, the internal audit finding must be backed by original documents such as bank statement and witnesses testimony to
- CC-10911/2015
-7- satisfy the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Internal Audit Report containing particulars of shortage an amount of Rs.47,000/- pertaining to route No.1 of SBI ATM is available on record. However, shortage of fund explained in the internal audit report has not been proved through the evidence of the CW2.
11. Role of the CW3 limited to the extent of authorizing the CW2 to conduct the audit. As the CW3 not stepped into the witness box there is no evidence regarding CW3 authorizing the CW2 to conduct the audit. CW4 said to be handed over the cash movement order indent and cash for loading in the SBI ATM of Ramamurthynagara and Vijinapura of Ramamurthynagara. CW4 tendered evidence that accused persons were not properly submitting report which entertained doubt about their manner of work, he came to know that there was a shortage of cash in the SBI ATM, relating to Route No.1 of Ramamurthynagara in the year 2012, so they have decided to conduct the audit, shortage of Rs.47,000/- brought to light during the auditing done by the CW2 and CW3, accused persons are responsible for shortage of such cash in the SBI ATM.
- CC-10911/2015
-8-
12. There can be no dispute that the role of CW4 limited to the extent of entrustment of the work of loading and storage of the cash to the SBI ATM. Misappropriation of funds of Rs.47,000/- stated to be came to the knowledge of CW4 through the audit report. Auditor evidence is no avail to the prosecution case.
13. Appointment Letter would show that accused No.1 was appointed as trainee service associated with effect from 30.04.2012 and the accused No.2 was appointed as trainee service associate with effect from 14.08.2012. The incident said to be brought to light when the internal audit was conducted by CW2-Girish on 22.10.2022 and 23.10.2022. It is also stipulated in the appointment letter that trainee service associate shall undergo training for a period of one year. CW4 clearly admitted that accused No.2 must have undergone one year training soon after his appointment. As such, it can be said that accused No.2 was new to the assigned work of loading cash to the SBI ATM than the accused No.1. Mere fact that CW4 came to know a sum of Rs.47,000/- misappropriated by accused No.2 it is not a sufficient proof misappropriation of funds by accused No.2. Manner in which the accused No.2 involved in the commission of offence must be
- CC-10911/2015
-9- proved through the cogent evidence of the witnesses. The material witnesses did not step into the witness box to demonstrate how the accused No.2 involved in the commission of the offence. It is an admitted by the CW4 that usually audit will be done once in every three months. Why such misappropriation of funds unnoticed to the concerned during such auditing has not been explained.
14. Investigating Officer-Manjunath has deposed that he collected appointment letters of the accused No.1 and 2, attendance register and audit report with cash balance report, he recorded the statements of the CW2 to CW5, he made all attempt to apprehend the accused persons but he failed to catch hold of them and ultimately having material in the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Investigating Officer made these appointment letter, audit report and copies of the cash balance report as a part and parcel of the charge sheet. As I stated earlier, internal audit report has not been proved through the oral evidence of the auditor. Such being the case, evidence regarding mere collection of documents by the Investigating Officer do not anyway help in order to prove the prosecution case. Accordingly, accused
- CC-10911/2015
- 10 -
entitled for acquittal of the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC. Hence, I record findings on Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
15. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the Point No.1, I pass the following:
ORDER In exercise of power conferred under Section 248(1) of Cr. P.C. accused No.2 found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No.2 is extended for a period of 6 months in compliance of Section 437(A) of Cr. P.C. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of January 2026) (SOMANATHA) IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Complainant:-
Prosecution Name of witness Description witness No. PW1 Sri. Manjunatha Investigating Officer PW2 Sri. Shanthakumara Witness
- CC-10911/2015
- 11 -
List of witnesses examined for Defense:-
- Nil -
List of Documents exhibited for Complainant :-
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
Ex.P1 Copies of Appointment and PW1
Bio-data Letters of accused-1
Ex.P2 Copy of Election ID Card PW1
Ex.P3 Copies of Appointment and PW1
Bio-data Letters of accused-2
Ex.P4 Copy of Aadhar Card PW1
Ex.P5 Copy of Attendance Extract PW1
Ex.P6 Copy of Appointment Letter PW1
of CW2
Ex.P7 Copy of Auditing Report PW1
Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:-
- Nil -
List of documents exhibited for Defense:-
- Nil - Digitally signed
by SOMANATHA
SOMANATHA Date: 2026.01.23
17:21:31 +0530
IV ACJM, Bengaluru.