Bangalore District Court
State Karnataka Represented By vs Sri.A.G.Rangaiah S/O Late on 11 June, 2020
1
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT, (C.C.H. 24), BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 11th day of JUNE, 2020
PRESENT:
SMT. MANJULA ITTY, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
Special Judge,
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City
Spl.C.C. No.406/2016
COMPLAINANT: State Karnataka represented by
Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayukta, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. D. Ramesh Babu, Public
Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused: Sri.A.G.Rangaiah S/o Late
Guddaiah, aged about 61 years,
resident of No.340, "Mallige' 5th
Main, Vinayaka Layout, 9th block,
Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-
72.
(By Sri P.N.Hegde, Advocate for
accused)
2
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
Check period from 26.08.1977 to
Date of offence 30.08.2013
Date of report of
29.08.2013
offence
Date of arrest of
Not arrested
the accused
Date of release on
19.10.2016
bail
Total period of
Nil
custody
Sri.P.Narasimha Murthy, Police
Name of the
Inspector, Karnataka
complainant Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Urban.
Date of
commencement
07.03.2017
of recording
evidence
Date of closing of
02.07.2019
evidence
Offences 13 (1)(e) read with section 13(2)
complained of of Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the
Accused is found not guilty
Judge
State represented Sri. Ramesh Babu D., Public
by Prosecutor
Accused defended Sri.P.N.Hegde Advocate for
by accused
3
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
JUDGMENT
1. Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act in short) alleging that the accused during his tenure as a public servant for the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and on 30.08.2013 accused was found in possession of pecuniary resources and property in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.2,38,76,745/- and his expenses during the said period was Rs.1,34,45,201/-, thus sum total of asset and expenditure was at Rs.3,73,21,946/- and during this period his known source of income was Rs.2,39,37,123/- and hence, he was found in 4 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs.1,33,84,823/- which is 55.92% by misusing his official position and committed the alleged offence.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused hails from a middleclass agricultural family and joined government services on 26.08.1977 in Grama Panchayath and worked as an Assistant in B.B.M.P. Bengaluru at different places of Bengaluru City. While he was working as an Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., Yalahanka, Bengaluru Police Inspector Sri.Narasimha Murthy received credible information that the accused has amassed wealth illegally. On this basis he conducted preliminary enquiry and collected information and documents relating to the source of accumulation of properties by the accused and a Source Report was submitted by the Police Inspector to the Superintendent of Police, City division, Karnataka 5 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, who in turn, under the provisions of Section 17 of the PC Act made an order that Sri.Niranjan Kumar, Police Inspector to register and investigate the said case and accordingly, a case is registered in Cr.No.51/2013 by the said police inspector and the FIR is submitted to this Court. Thereafter the Investigating Officer armed with search warrants on 30-08-2013 searched the residential premises of the accused bearing Door No. 340, 'Mallige', 5th Main, Vinayaka Layout, 9th block, Nagarabavi 5th stage, Bengaluru. 603 grams of gold jewelry, 3598 grams of silver articles, cash of Rs.2,09,650/- and some incriminating documents were found in the possession of the accused. After drawing mahazar the gold and silver articles and cash of Rs 2,09,650/- were returned to the accused. On the same day the Investigating Officer conducted search of two lockers of State Bank of India, Mallathhalli branch, 6 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 opened in the name of wife of accused Smt.Jayasheela and his daughter Smt.A.R.Nethravathi and 417.450 grams of gold ornaments were found in the said lockers. Investigating Officer after drawing mahazar the said gold was also returned to them. Further on 30.08.2013, Police Inspector Karnataka Lokayuktha Bengaluru conducted the search of another house of the accused bearing No.#2, 1st Floor, 80 feet road, KHB colony, Kengeri Sattelite, # 453, 1 st Floor, Jnanajyothi Nagara, Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru. The Investigating Officer conducted search of the house of the son of the accused, farm house of the accused, house constructed by the accused at his village, office of the accused and other places and prepared a mahazars with respect to all these searches conducted by him. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation by collecting documents from various departments and after obtaining explanation from the accused and after 7 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 completion of the investigation it is revealed that the during his tenure as a public servant for the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013 had acquired assets in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.2,38,76,745/- and his expenses during the said period was Rs.1,34,45,201/-, thus sum total of assets and expenditure was at Rs.3,73,21,946/-. During this period his known source of income was only Rs.2,39,37,123/- which exposed that the accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income by misusing his official position to the tune of Rs.1,33,84,823/- which is at 55.92% and hence, the Investigating Officer prepared Final Investigation Report and at the time of filing of the charge sheet, the accused had retired from service and hence, the Investigating Officer without obtaining prosecution sanction order from the competent authority of the accused since, the law as it was then, 8 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 did not mandate for obtaining prosecution sanction order for prosecuting a retired public servant, laid charge sheet before this Court against the accused.
3. The presence of accused was secured who is represented by his counsel. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) and the case was posted to hear before charge and after hearing both sides, my learned predecessor-in-office has framed charge against the accused on 30.01.2017 for the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C Act. 1988 which was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22 and got 9 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 marked documents at Exs.P1 to P138. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The accused examined in all 9 witnesses as Dws1 to 9 in support of his defence, but has not produced any documents.
5. From the charges alleged against the accused by the prosecution, the following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused being public servant, working as Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., Yalahanka, Bengaluru for the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and on 30.08.2013 accused was found in possession of pecuniary resources and property in his name and in the name of his family 10 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 members to the tune of Rs.2,38,76,745/-
and his expenses during the said period was Rs.1,34,45,201/- and during this period his known source of income was Rs.2,39,37,123/- and hence, he was found in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs.1,33,84,823/- which is at 55.92% acquired by him by misusing his official position and committed criminal misconduct and thereby the accused has committed the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the PC Act?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being a public servant working as 11 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., Yalahanka, Bengaluru has amassed assets worth Rs.1,33,84,823/- which is 55.92% disproportionate to the known source of his income during the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013 and he has not satisfactorily accounted for the possession of the property thereby the accused has committed the alleged offence. Section 19 of the PC Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by person who is a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority of that public servant and since, the accused had retired from service and was no longer a public servant at the time of filing charge sheet against him before this court, as the law stood then, the Investigating Officer was not under the obligation of obtaining the Prosecution Sanction Order and this aspect is not under challenge. 12
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
8. Now, coming to the case of the prosecution that the accused has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused has amassed wealth in his name and in the name of his family members illegally during the check period.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Rao Guhe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017)14 SCC 442 has held that " from the design and purport of section 13(1)(e), it is apparent that primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct there under would be indubitably on prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income and it 13 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 is only on discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of the offence"
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Veeraswamy V/s Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 6555 has held as under:
"Statutory evidence which must be proved by the prosecution, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or any person on his behalf has been in possession of pecuniary resource or property disproportionate to his known source of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionate of the properties possessed by him."
10. In view of the said position of law, while considering the commission of an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C Act, it is relevant to note 14 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that the initial burden to prove that either the accused or any member of his family at any point of time had been in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income, lies on the prosecution. If the initial burden is not discharged by the prosecution the onus does not shift to the accused to offer his explanation as to how he could have been in possession of either directly or through some other members of his family in possession of the property disproportionate to the known source of income.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Krishna Reddy V/s State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45 has culled out the points that are to be established by the prosecution and held that "It is not mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under section 5(1)(e) but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for 15 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law. To substantiate a charge under section 5(1)(e) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely i. the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, ii. the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession iii. it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution and iv. it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily 16 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused".
12. In the case on hand to substantiate its cases the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and got marked 138 documents as Ex.P1 to P138. PW1 is the panch witness in whose presence the search of residential premises of the accused, bank lockers of wife and daughter of accused, search of auditor's office were conducted and Ex.P1 to P3 mahazars were drawn by the Investigating Officer. PW2 is the goldsmith who had valued the gold and silver articles found in the possession of the accused and his family members as on date of search, PW3 is the carpenter who had given the approximate value of the wooden furniture found at the residence of accused and the at the clinic of son of accused. PW4 is the panch witness in whose presence the residence, clinic and Diagnostic centre of 17 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 son of accused were searched by the Investigating Officer and Ex.P4, 5 and 6 mahazar are prepared. PW5 is the technical expert who has prepared the valuation report of the clinical equipments found in the clinic and diagnostic centre of the son of accused. PW6 is the mahazar witness who had witnessed the search of the farm house of the accused, house search of one Rangaswamy and search of BBMP office where accused was working at the time of registration of this case. He is examined by the prosecution to prove Ex.P7, 8 and 9 mahazars. PW7 is Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture and he is examined to prove Ex.P11 and 12 horticultural income and expenditure report, PW8 is Assistant Agricultural Director is examined to prove Ex.P13 agricultural income, PW9 is the Chief Consulting Engineer who is examined to prove the Ex. P14 building valuation report of the residential premises of the accused, PW10 is the police inspector who 18 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted the Ex.P15 source report showing the amassing of wealth by the accused, PW11 is the PWD Engineer who gave the Ex.P17 building valuation report with respect to the buildings standing in the name of accused and his family members. PW12 is the Assistant Director of Agriculture and he is examined to prove Ex.P18 agricultural income and expenditure report, PW13 is Assistant Horticultural Director is examined to prove Ex.P19 horticultural income report. PW14 to 18 are the Investigating Officers who registered FIR, conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused. PW19 is the veterinary doctor who is examined to prove the expenditure incurred for the accused to maintain his pet dogs at his home, PW20 is the owner of Ganesh Bore wells and he is examined by the prosecution to prove the expenditure incurred for the accused to dig bore wells at his agricultural land. 19
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 PW21 and 22 are Principals of the medical colleges where the son and daughter of accused studied their MMBS courses and they are examined to prove the educational expenses incurred for the accused to educate his son and daughter.
13. According to the prosecution the accused had amassed assets worth Rs.2,38,76,745/- during the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013 and the details of the same is as mentioned in Table 1A below:
Table No. 1A Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs) No Immovable properties Value of the Farm House and 1 rearing shed of the animals 23,22,000-00 constructed in Sy.No.26 of Annekaranahalli village Value of the site and building constructed in Site No.340, 2 43,37,670-00 Vinayaka Layout, 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari, Bengaluru 20 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Purchase value of one acre of land in Sy.No.26, 3 Anekaranahalli village, 50,000-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District Purchase value of site No.175, 4 Anjanapura extended Layout, 1,71,720-00 Block-9, Bengaluru Purchase value of 2 guntas of land in SyNo.4/3 of 5 Anekaranahalli village, 10,000-00 Madabal Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru District Purchase value of 3 guntas of land in SyN.4/11 of 6 Anekaranahalli village, 20,000-00 Madabal Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru District Purchase value of site measuring 30 x 40 feet formed 7 in Sy.No.43/1, Vaddarahalli 1,32,000-00 village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Purchase value of Site No.157, measuring 30 x 35 feet, 8 Municipal Khata No.7896, 2,63,000-00 Elekere Layout, Channapattana Purchase value of site No.332, 9 2,80,000-00 Bapuji Layout Purchase value of the cows 10 and sheep for rearing at the 4,80,000-00 Farm House of the accused Movable properties 21 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Bank Accounts Balance in the S.B. account No.126101011000326, Vijaya 11 49,434-00 Bank, Gandhi Bazaar, Bengaluru Balance in Account No.1559, 12 The Bharat Co-operative Bank 3,607-00 Ltd., Vijayanagara Branch Balance in Account No.11718, The Bharat Co-operative Bank 13 Ltd., Main Branch, 2,167-00 Kalyanagara Branch Balance in Account No.312, The Bharat Co-operative Bank 14 Ltd., Matthikere Branch, 9,650-00 Bengaluru Balance in S.B.Account No.1954, Graduate Co-
15 operative Credit Society Ltd., 222-00 Kumara Kripa Road, Bengaluru Balance in S.B.Account No.24900 Canara Bank, Vijayanagara Branch 16 88,482-00
maintained by Smt.Jayasheela wife of the accused Balance in S.B.Account No. 64046157769, State Bank of Mysore, Mallatthahalli Branch 17 1,69,599-00 maintained by Smt.Jayasheela wife of the accused 22 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Balance in account No.3146736839, State Bank of India, Nagarabhavi AED 18 11,984-00 branch, maintained by Smt.P Nethravathi, daughter in law of the accused Balance in current account No. 004883800004779, Yes Bank, 19 Indiranagar Branch 32,551-00 maintained by M/s Oral D, #108, K.H.Road, Bengaluru Balance in S.B.Account No. 517602010002525, Union 20 Bank of India, Vijayanagara, 1,61,562-00 Bengaluru maintained by the accused Balance in S.B.Account No. 12067930000066, H.D.F.C. 21 Bank, K.H.Road, Bengaluru 2,24,755-00 maintained by Sri.A.R.Vinod Kumar Balance in S.B. Account No. 2850101001228, Canara 22 Bank, Sattelite Town, Kengeri, 1,775-00 Bengaluru maintained by A.R. Vinod Kumar Balance in S.B.Account No. 433921510, Indian Bank, 23 685-00 Prashanthanagara Branch maintained by Smt.Jayasheela Balance in S.B. Account No. 42323, Canara Bank, Vijayanagara Branch, 24 2,279-00 Bengaluru maintained by Sri. A.R.Vinod Kumar 23 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Balance in Account No.1159, The Bharat Co-operative Bank 25 3,607-00 Ltd., Vijayanagara branch in the name of Sri.A.G.Rangaiah Shares in Graduate Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd., 26 222-00 Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru by the accused Fixed Deposit in Account No.64050758593 at State 27 Bank of Mysore, Mallatthalli 50,000-00 Branch by Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Fixed Deposit in account No.2850401000912, Canara Bank, Sattelite Town, Kengeri, 28 9,60,000-00 Bengaluru in the name of Sri. Vinodkumar, son of the accused R.D. No.7956, at Kanva 29 Souharda Credit Co-operative 81,000-00 Bank Ltd Vehicles Purchase value of TVS Motor 30 Cycle K.A.02.EF.1689 41,240-00 Purchase value of Royal 31 Enfield Bullet CTK 750 vehicle 91,000-00 Value of the Maruthi 800 car 32 70,000-00 bearing No. KA.04.Z.0126 Purchase value of motor cycle 33 24,500-00 KA.02.H.1415 24 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Others Advance amount paid by 34 Sri.Vinod Kumar son of 7,65,466-00 accused Cash found in the house of the 35 2,09,650-00 accused Reliance Insurance policy No. 36 7,500-00 12565781 Policy No.500-4950423, Bharati Extra Life Insurance 37 75,000-00 Co. India Private Ltd., standing in the name of A.R.Vinod 38 LIC Policy No.612849566 0.00 Policy No.303902328 Bajaj 39 Alliance Group Ins. Standing in 30,000-00 the name of Sri.Vinod Kumar Amount in I.D.No. 40 080908819479, Unique 7,500-00 Purogramy Marketing Pvt. Ltd Policy No.SVG1149823, Aviva Life Ins. Co. India Pvt. Ltd. in 41 the name of Smt.Jayasheela 24,000-00 wife of the accused Value of the house hold articles found in the residence 42 of accused #340, 12,47,115-00 Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru Value of the house hold articles found in the Farm House standing in the name of 43 4,57,630-00 Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused 25 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Value of the articles found in "Mugulnage-1, Kengeri Sattelite, Bengaluru-56 44 1,94,150-00 belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the articles found in "Mugulnage-2, Jnanajyothi nagara, Bengaluru in the 45 53,500-00 name of Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused 46 Value of the articles found in 68,00,720-00 Oral-D, K.H.Road, Bengaluru belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused 47 Value of the articles found in 32,53,190-00 Oral-D-2, Mattikere, Bengaluru belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the gold and silver ornaments belonging to the 48 2,82,055-00 accused Value of the furniture found in the Beauty Parlour standing 49 11,800-00 Smt.Jayasheela Equipments found in the Beauty Parlour of 50 18,490-00 Smt.Jayasheela Advance amount paid for 51 23,000-00 running Beauty parlour 26 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Deposit amount paid for obtaining electricity connection to R.R.No. N2EH 69495, 69496 and 69497, to 52 7,560-00 the house of accused #340, 5th Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru Deposit amount for obtaining temporary electricity 53 2,120-00 connection to the house of the accused Deposit amount for obtaining the electricity connection to MHDL31631 to the garden 54 155-00 house of Smt.Jayasheela, wife of the accused situated at Annekaranahalli village Deposit amount paid for the purpose of obtaining water connection RR No.W-530973 55 to the house of accused #340, 890-00 5th Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru Deposit amount for obtaining 56 telephone connection 2910-00 23397595 Gas Consumer No.82109 57 standing in the name of Smt. 1000-00 Jayasheela wife of the accused 58 Deposit amount for obtaining 420-00 membership at Graduate Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd, Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru 27 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 One Generator of Kirloskar 59 company found in the Farm 70,000-00 House of the accused Value of two Swans found in 60 10,000-00 the Farm house of accused H.P.Motors found in the Farm 61 4,000-00 house of accused Amount kept in Prasanna 62 Anjaneya Chit Fund by Vinod 1,70,000-00 Kumar son of the accused Total 2,38,76,745-00
14. The assets of Table No.1A listed in serial No.3 to 9, 11 to 41, 46, 49 to 62 are not disputed by the accused.
15. The following assets mentioned in Table No.1B below are disputed by the accused:
Table No. 1B Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs) No Immovable properties Value of the Farm House and 1 rearing shed of the animals 23,22,000.00 constructed in Sy.No.26 of Annekaranahalli village 28 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Value of the site and building constructed in Site No.340, 2 43,37,670-00 Vinayaka Layout, 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari, Bengaluru Purchase value of the cows 10 and sheep for rearing at the 4,80,000-00 Farm House of the accused Others Value of the house hold articles found in the house of 42 12,47,115-00 accused at #340, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru Value of the house hold articles found in the Farm 43 House standing in the name of 4,57,630-00 Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused Value of the articles found in "Mugulnage-1, Kengeri 44 Sattelite, Bengaluru-56 1,94,150-00 belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the articles found in "Mugulnage-2, Jnanajyothi 45 nagara, Bengaluru in the 53,500-00 name of Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the articles found in Oral-D-2, Mattikere, Bengaluru 47 32,53,190-00 belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the gold and silver 48 ornaments belonging to the 2,82,055-00 accused 29 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
16. The learned counsel for accused has tried to impress upon the court that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of charges leveled against the accused is exaggeration of assets and expenditure. The learned counsel has taken pain to take me through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused and has tried explain the court that the explanation offered by the accused through his schedule coupled with the documents is plausible, convincing and is sufficient to discharge the burden cast on the accused. Now the assets disputed by the accused with the observations made by the investigating officer and the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the accused along with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defense along with the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused has to be discussed item wise.
30
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item No.1:
As per As per I.O. in Description accused in Rs.
Rs.
Value of the Farm
House and rearing
shed of the animals
23,22,000.00 18,38,673.00
constructed in
Sy.No.26 of
Annekaranahalli village
17. The Investigating officer has valued the building at Rs. 23,22,000/- and the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW11 Sri.Radhakrishna, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Ramanagar Special Sub-
Division, PWD and his Ex.P17 Valuation Report. PW11 in his evidence before Court testifies that he inspected the said Farm House and found that the Farm House consisted a residential building with RCC roofing along with a kennel, poultry shed, cattle shed, pump house, water tank, cattle feed storage shed, servants room etc., and he prepared the valuation report stating that the construction cost of the Farm House and other 31 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 construction appended therewith is at Rs.28,69,000/- and since, the building is constructed in the year 2000 depreciation charges of Rs.5,47,118/- is deducted and in his cross examination he admits that he did not ascertain the value of the building as per the Sub- Registrar's office rate of the year 2000 even though the rate card of the said year was available.
18. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that PW11 has calculated the rate as existed in the year 2014 and has deducted 14 years depreciation charges which is equal to the rate prevailing in the year 2000 and hence, there is no mistake as valuating a building as per rate prevailing in the year 2000 and valuating the same as per rate prevailing in 2014 and deducting 14 years depreciation charges makes no difference. Hence, the building valuation as per Ex.P17 is to be accepted.
32
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
19. Per-contra, the learned counsel for accused submits that the valuation report as per Ex.P17 is based on the rates fixed by the office of the Sub- Registrar and that is fixed for the purpose of registration and the property is valued based on the place in which property is situated, hence, the value as ascertained by PW11 in his Ex.P17 report is not correct to burden the accused with such a huge sum. He further submits that the accused had got the property valued from one Mr.Eshwar Bhat of Dynamic Consultancy Ltd., and the said expert has valued the building at Rs.18,38,673/- and his report is at page 344 of Ex.P66 schedule submitted by the accused to the Investigating Officer. The said Eshwar Bhat is examined by the prosecution as PW9, as he had also valued the residential premises of the accused and submitted the report which is marked as Ex.P14. The Ex.P14 is the duplicate of the valuation report which 33 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the accused had submitted before a bank to obtain loan on security of his residential building and the Investigating Officer came across the document while he conducted the house search of the residential premises of the accused and this was seized under mahazar. The prosecution relies upon this document and the evidence of PW9 who valued the property at the same time investigating officer had seized the duplicate of the valuation report of the Farm House along with Ex.P14 report but the investigating officer suppressed the said document as the valuation done by PW11 is more than the valuation of PW9 and hence, relies upon the valuation report of PW11. At the same time, while considering the valuation of the residential building of accused, the valuation of PW11 is not taken into account but the valuation report of PW9 is considered as the value of the asset shown in the report of PW9 is more than that of the value of the 34 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 asset shown in the report of PW11. Hence, the Investigating Officer adopted pick and choose rule to assess the value of property to his whims and fancies so as to rope the accused into this case and hence, he prays to consider the value of the report as shown in Ex.P66 page 344.
20. From the list of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW9 and PW11 are Engineers examined on their behalf to prove the value of residential building of the accused and Farm House of the accused respectively. The value of farm house mentioned in item No.1 of assets of accused is ascertained by the prosecution as per Ex.P17 report of PW11. PW11 was extensively cross examined by the learned counsel for accused and it is the specific case of the defence that PW9 also had given a valuation report which is considered by the Investigating Officer to ascertain the value of another property and the 35 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 valuation given by PW9 with respect to farm house is not considered by the investigating officer. The schedule submitted by the accused is marked as Ex.P66 through the investigating officer by the prosecution which only proves the aspect that the accused had submitted the schedule and the contents therein are not proved. If the defence is relying on any documents particularly appended with the schedule, the burden is on the accused to prove the same. Here, the accused relies upon the report of PW 9 which is annexed with the Ex P66 schedule. PW9 was examined by the prosecution to prove another document and the defence did not utilize this opportunity to get the contents of the valuation report proved through PW9. Hence, even though Ex.P66 (Page 344) is marked, it does not prove the contents of the valuation report. The only evidence before the Court with respect to value of farm house is the valuation report in Ex.P17 of 36 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 PW11. The contents of the report of PW9 which the defence relies have not been proved before Court through PW9. Not even a word with respect to the said report has been asked in cross examination of PW9 by the defence. Unless and until the valuation report of PW9 is legally proved before the Court that document cannot be relied upon to ascertain the value of the building. Hence, considering that the only available evidence before the Court with respect to value of item No.1 assets of the farm of accused is Ex.P17 report and hence, the value mentioned in Ex.P17 to be taken into account.
21. It is not in dispute that the accused is a Civil Engineer by profession and the learned counsel for accused submits that the supervision cost 10% of the total value of the building has to be deducted and the prosecution has not proved that the building was 37 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 constructed by the accused with the help of a contractor and hence, an amount of Rs.2,32,200/- has to be deducted from the total cost of Rs.23,22,200/- and hence, the value of the Farm House is to be considered as Rs.20,89,800/-.
Item No.2:
As per As per accused Description Investigating in Rs.
officer in Rs.
Value of site and 2,77,000.00 18,38,673.00
building +
40,60,670.00
43,37,670.00
22. Purchase value of the property i.e.,
Rs.2,77,000/- is accepted by the accused. The value of the building constructed therein Rs.40,60,670/- is disputed by the accused.
23. As stated earlier the prosecution has examined PW9 Eshwar Bhat to prove the value of the building and PW9 in his Ex.P14 valuation report has 38 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 stated that the construction cost of the building is Rs.40,60,670/- and hence, the investigating officer has taken the said value into the assets of the accused.
24. PW9 in his testimony before Court has stated that on 18.04.2014 the accused had approached and sought for a valuation report of his residential building to submit the same before Bank to obtain a loan on security of this building and hence, he after inspecting the property, valued the same which was of 3320 sq.ft with a ground floor and 2 floor above and on the terrace of the 2nd floor there was a room with tiled roof.
He further testifies that considering the materials used for constructing the building he calculated the construction cost of the building which was Rs.40,60,670/- and a valuation report was given to the accused which is marked as Ex.P14. His further testimony is that he calculated the construction cost of 39 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the building according to the rates fixed by builders every year. In his cross examination, he specifically admits that he had given the Ex.P14 valuation report for the purpose of obtaining bank loan on security of the building and he did not refer the notifications made by State Government in the official gazette for guidance. He also admits that he did not either refer the guidelines of PWD for ascertaining the value of the building. He denies to the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused that he had given exaggerated value of the building as Rs.40,60,670/- while the actual building cost was only Rs.21,11,098/-.
25. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the building valuation report of PW9 was seized from the residence of accused while the residential premise of accused was searched and it is the report obtained by the accused himself from PW9. Hence, the 40 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 valuation therein has to be accepted by the accused and hence, the value of asset was rightly taken by the investigating officer as mentioned in Ex.P14 report.
26. The learned counsel for accused strenuously objects the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and he submits that during investigation the investigating officer had contacted a PWD Engineer to ascertain the value of buildings, owned by accused and his family members and as such the Engineer after visiting the properties concerned, prepared report with respect to the construction cost of residential house of accused situated at Bangalore and Farm house of accused situated at Annekarahalli. The Engineer has submitted report to the investigating officer stating that the construction cost of residential building of accused is Rs.21,11,098/-, but the investigating officer purposely ignored the said report and adopted the 41 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 valuation report prepared by PW9 a private engineer who had valued the building for giving the same as collateral security to a bank for a loan to be obtained by the accused, since, the value of the building stated in that report is much higher than the one prepared by the PWD Engineer whom the Investigating Officer had deputed to value the same. At the same time, the investigating officer had considered the value mentioned in the report of the same PWD engineer while taking the value of Farm house of accused as the valuation stated therein is much higher than the value ascertained by PW9, the same private engineer. The Investigating Officer has adopted pick and choose method to rope the accused to the case. Hence, he prays to consider the value stated by the PWD Engineer in his report which the investigating officer has mentioned in his Final Report page 97. Hence, it is to be noted that the investigating officer has admitted 42 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that he had deputed a PWD Engineer to ascertain the value of the building and obtained a report from him which says that the construction cost of the building is Rs.21,11,098/-. He discusses in his Final Report page 24 that he did not consider the same because the PWD Engineer's report did not give the details and cost incurred for interiors of the building and hence, he is discarding the same and adopting the report of PW9. The report of the PWD Engineer is marked by the prosecution as Ex.P84. PW16, the investigating officer was examined before the Court and he reiterates that since there was no description of the interiors, the Ex.P84 report of PWD Engineer was not considered by him while Ex.P14 report of PW9, the private engineer, it included the cost of interiors also. Hence, he considered Ex.P4 report instead of Ex P84 report. It is quite interesting to note at this juncture that the investigating officer while considering the value of 43 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Farm House discarded the report of PW9 which also included the details of expenditure incurred for interior work and the Ex.P17 report of PW11 did not contain the cost of interior work but the investigating officer considered the report of PW11 as it was at higher rate compared to the report of PW9 the private engineer. The same investigating officer while considering the valuation report of residential building of accused discarded the Ex.P84 report of PWD engineer on the ground that it did not contain the cost of interior works and accepted the PW14 report of private engineer.
27. Hence, it clear from the Ex.P84 and Ex.P14 reports, value of residential building of accused compared with Ex.P17 and Ex.P66 (page 344) valuation report of Farm House of accused, the investigating officer has considered those reports which showed the value of the respective buildings on a higher side. It is 44 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 settled position of law in Indian Criminal Justice System if there are two legally admissible facts established before Court the one which is favourable to accused has to be accepted. While considering the value of Farm House of accused, the report proved before the Court was of Ex.P17 report of PW11 and the valuation report of PW9 was not proved before the Court and no attempt was made by the defence to prove the same even though they had an opportunity to prove it while PW9 was put into the witness box by the prosecution to prove Ex.P14 report. Hence, I was not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for accused to adopt the report of PW9 to consider the value of Farm House. But, here with respect to value of residential building of accused, the report Ex.P84 is marked by the prosecution and they do not deny the valuation mentioned therein except for non-inclusion of cost of interiors and the explanation given by the 45 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 investigating officer does not seem plausible to discard the same and since, the prosecution has admitted the Ex.P84 report, I am of the view that the Ex.P84 report is to be accepted to consider the value of residential building of accused and hence, I consider that the investigating officer ought to have taken Rs.21,11,098/- as the value of residential building of accused. Further, as it is not in dispute that the accused himself being a Civil Engineer is to be presumed to have been supervised the construction of the building and the 10% of the construction cost has to be deducted from Rs.21,11,098/- and Rs.2,11,109/- has to be deducted and the value of the building is to be considered as Rs.18,99,989.00. Item No.10:-
As per Description Investigating As per accused officer in Rs.
Purchase Value of cows and 4,80,000.00 0 sheep 46 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
28. To prove the purchase cost of 6 cows and 30 sheep found at the Farm House of accused, the investigating officer PW16 in his Final Report states that CW12 Manjunath, who is an employee of the accused and works at the Farm House, in his statement to PW17, the searching officer of farm house, that the accused had purchased 6 cows for Rs.40,000/- each and 30 sheep at the rate of Rs.8000/- each hence, PW16, the Investigating Officer who prepared Final Report considered the purchase cost of these cows and sheep as the assets of accused. PW17 in his evidence before the Court testifies that on the date of search of farm house of accused, he found 6 cows and 30 sheep and in his cross examination he admits that he did not obtain statement of any persons or servants who were employed at the farm house of the accused, but PW16, the officer who prepared final report, in his testimony 47 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 before Court states that previous investigating officer had obtained statements of the employee who was working at the farm house and he has cited the said employee Manjunath as CW12 in witness schedule of the charge sheet. He admits that he did not obtain statements from the said employee, CW12.
29. CW12, Manjunath is not examined by the prosecution to prove the contention of the prosecution, but the said CW12 is examined by the defence as DW1 and he testifies that the accused did not purchase any cow or sheep during the period from 2010 to 2013. Hence, to prove the purchase value of cows and sheep the prosecution has not produced any legally admissible documents and on the cumulative reading of the testimony of PW16 and PW17 and DW1, it is clear that statement of DW1 was not obtained by any investigating officer and above all the non-examination 48 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 of said DW1 by the prosecution, even though he was cited as CW12 also throws doubt on the prosecution version. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the purchase cost of cows and sheep to include the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- into the assets of the accused. Therefore, the said value is to be taken as NIL. Item No.42:
As per Description Investigating As per accused officer Value of house Rs. 12,47,115/- Rs.6,91,000/- hold articles found at the residence of accused
30. The prosecution relies upon Ex.P1 Mahazar and evidence of PW14 the searching officer, PW16 the investigating officer who prepared final report, PW1 mahazar witness, PW3 carpenter to prove the value of house hold articles found at the residence of the 49 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 accused as on date of search. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that PW14 along with mahazar witnesses, carpenter and goldsmith has valued the household articles, gold and silver ornaments and wooden furniture found in the residence of accused and has prepared Ex.P1 mahazar wherein the value of each and every items were fixed, the value of wooden furniture were fixed with the help of carpenter and hence, the investigating officer has rightly fixed the values of the assets and added the same into the assets of accused.
31. The learned counsel for accused strongly objects the same and submits that the investigating officer has fixed the values at an exaggerated rate according to his whims and fancies and fixed the value of wooden furniture, no carpenter was taken to the spot and he had affixed a signature of a fictitious 50 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 person in the Ex.P1 mahazar and hence, the value of assets as admitted by the accused in his schedule is to be considered.
32. Now, I am constrained to look into the evidence of PW14, PW16, PW1 and PW3 whom the prosecution depends to prove the value of household articles of accused. PW14 is the investigating officer who conducted search of the residence of the accused and prepared Ex.P1 mahazar and he in his testimony before Court says that on 29.8.2013 on the basis of Ex.P15 Source Report and Ex.P20 orders of his Superior officer registered Ex.P16 FIR and thereafter on 31.08.2013 he obtained Ex.P24 search warrant from this Court and conducted search of the residential premises of the accused in presence of mahazar witnesses and prepared Ex.P1 mahazar. In his cross examination, he admits that he did not obtain the 51 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 signature of Sri.Suresh who is named as carpenter in the Ex.P1 mahazar who had fixed value of the wooden furniture found in the house of accused. He further admits that he do not know on what basis the carpenter had fixed the value of wooden furniture and he categorically denies to the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused that there was no carpenter named Suresh at the residence of accused to ascertain the value of wooden furniture. He further testifies that no other carpenter other than Suresh has valued the wooden furniture and he denies that one Umashanker M.K. who has affixed his signature on Ex.P1 mahazar is a fictitious person. He further admits that he do not know the year of purchase and model numbers of electronic items found in possession of accused and he did not make any attempt to cross verify the value of electronic articles from the concerned companies. In re-examination, he states 52 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that the name of carpenter Umashanker is wrongly mentioned as Suresh in the mahazar.
33. PW16, the investigating officer who prepared Final Report testifies that he did not ascertain as to when the household articles found in the possession of accused were purchased and also he did not conduct any investigation to find out which articles were purchased before check period and which were purchased after the check period. He further testifies that he did not cross verify the value of house hold articles fixed as per Ex.P1.
34. Accused had submitted statements 14A of his schedule and stated the value of household articles and the investigating officer also admits that he had come across the said statement submitted by accused. But PW16 the investigating officer who prepared Final 53 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Report did not either cross verify the date given by the accused or he verified the value of the property mentioned in the statement. PW1 is the mahazar witness and he along with his colleague had been to the residential premises of accused with the searching officer PW14 and they fixed the rates of the household articles on an approximate rate and Ex.P1 mahazar is prepared. He admits in his cross examination that they did not ascertain as to when the accused had purchased the electronic and electrical items. PW3, the carpenter M.K.Umashanker deposes that he fixed values of items mentioned in Ex.P1 mahazar and signed the mahazar. He further deposes that he fixed the value of furniture, fan, bed, laptop, television, silk sarees, clothes, pillows, bed sheets, etc. But he deposes in his cross examination that he did not fix the value of any items except wooden furniture and he did not know the year of purchase of those wooden 54 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 furniture and he did not adopt any rate cards of wooden items to ascertain the value. He also admits that when the police fixed a rate to a particular item he accepted the same.
35. From the analysis of testimony of these witnesses, it is clear that the searching officer and his team had fixed the rate of each and every item found in the house of accused and drew Ex.P1 mahazar. The investigating officer says that he along with mahazar witness PW1 and carpenter PW3 after discussing with each other had fixed the value. But neither PW1 nor PW3 testify that they had any role in fixing the value of the items and PW3 categorically testifies that he accepted value suggested by PW14. PW16, the final investigating officer also admits that he did not make any investigation to ascertain the value of the household articles mentioned in Ex.P11. Therefore, 55 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 there is no legally admissible evidence to prove the correctness of the value fixed in Ex.P1. At the same time accused had submitted in his schedule, the value thereof of the household articles to the investigating officer, but the investigating officer did not consider the same nor verify the value stated therein. It is the duty of the investigating officer to investigate with regard to the same.
36. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the value stated by the accused in his schedule and submitted before the investigating officer is to be accepted and the value as stated in the final report by the investigating officer which do not have any proof to admit the same is to be rejected and the value of item No.42, the house hold articles found at the residence of the accused is to be fixed at Rs.6,91,000/-. 56
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item No.43:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Value of house Rs.4,57,630/- Rs.2,30,715/-
hold articles found in Farm House
37. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW6, PW16 and PW17 along with Ex.P7 mahazar to prove the value of household articles found in the farm house of accused. The value stated by the investigating officer is Rs.4,57,630/-, but the accused strongly objects this value and he submits in his schedule that the value of household articles found in his farm house is Rs.2,30,715/-. Looking into the evidence of PW7, who is one of the attesting witnesses of the Ex.P7 mahazar, it is stated by him before this Court that he was taken by the investigating officer along with other witnesses and police staff to the farm house of the accused and Ex.P7 mahazar was prepared 57 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 after fixing the value of household articles found in the farm house. There is no mention in his evidence that the value so fixed were fixed by them after obtaining the opinion of witnesses by the investigating officer.
The Police Inspector PW17 testifies before Court that he along with witnesses inspected the farm house and they all fixed the value of household articles found in the farm house and prepared Ex.P7 mahazar and in his cross examination he admits that he did not take the assistance of any carpenters to ascertain the value of wooden furniture found in the house nor he took any assistance of any experts to value the household articles. He also admits that he did not ascertain the value of electronic and electrical items found in the farm house by verifying any bills or by cross verifying the values so fixed with the companies concerned. PW16, the officer who prepared the Final Report and submitted the charge sheet before the Court states 58 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that he considered the value of the property as per the value fixed by the previous investigating officers in their respective mahazars and he also admits that he did not cross verify the value thereof with any company or with any of the bills which were submitted by the accused. The accused had submitted his schedule before the investigating officer during investigation of this case and he in his statement 14 of the said schedule had given the detail of the value of the articles found in the farm house. Further, he had also stated that details of those articles which he obtained as gifts from his parents, relatives and friends.
38. The accused strongly objects the values fixed by the investigating officer on the ground that the investigating officer did not consider the value of gift items and other properties which he inherited from his 59 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 parents and he also states that the investigating officer did not verify those items which were purchased by the accused prior to the check period. The accused further states that there were many house hold articles the value of which exceeds Rs.2,26,000/- which he had received as gifts and inherited from his parents but the investigating officer without stating any reasons has discarded the same and fixed the value of the household articles as per his whims and fancies, without obtaining any expertise opinion with respect to the same. The investigating officer has not stated in his Final Report as to why he is not considering the value stated in the schedule submitted by the accused.
39. On close analysis of the Final Report, it is clear that the investigating officer had considered the value of gift items received by the accused and had deducted the same from the total value of the 60 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 household item. The Final Report says that the total value of household articles found in the farm house is at Rs.4,41,763/- and the value of household articles found at the residence where mother of accused was residing is Rs.31,870/- and hence, a total of Rs.4,83,630/- is fixed and out of this amount Rs.26,000/- has been deducted by the investigating officer as value of gifts received by the accused and hence, the investigating officer has considered Rs.4,57,630/- into the assets of accused. Firstly, the prosecution has not proved before the Court that the household articles found at the residence where mother of accused was residing were purchased by the accused. There is not even a whisper in the Final Report or from evidence of witnesses that those articles were brought by accused and it is not clear as to why the investigating officer has included that into the assets of accused. Secondly, the prosecution has 61 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 not proved the value of articles stated in mahazar is the approximate value of articles. The investigating officer could have verified the same with the bills submitted by accused. One cannot expect to keep the bills of each and every item he purchases for a long period anticipating that a case might be registered. Investigating officer has stated before this Court that since, the accused did not produce any purchase bill, he had considered the value as fixed in the Ex.P7 mahazar. It is to be noted that that Ex.P7 mahazar gives out the details of the electronic, electrical and other items and the approximate value thereof. It is the duty of the investigating officer to verify the same. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove by adducing legally admissible evidence, at-least the approximate value of the items. For this the investigating officer has to make effective investigation of the same. He could have done investigation so as to 62 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 find out when the accused had purchased these articles, then could have verified the same by enquiring with the companies concerned. The investigating officer could have verified the same by cross checking with the Annual Property Returns of accused submitted by him to his department. The investigating officer has not given any plausible explanation as to why he did not make investigation on this line and he also did not gives any reasonable answer as to why he did not consider the value stated by the accused. Hence, at this juncture, as there is no legally admissible evidence put forth by the prosecution for considering the value of household articles found in the farm house of the accused, the value as stated by the accused in his schedule Rs.2,30,715/- is to be accepted. 63
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item Nos. 44 and 45:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Value of articles Rs.1,94,150/- Rs.51,290/-
found in Mugulnage-1 Dental Clinic Mugulnage-2 Rs.53,500/- Rs.14,100/- Dental Clinic
40. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW15 and PW16 to prove the value of articles mentioned on item No.44 and 45 of assets along with Ex.P68 schedule statement-14 submitted by accused. PW4 Mahesh Kumar is Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 mahazar witness, PW5 Loknath is the technician whose expertise was utilized by the investigating officer to fix the value of dental clinic equipments found at the clinics of Dr.Vinod Kumar, son of accused. PW15 Anil Kumar is the Searching Officer who conducted search of Mugulnage-1 and 2 Dental clinics of Dr.Vinod Kumar and PW16 is the investigating officer who prepared 64 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 final report. PW15 conducted search and he prepared Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 mahazars and the mahazars show that the value of the medical equipments found at the clinics were valued by PW5 who is an expert technician of Dental Clinical equipments.
41. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigating officer did not consider the value of equipments as fixed by the experts and mahazar witnesses in Ex.P4 and P5 since, the accused during investigation had submitted the schedule and in Ex.P68 schedule statement 14A it is admitted by the accused that his son Dr.Vinod Kumar had availed loan from banks and purchased dental clinical equipments for the dental clinics and the value of the equipments found in the 1st clinic Mugulnage-1 is Rs.1,94,150/- and of the 2nd clinic Mugulnage is Rs.53,500/-. Hence, the investigating officer adopted the value stated by the accused by discarding Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 mahazar which 65 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 stated that the approximate value of the equipments was Rs.51,290/- and Rs.14,100/- respectively.
42. The learned counsel for accused vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and he argues that the accused is not a competent person to evaluate the values of medical equipments and it is Dr.Vinod Kumar, son of accused can speak about the same. When an expert technician has valued the assets and the accused who is not expert nor did he purchase the equipments personally, had stated a different value, the investigating officer could have conducted investigation by enquiring the same with Dr.Vinod Kumar, who had purchased the equipments or at least, the investigating officer ought to have enquired PW5 and ascertain on what basis, he had valued the same. In the absence of effective investigation on that line, the value as stated in Ex.P4 and P5 has to be accepted and the investigating officer 66 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 has erroneously taken the value as stated in the schedule by the accused. PW4 in his evidence before Court states that he along with other witnesses and investigation officer had fixed the approximate value of medical equipments found at the Dental Clinics and he in his cross examination admits that an expert named Loknath/PW5 had fixed the value of medical equipments.
43. PW5 testifies before Court that he is working as a technician of Dental Clinical equipments for the past 15 years and he was called by PW15 to the Dental Clinics of Dr.Vinod Kumar and he fixed the values of the equipments on the market rates of the equipments.
The evidence of PW15 is also in tune with the testimony of PW4 and PW5. PW16 who is the officer who prepared Final Report in his evidence before Court do not speak anything about the value medical equipments, but in his Final Report he has mentioned 67 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that as the accused had admitted in his schedule that his son had purchased those equipments for Rs.1,94,150/- & Rs.53,500/-, he had accepted the same.
44. Here, it is to be noted that accused is not an expert to value the equipments. It is not the case of prosecution that accused had purchased the equipments for the clinic. As Dr.Vinod Kumar was residing with the accused the assets, expenditure and income of said Dr.Vinod Kumar was considered by the Investigating Officer in his Final Report. It is not in dispute that the investigating officer had obtained service of an expert technician to ascertain the value of the equipments. There is a huge difference in the value stated by the accused and the technician. Hence, PW16 ought to have conducted investigation in that line and admittedly, he did not make any enquiry with either PW5, the technician or with Dr.Vinod Kumar 68 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 who had purchased the equipments. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused that when there was a valuation statements prepared by an expert is available before Court in the form of Ex.P4 and P5 mahazars, the value stated by accused in Ex.P68 schedule who is neither an expert nor purchaser of the equipment cannot be taken into account, in my view finds force. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the investigating officer has erred in considering the value of items No.44 and 45 and the value has to be considered as Rs.51,290/- and Rs.14,100/- respectively.
Item No.47:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Value of articles found in Oral - Rs.32,53,190/- Rs.32,00,000/- D2 dental clinic 69 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
45. The prosecution relies upon Ex.P6 mahazar prepared by PW15 investigating officer with the help of PW5 the expert and PW4, the mahazar witness. Ex.P6 mahazar is prepared on approximate value of the equipments on market rates and the same is fixed as Rs.32,53,190/-. The investigating officer who prepared Final Report admits in his testimony before Court that the purchase invoice of these equipments were found during the search of the clinic and the invoice shows that the purchase price of the equipments found at Oral D2 clinic including the UPS, Computer Systems, etc., is Rs.32,00,000/- and hence, it was his bonafide mistake that Rs.32,53,190/- was taken as asset and hence, Rs.53,190/- is to be deducted. Hence, value of item No.47 is considered as Rs.32,00,000/- without any further discussion with respect to the same. 70
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item.No.48:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Value of gold Rs.2,82,055/- Rs.1,89,265/- and silver
46. In the Final Report Page 47, the investigating officer states that the value of gold and silver articles found in possession of accused were valued at Rs.2,80,895/- and he substantiates in his report that wife of accused had purchased 67.8 grams gold ornaments from Rajathadri jewelers by exchanging her old gold ornaments and she had also purchased 58.450 grams of gold jewelries from Shivanath Jewelers and accused was given 30 grams of gold as gift in a farewell function. To prove the purchase of gold from Rajatadri Jewelers the investigating officers places the statement of one Chandrashekar Raju, Proprietor of Rajathadri Jewelers, and to prove the 58.450 grams of gold, the investigating officer is relying upon the bills 71 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 which were seized from the residence of accused during search and a letter obtained from Shivanath Jewelers. The prosecution has examined PW2, PW14, PW15, along with Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P29 to prove the value of gold and silver assets belonging to accused. PW2 is the goldsmith who had weighed and valued the gold and silver items found at the residence and bank lockers, PW14 is the searching officer who had conducted search of the residence and bank locker and also seized the documents from the residence of accused. PW16 is the Final Investigating Officer who prepared Final Report.
47. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that 603 grams of gold and 3598 grams of silver articles were found at the residence of accused and 417.450 grams of gold ornaments were found in the bank locker and the value of gold and silver articles has been fixed with the help of goldsmith and noted on Ex.P1 and P2 72 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 mahazars by the investigating officer. As per Ex.P1 mahazar the value of 410 grams of gold is fixed at the rate of Rs.1600/- and the value is noted as Rs.6,56,000/- and the remaining 193 grams is fixed at Rs.700/- and valued as Rs.1,35,100/-. The value of silver is valued as Rs.71,960/- at the rate of Rs.20/- per gram. The value of 417.450 grams of gold found in bank locker is fixed at the rate of Rs.1500/- per gram and valued at Rs.6,25,500/-.
48. PW16 has stated in his Final Report that accused had declared in his APRs that 500 grams of gold ornaments and 5 KG silver articles were gifted to his wife by her father at the time of marriage and at the time of marriage of his son, he got 500 grams of gold and 2 KG silver as gift from his relatives. Therefore, the investigating officer had considered only the value of those gold ornaments which were purchased by wife of accused from Rajathadri Jewelers 73 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 and Shivanath Jewelers and 202 grams of silver and 2/3rd value of 30 grams gold which was received as gift the accused. Hence, the value is fixed at Rs.2,80,895/-. But, the charge sheet shows the value as Rs.2,82,055/- and there is no explanation why there is an increase of Rs.1160/-. 1020 grams is the total gold found in the possession of accused.
49. The prosecution admits that the accused has declared over 1000 grams of gold in his Annual Property Returns (APRs) as received as gift. The Investigating officer has considered only the value of 174.4 grams of gold into the assets of accused out of the total 1020 grams of gold ornaments for the reason that the accused had already declared certain gold in his APRs. 67.8 grams of gold said to have been purchased from Rajathadri Jewelers, 58.450 grams of gold said to have been purchased from Shivanath Jewelers and value of 2/3 rd of the total value of 30 74 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 grams of gold received as gift for accused has been considered by the investigating officer.
50. The learned counsel for accused vehemently objected the method adopted by the Investigating Officer in including the value of gold into the assets of the accused. It is argued that the investigating officer has considered Rs.29,330/- the value of 58.450 grams of gold said to have been purchased by Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused from Shivanath Jewelers not on the basis of any gold items found with accused but solely on the basis of some estimation notes found at the residences of accused which were seized by the investigating officer during the house search.
51. Certain slips and order forms are produced before this Court and are marked as part of Ex.P27 at pages 259 to 267. These were marked through PW14, the searching investigating officer and his evidence is 75 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that he found all these bills and hence, he seized them along with many other documents found in the residence of accused. The Final Investigating Officer who calculated assets of accused has taken 58.450 grams of gold into the assets based on these estimation slips. There are 9 slips. None of these have been proved before this Court. PW16 states in his Final Report that he interrogated one Kashinath Nagesh Bhat, the Proprietor of Shivanath Jewelers and obtained a letter from him wherein it is stated that Smt.Jayasheela had purchased gold from him and he has been cited as CW66 to prove the same, but the prosecution has not examined this witness before Court. Hence, the purchase of the gold ornaments as alleged by the prosecution is not proved. Even if it is assumed that Smt.Jayasheela had infact purchased the gold whether it was before check period or during check period is the important point to be established 76 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 by the prosecution to include the same into the assets of the accused. Based on certain calculation written on a white piece of paper which was found at the residence of accused, it cannot be assumed that the calculation written therein is with respect to purchase of gold ornaments, that too from Shivnath Jewelers as there is no mention of any jewelers in those piece of papers. Hence, the arguments, the learned counsel for accused has put-forth is to be accepted.
52. Coming to the next part value of 30 grams of gold which the accused states he received as gift on a farewell party arranged for him which is not disputed by the prosecution either. The Investigating Officer accepting the same, has valued the gold at Rs.75,000/- and has deducted Rs.12,700/- being the 1/3 of Rs.38,100/- which the basic salary of accused and remaining amount of Rs.62,300/- has been taken into the assets of accused. The Investigating Officer in his 77 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 testimony before this Court has testified that since, the accused is entitled to receive gift items of value of 1/3 of his basic salary, and that being Rs.12,700/- as the accused was earning basic salary of Rs.38,100/- the remaining amount has been taken as assets of accused and he admits in his cross examination that this calculation is based on the information he got during his training that a Government Servant is not entitled to receive any gift from anybody other than his family members where the value of such items exceeds the 1/3 of his basic salary. Hence, he after deducting the same had included the value of gold into the assets of accused. The offence of amassing wealth disproportionate to the income of Government servant will be attracted only when the Government servant is unable to explain satisfactorily his source of income. Here the accused has explained that the 30 grams of gold was received by him as gift. If he has violated the 78 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 service rules by receiving gift worth more than 1/3 of his basic salary he is liable to answer his departmental head for violation of service rules and that does not warrant any criminal prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act unless and otherwise his act comes within the purview of any violation of the provisions of PC Act. When the accused had informed that he received gift of 30 grams of gold, it is the duty of investigating officer to conduct investigation with respect to same to unearth its truth, if the investigating officer is not satisfactory with the explanation given by accused. Here, the investigating officer has no case that the explanation given by the accused with respect to the source from where the accused got 30 grams of gold was not satisfactory, but he has accepted the same in toto without any doubt, but the investigating officer states that the act of accused is against the service norms and hence, he 79 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 alleges that the accused is answerable to the value of the gold deducting value of 1/3 rd of his basic salary. This stance of the investigating officer is legally unacceptable and the accused under PC Act is answerable duly to those assets which he could not satisfactorily account the source of the same.
53. The accused accepts the value of 18 grams of gold i.e., Rs.53,000/- and Rs.1,26,115/- being the value of gold purchased from Rajathadri Jewelers by Smt.Jayasheela. Therefore, the value of gold assets has to be taken as Rs.1,79,115/- Since, the value of 202 grams of silver articles i.e., Rs.10,150/- is not disputed by the accused the value of assets on item No.48 is to be arrived at Rs.1,79,115/- + Rs.10,150/- i.e., Rs.1,89,265/-.
54. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the value of assets held by the accused during check period is as mentioned in Table 1C below. 80
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Table 1C:
Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs) No Immovable properties Value of the Farm House and rearing shed of the animals 1 constructed in Sy.No.26 of 20,89,800.00 Annekaranahalli village Value of the site and building constructed in Site No.340, 2 18,99,989-00 Vinayaka Layout, 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari, Bengaluru Purchase value of one acre of land in Sy.No.26, Anekaranahalli village, 3 50,000-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
Purchase value of site No.175, 4 Anjanapura extended Layout, 1,71,720-00 Block-9, Bengaluru Purchase value of 2 guntas of land in SyN.4/3 of Anekarana-
5 halli village, Madabal Hobli, 10,000-00
Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru
District
Purchase value of 3 guntas of
land in SyN.4/11 of Anekarana- halli village, Madabal Hobli, 6 20,000-00 Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru District 81 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Purchase value of site measuring 30 x 40 feet formed 7 in Sy.No.43/1, Vaddarahalli 1,32,000-00 village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Purchase value of Site No.157, measuring 30 x 35 feet, 8 Municipal Khata No.7896, 2,63,000-00 Elekere Layout, Channa-
pattana Purchase value of site No.332, 9 2,80,000-00 Bapuji Layout Purchase value of the cows and sheeps, for rearing the 10 00-00 cow and sheeps in the Farm House of the accused Movable properties Bank Accounts Balance in the S.B account No.126101011000326, Vijaya 11 49,434-00 Bank, Gandhi Bazaar, Bengaluru 12 Balance in Account No.1559, 3,607-00 The Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagara Branch Balance in Account No.11718, The Bharath Co-operative 13 2,167-00 Bank Ltd., Main Branch, Kayanagara Branch Balance in Account No.312, The Bharath Co-operative 14 9,650-00 Bank Ltd., Mattikere Branch, Bengaluru 82 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Balance in S.B.Account No.1954, Graduae Co-
15 222-00 operative Credit Society Ltd., Kumara Kripa Road, Bengaluru Balance in S.B.Account No.24900 Canara Bank, 16 Vijayanagara Branch 88,482-00 maintained by Smt.Jayasheela wife of the accused Balance in S.B.Account No. 64046157769, State Bank of 17 Mysore, Mallattahalli Branch 1,69,599-00 maintained by Smt.Jayasheela wife of the accused Balance in account No.3146736839, State Bank of India, Nagarabhavi AED 18 11,984-00 branch, maintained by Smt.P Nethravathi, daughter in law of the accused Balance in current account No. 004883800004779, Yes Bank, 19 Indiranagara Branch 32,551-00 maintained by M/s Oral D, #108, K.H.Road, Bengaluru 20 Balance in S.B.Account No. 1,61,562-00 517602010002525,Union Bank of India, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru maintained by the accused Balance in S.B.Account No. 12067930000066, H.D.F.C Bank, K.H.Road, Bengaluru 21 2,24,755-00 maintained by Sri.A.R.Vinod Kumar 83 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Balance in S.B. Account No. 2850101001228, Canara 22 Bank, Sattelite Town, Kengeri, 1,775-00 Bengaluru maintained by A.R. Vinod Kumar Balance in S.B.Account No. 433921510, Indian Bank, 23 685-00 Prashanthanagara Branch maintained by Smt.Jayasheela Balance in S.B. Account No. 42323, Canara Bank, 24 Vijayanagara Branch, 2,279-00 Bengaluru maintained by Sri. A.R.Vinod Kumar Balance in Account No.1159, The Bharath Co-operative 25 Bank Ltd., Vijayanagara 3,607-00 branch in the name of Sri.A.G.Rangaiah Shares in Graduate Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd., 26 222-00 Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru by the accused 27 Fixed Deposit in Account 50,000-00 No.64050758593 at State Bank of Mysore, Mallatthalli Branch by Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Fixed Deposit in account No.2850401000912, Canara Bank, Sattelite Town, Kengeri, 28 Bengaluru in the name of Sri. 9,60,000-00 Vinodkumar, son of the accused 84 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 R.D No.7956, at Kanva 29 Souharda Credit Co-operative 81,000-00 Bank Ltd Vehicles Purchase value of TVS Feoro 30 41,240-00 Motor Cycle K.A.02.EF.1689 Purchase value of Royal 31 91,000-00 Enfield Bullet CTK 750 vehicle Value of the Maruthi 800 32 70,000-00 vehicle KA.04.Z.0126 Purchase value of motor cycle 33 24,500-00 KA.02.H.1415 Others Advance amount paid by 34 Sri.Vinod Kumar son of 7,65,466-00 accused Cash found in the house of the 35 2,09,650-00 accused Reliance Insurance policy No. 36 7,500-00 12565781 37 Policy No.500-4950423, 75,000-00 Bharathi Extra Life Insurance Co. India Private Ltd., standing in the name of A.R.Vinod LIC Policy No.612849566 38 0.00 Policy No.303902328 Bajaj 39 Alliance Group Ins. Standing in 30,000-00 the name of Sri.Vinod Kumar Amount in I.D.No. 40 080908819479, Unique 7,500-00 Purogramy Marketing Pvt Ltd 85 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Policy No.SVG1149823, Aviva Life Ins. Co India Pvt Ltd in the 41 24,000-00 name of Smt.Jayasheela wife of the accused Value of the house hold articles found in the house of 42 6,91,000-00 accused #340, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru Value of the house hold articles found in the Farm 43 House standing in the name of 2,30,715-00 Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused Value of the articles found in "Mugulnage-1, Kengeri 44 Sattelite, Bengaluru-56 51,290-00 belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the articles found in "Mugulnage-2, Jnanajyothi 45 nagara, Bengaluru in the 14,100-00 name of Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused 46 Value of the articles found in 68,00,720-00 Oral-D, K.H.Road, Bengaluru belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused Value of the articles found in Oral-D-2, Mattikere, Bengaluru 47 belonging to Sri.Vinod Kumar 32,00,000-00 son of the accused Value of the gold and silver 48 ornaments belonging to the 1,89,265-00 accused 86 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Value of the furniture found in 49 the Beauty Parlour standing 11,800-00 Smt.Jayasheela Equipments found in the 50 Beauty Parlour carrying by 18,490-00 Smt.Jayasheela Advance amount paid for 51 23,000-00 running Beauty parlour shop Deposit amount paid for obtaining electricity connection to R.R.No.N2EH 69495, 69496 and 69497, to 52 7,560-00 the house of accused #340, 5th Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, Nagara-bhavi, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru Deposit amount for obtaining temporary electricity 53 2,120-00 connection to the house of the accused Deposit amount for obtaining the electricity connection to MHDL31631 to the garden 54 155-00 house of Smt.Jayasheela, wife of the accused situated at Annekaranahalli village Deposit amount paid for the purpose of obtaining water connection RR No.W-530973 55 to the house of accused #340, 890-00 5th Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, Nagara-bhavi, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 56 Deposit amount for obtaining 2910-00 telephone connection 23397595 87 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Gas Consumer No.82109 standing in the name of Smt. 57 1000-00 Jayasheela wife of the accused Deposit amount for obtaining membership at Graduate Co-
58 operative Credit Society Ltd, 420.00
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bengaluru
One Generator of Kirloskar
59 company found in the Farm 70,000-00
House of the accused
02 Swan found in the farm
60 10,000-00
house of accused
H.P.Motors found in the farm
61 4,000-00
house of accused
Amount kept in Prasanna
62 Anjaneya Chit Fund by Vinod 1,70,000-00
Kumar son of the accused
Total 1,96,15,381-00
55. Now coming to the expenditure incurred by the accused, the prosecution alleges that the accused had incurred Rs.1,34,45,201/- as expenditure during the check period from 01.12.1998 to 22.10.2008 and the details of the same is as under: 88
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Table No. 2A Sl.
Description of Expenses Value in Rs. No Stamps & registration charges Lease agreement entered into on 18.11.2011 by 1 Sri.Vinodkumar for the 7,785-00 purpose Dental Clinic at Kangeri Satellite Site No.332, Bapuji Layout, 2 40,660-00 measuring 40 x 41 feet Sy No.26 measuring 2 acre 5 ½ guntas of land situated at Annekaranahalli village, 3 12,950-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District Sy No.26 measuring 1 acre of land situated at Annekaranahalli village, 4 7,550-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District Sy No.26 measuring 25 ½ guntas of land situated at Annekaranahalli village, 5 4,984-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District 89 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Site No.175, Anajanapura 6 Extension Layout, Block-9, 16,580-00 Bengaluru Site No.184, Raghuvanahalli 7 village, Uttarahalli Hobli, 12,925-00 Bengaluru South Taluk Site No.340, Vinayaka Layout, 8 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari 27,890-00 Nagara, Bengaluru Mortgage deed No.722 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagarabavi mortgaging the property for 9 15,210-00 availing loan of Rs 15,00,000/-
by the accused and his wife jointly from Vijaya Bank, Gandhi Bazaar Branch Site No.175, Anjanapura 10 extended layout, Block-9 4,126-00 Bengaluru Site No.45 measuring 30 x 40 formed in Sy.No.43/1 of Vaddarahalli village, 11 12,760-00 Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Site No.157, measuring 30 x 35 feet, municopal khatha 12 17,715-00 No.7896, Yelekere Layout, Channapattana 90 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Taxes Fee paid for preparing plan for construction of house at #340, 5th Main Road, Nagarabhavi 2nd 13 6,377-00 Stage, Bengaluru by the accused and his wife Tax paid to the Farm House bearing Khatha No.51, 14 2,222-00 Annekaranahalli village, Magadi Taluk Tax paid to house No.340, 15 38,888-00 Mallige, Nagarabavi Amount paid for obtaining water connection R.R.No.W-
530973 and prorata fees to 16 62,771-00 the house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, Nagarabavi, Bengaluru Electrical connection to house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, Nagarabavi, 17 Bengaluru to the residential 1,14,008-00 house of the accused R.R.No.69495, RR No.69496, RR No.69497 Temporary electrical connection to house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, 18 16,531-00 Nagarabavi, Bengaluru to the residential house of the accused R.R.No.N2TPM 2399 91 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Electrical connection to Farm 19 house of the wife of accused 10,690-00 MHDL31631 Development charges for getting electrical connection to house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, 20 6,600-00 Nagarabavi, Bengaluru to the residential house of the accused Fuel and maintenance of 21 Vehicle No.KA.02.EF.1689 88,075-00 Fuel and maintenance charges 22 of Royal Enfield Bullet vehicle 6,209-00 No.CTK 750 Fuel and maintenance charges 23 1,72,850-00 of vehicle No.KA.02.Z.0126 Life Tax and registration 24 charges to Vehicle 3,633-00 No.KA.02.EF.1689 92 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Insurance amount paid in 25 respect of vehicle 7,648-00 No.KA.02.Z.0126 Insurance amount paid in 26 respect of vehicle 8,059-00 No.KA.02.EF.1689 Telephone charges to 27 78,243-00 23397595 Repayment of loan to Loan account 28 18,83,421-00 No.126108351000043, Vijaya Bank, Gandhi Bazaar Repayment of loan to Loan account No.1564, The Bharath 29 38,068-00 Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mattikere Branch, Bengaluru Repayment of loan to Loan account 30 4,49,660-00 No.MEN002200020462 Yes Bank, Indiranagara Branch, Repayment of loan availed for the purpose of two wheeler to 31 18,400-00 The Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd.
93 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Repayment of Loan availed for 32 the purchase of vehicle 37,020-00 KA.02.EF.1689 Repayment of loan 33 LBBNG00000364286 ICICI 1,92,645-00 Bank, Vijayanagara branch Repayment of loan to Loan 34 account No.13303487, HDFC 4,36,860-00 Bank, Indiranagara Branch Repayment of education loan 35 by Vinod Kumar from Vijaya 2,00,000-00 Bank Repayment of EMI to Bajaj 36 1,28,910-00 Finserve Loan Repayment of EMI to G.E. 37 18,77,615-00 Capital by Vinod Kumar Repayment of loan to Loan account BF-11 to Supriya 38 Enterprises availed jointly by 3,91,055-00 Smt.Jayasheela and Dr. Meenakshi Repayment of loan to Loan account BF-11 to Supriya 39 1,77,319-00 Enterprises availed by Smt.Jayasheela Repayment of loan along with
interest to Rajathadri Jewelers 40 2,12,000-00 by Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused 94 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Repayment of loan by the 41 1,50,000-00 accused to Vijay Battery Shop Repayment of loan to 42 1,50,000-00 Ramachandra Repayment of loan to Anand B 43 Mavva builders 2,00,000-00 Outstanding balance in S.B.Account No. 517602010002525, Union 44 555-00 Bank of India, Vijayanagara Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Bank charges to S.B.Account No.42323 standing in the name of A.R.Vinod Kumar, at 45 1,291-00 Canara Bank, Vijayanagara branch, Bengaluru Payment of interest and bank charges for maintaining S.B. Account No.12067930000066 46 in the name of Dr.Vinod 3,338-00 Kumar, at HDFC bank, K.H. Road, Bengaluru 47 Bank charges to Bajaj Finserve 34,382-00 Broken period interest to Bajaj 48 Finserve 8,447-00 Service charges to Kanva Credit-Co-operative Bank Ltd 49 80-00 by Sri.Vinod Kumar 95 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Repayment amount incurred by using credit card 50 21,018-00 No.4476929993184404 of HSBC Bank by Vinod Kumar Repayment of amount incurred by using credit card Nos. 541537232112174, 54153824050783627, 51 2,35,374-00 5415382405173089, 5415382405198920 of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) by Sri.Vinodkumar Amount paid to Reliance Life 52 1,50,000-00 Insurance Policy No.11645449 I.C.I.C.I Prudential Life 53 16,500-00 Insurance Policy No.04213590 I.C.I.C.I. Prudential Life 54 1,500-00 Insurance Policy No.3823955 Life Insurance, R.T.Nagar, 55 Policy No.06170862 standing 0-00 in the name of accused Bajaj Alliance Group Ins police 56 No.50725036 by 64,000-00 Sri.Vinodkumar LIC Policy No.610202768 57 standing in the name of 0-00 accused Peerless General Finance & 58 Investment Co Ltd Certificate 19,000-00 No.45074321 by the accused 96 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Policy No.500-4871934 of Bharathi Ex Life Insurance Co.
59 12,000-00
India Pvt Ltd by
Smt.Jayasheela
Policy No.500-4874805 of
Bharathi Ex Life Insurance Co.
60 24,000-00
India Pvt Ltd by
Smt.Jayasheela
Policy No.NSG1260061 of
61 Aviva Life Ins. Co. India Pvt Ltd 72,000-00
in the name of Sri.A.R.Vinod
Locker charges at S.B.M
62 8,750-00
Mallathalli branch
Income tax paid by Vinod
63 2,24,939-00
Kumar
64 Income tax paid by accused 7,886-00
Income tax paid by
65 11,930-00
Smt.Jayasheela
Expenditure incurred by the
66 accused for the maintenance 11,14,028-00
of the family
Amount paid to the maid
67 servant working in the house 24,000-00
of the accused
Amount paid to T.V.Cable
68 6,400-00
connection
Amount incurred for
69 3,04,450.00
maintenance of Dalmatian dog
97
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
Expenditure incurred for
70 3,15,284-00
rearing sheep and cows
Expenditure incurred for
71 19,180-00
cooking gas connection
Paid to Neev Public English
School, Govindarajanagara
72 6,060-00
Main Road, Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru
Paid to Neev Public English
School, Govindarajanagara
73 10,980-00
Main Road, Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru
Paid to Vidyavardhaka Sanga
High School, Saptharushi
74 138-00
Dhama Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru
Expenditure on education of
75 A.R.Nethravathi daughter of 239-00
accused
Paid to St.Joseph Pre-
University College,
76 2,500-00
K.M.Kariyappa Road,
Bengaluru
Expenditure on education of
77 A.R.Nethravathi daughter of 9,580-00
accused
Paid to Vokkaliga Sangha
Dental medical college and
78 3,16,500-00
Hospital, K.R.Road, V.V.Puram, Bengaluru Paid Sri.Devaraj Urs Medical 79 10,56,410-00 College, Kolar 98 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Paid to The Oxford Dental 80 College, Bommanahalli Hosur 4,73,950-00 Road, Bengaluru Monthly fee paid for admission of Yadunandan grandson of 81 16,375-00 accused to High Tech Play School and Day Care Centre Subscription charges for 82 getting membership of 10,800-00 Country club Passport No.F 0275159 in the 83 1,000-00 name of Sri.A.R.Vinod Kumar Paid to Sri.Mookambika Temple 84 2001-00 Kollur for permanent pooja Donation to Iscon Temple, 85 10,000-00 Bengaluru Donation to Sri.Bramhalingeshwara Swamy 86 Temple, Building fund, Makali, 25,000-00 Channapattana Tq, Ramanagara District Performing pooja at 87 Hanumagiri Temple Trust 5,001-00 (Regd) Nagarabavi Amount incurred for 88 performing marriage of the 4,79,056-00 daughter of the accused Amount incurred for 89 performing house warming 25,000-00 ceremony 99 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Amount incurred for 90 performing the marriage of the 1,15,000-00 son of the accused Rent paid by the accused for 91 2,31,600-00 his residence Expenditure incurred for 92 borewell in the land of 2,15,893-00 Annekaranahalli Amount paid to Siriprabha Chit 93 fund by the wife of the 1,74,450-00 accused Purchase of site formed in Sy.No.65/4, Kamakshipalya, 94 Saneguruvanahalli, 14,000-00 Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Purchase of site No.184, 95 Raghuvanahalli, Uttarahalli 60,000-00 Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Advance amount paid for purchase of site No.45, 96 1,00,000-00 Vaddarahalli, Dasanapura measuring 30 x 40 feet Registration of TVS Champ 97 13,185-00 KA.02.8.8430 Fuel, Maintenance charges and 98 registration of vehicle 18,763-00 No.KA.02.H.1415 Amount paid for Beautician 99 3,000-00 Course by Smt.Jayasheela 100 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Member Registration fee 100 No.38021, dated 26.10.1984 100-00 at B.D.A by the accused Management fees paid by 101 Vinodkumar son of accused in 48,000-00 the name of medi loan Paid to purchase plastic materials at Blassom Party 102 1,821-00 Sales by Smt.jayasheela wife of accused Total 1,34,45,201-00
56. The following expenditure of Table No.2A listed in serial No.1 to 22, 24 to 37, 39 to 49, 52 to 65, 67, 68, 71 to 78, 80 to 87, 89 to 91, 93 to 95 and 97 to 102 are not disputed by the accused.
57. The following assets mentioned in Table No.2B below are disputed by the accused: 101
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Table No. 2B Sl.
Description of Expenses Value in Rs. No Fuel and maintenance charges 23 1,72,850-00 of vehicle No.KA.02.Z.0126 Repayment of loan to Loan account BF-11 to Supriya 38 Enterprises availed jointly by 3,91,055-00 Smt.Jayasheela and Smt.Dr. Meenakshi Repayment amount incurred by using credit card 50 21,018-00 No.4476929993184404 of HSBC Bank by Vinod Kumar Repayment of amount incurred by using credit card Nos.
541537232112174, 54153824050783627, 51 2,35,374-00 5415382405173089, 5415382405198920 of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) by Sri.Vinodkumar Expenditure incurred by the 66 accused for the maintenance of 11,14,028-00 the family Amount incurred for 69 3,04,450.00 maintenance of Dalmitian dog Expenditure incurred for rearing 70 3,15,284-00 sheep and cows 102 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Sri.Devaraj Urs Medical College, 79 10,56,410-00 Kolar Amount incurred for performing 88 marriage of the daughter of the 4,79,056-00 accused Expenditure incurred for digging 92 bore well in the land situated at 2,15,893-00 Annekaranahalli Advance amount paid for purchase of site No.45, 96 1,00,000-00 Vaddarahalli, Dasanapura measuring 30 x 40 feet
58. Now the expenditure disputed by the accused with the observations made by the investigating officer and the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the accused along with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defense together with the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused has to be discussed item wise.
103
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item No.23:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Fuel and Rs 1,72,850/- Rs.49,385/-
maintenance charges of vehicle KA 02 Z 0126
59. The prosecution case is that a car bearing registration No.KA.02.Z0126 was found parked at the residential premises of the accused during search of the house on 30.08.2013 and the speedometer of the vehicle showed that it had covered 37386 Km as on date of search and it was noted down by PW14 in his Ex.P1 mahazar. PW16, the investigating officer obtained a report from Regional Transport Officer, Yeshwanthpur with respect to the maintenance charges of the vehicle. The investigating officer had provided information with regard to the vehicle such as, model of the car, year of make and speedometer reading of 104 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the vehicle as on date of raid of residence of accused.
Based on these information the Regional Transport Officer calculated the fuel charges and maintenance charges that would cost to maintain the car from 1999 to 2013 and it is stated in his report that since, the car had covered 37386 Km an average of 2337 liter of petrol has been used and the cost of petrol would be Rs.1,16,850/- and other maintenance charges for the car for 14 years would be approximately Rs.56,000/- and hence, in his opinion an amount of Rs.1,72,850/- would be the maintenance cost of the vehicle. The report of Regional Transport Officer is marked as Ex.P100. This report was marked through PW16 the Final Investigating Officer who prepared the Final Report and he had added this Rs.1,72,850/- into the expenditure of the accused.
105
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
60. The learned counsel for accused strenuously objected the inclusion of this amount into the assets of the accused on the ground that the prosecution has not produced any legally admissible evidence to prove that accused had incurred this huge sum as expenditure. The only available evidence before court is the Ex.P100 report which is not proved through the RTO concerned but through PW16 the investigating officer. He further submits that the accused has no dispute that this car was found parked in front of his house on the date of search and he also do not dispute the speedometer reading of the vehicle. He further states that the accused has given explanation to the investigating officer through his schedule and he also argues that the registered owner of the car was one Sri.Shivashankar B.K. who purchased the brand new car in the year 1999 and one Smt.Pushpa purchased the said car from the said Shivashankar and 106 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Dr.Vinodkumar, son of accused purchased the said car from Smt.Pushpa in the year 2009. Hence, even if the fuel charges and maintenance charges of the vehicle as stated by the RTO in his Ex.P100 report is taken as true, the accused cannot be burdened with the charges that have been incurred by the previous owners of the vehicle till 2009. Hence, the maintenance charges as calculated in Ex.P100 report has to be taken for 2009 to 2013 and that would be Rs.49,385/- and the investigating officer has erroneously included Rs.1,23,465/- in excess to inflate the expenditure which is liable to be deducted.
61. From the thorough perusal of the prosecution evidence before this Court, it can be seen that the evidence that the prosecution placed are Ex.P1 mahazar and Ex.P100 report of the RTO. The evidence of PW16 the investigating officer is that he has taken the expenditure incurred for maintenance of vehicle 107 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 based on the information that the vehicle has covered 37386 Km from the date of registration and he admits in his cross examination that the pollution control Certificate dated 6.4.2009 taken for the vehicle shows that as on date of certificate the said vehicle had covered 3209 Km and the registered owner of the car is one Shivashankar. The Ex.P100 report is marked through investigating officer PW16 and therefore, the prosecution has proved that the investigating officer obtained the report from RTO, nothing more. The contents of the report is not proved and how the RTO has arrived at Rs.1,72,850/-, the rate of petrol he has calculated etc., has not been proved. It is also not proved by the prosecution that the said vehicle belongs to accused or his son since the Ex.P100 page 3 is 'B' extract of the vehicle which depicts one Shivashankar is the registered owner. In such a situation neither the vehicle can be included into the 108 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 assets of the accused nor the maintenance charges into his expenditure. But the accused has fairly conceded that Dr.Vinodkumar, son of accused had in fact purchased the vehicle from Smt.Pushpa in the year 2009, who had brought it from the registered owner and hence the accused admits the four years maintenance charges of the said car into his expenditure. It is further admitted by the accused in his schedule and during the final hearing of this case, that yearly fuel charges incurred is Rs.4000/- per year and hence, for 4 years from 2009 to 2013, an amount of Rs.49,385/- has been incurred to him. Therefore, I am of the opinion that since, the prosecution has not proved the expenditure as alleged in the Final Report and the accused has admitted Rs.49,385/- as expenditure incurred for maintenance of car, the said amount is to be included in the expenditure. 109
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item No.38:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Repayment of Rs.3,91,055/- Rs.1,61,000/- loan to Supriya Enterprises by Smt.Jayasheela and Dr.Meenakshi
62. During search of the residence of accused, the searching officer PW14 came across many documents and a notice sent from Supriya Enterprises calling upon the wife of the accused to remit the outstanding loan amount availed by her was one such documents and the investigating officer during investigation made enquiries with the Supriya Enterprises and collected information regarding that. It is the prosecution case that Smt.Jayasheela and Dr.Meenakshi jointly availed Rs.3,00,000/- loan from Supriya Enterprises during check period and the said loan was cleared with Rs.91,055/- interest and hence, 110 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the amount of Rs.3 lakh has been taken into the income of the accused Rs.3,91,055/- has been taken into the expenditure of accused. Ex.P70 is the document the prosecution relies upon to prove this fact along with evidence of PW16, the investigating officer. The notice seized from the house of accused is part of Ex.P29 (at page 413). It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused had admitted in his schedule that his wife and her friend Dr.Meenakshi had availed Rs.3,50,000/- loan from Supriya Enterprises and an amount of Rs.3,83,825/- has been repaid by Dr.Meenakshi and out of that Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid through cheque and the remaining amount by cash. Since, the accused had not produced any document to show that Dr.Meenakshi had repaid the entire loan amount the investigating officer included the loan amount into income of accused as well as the repaid amount into the expenditure of accused. 111
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
63. The learned counsel for accused opposed this view and submits that the prosecution case itself is that the said loan was jointly availed by Smt.Jayasheela and Dr.Meenakshi and the Ex.P70 document i.e., the ledger extract of Supriya Enterprises shows that an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- has been repaid by Dr.Meenakshi by cheque and the remaining amount has been paid by cash. Even though Dr.Meenakshi is cited as CW140, the prosecution purposely did not examine her before this Court and hence, the defence called her as witness and she was examined as DW5 before this Court and she in her evidence has stated that the said loan was availed by her and she herself closed the loan account by repaying the entire amount.
64. Ex. P70 is the ledger extract of loan account of loan availed jointly by Smt.Jayasheela and Dr.Meenakshi, which shows that a personal loan of 112 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Rs.3,00,000/- has been availed jointly by them and an amount of Rs.3,91,000/- has been paid back and the loan is closed. An amount of Rs.2,30,000/- has been remitted through cheque and it is not in dispute that the said cheque has been drawn by Dr.Meenakshi and the remaining Rs.1,61,000/- has been paid by cash. Ex.P70 ledger extract was collected by investigating officer during investigation and it is marked through PW16 the investigating officer who prepared Final Report, hence the point that the said document is obtained by the investigating agency during investigation is proved before this Court, but not its content since, none of the witness who prepared or under whose custody the said ledger was has not been examined by the prosecution. The content of the notice said to be issued by Supriya Enterprises which was seized by PW14 during search of residence of accused is also not proved as per law before this Court. 113
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Hence, the fact of availing any loan by Smt.Jayasheela and the repayment of the same with interest has not been proved before this Court. At the same time, Dr.Meenakshi who was cited as CW140 but not examined by the prosecution is examined by the defence as DW5 and in her evidence she categorically states that the entire loan is obtained by her and she has repaid the entire amount and closed the loan. Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused is examined by the defence as DW8 and her evidence also corroborates the testimony of DW5 that the loan is availed by DW5 and repaid by DW5 alone. As the Ex.P70 ledger extract and Ex.P29 (page 413) notice of Supriya Enterprises have not been proved by the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW5 Dr.Meenakshi that she had availed the entire loan amount and that testimony is corroborated with evidence of DW8 Smt.Jayasheela and hence, the 114 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 prosecution has not proved the expenditure of Rs.3,91,000/- the alleged repaid loan amount, so that the said amount could be included into the expenditure of accused. Since, the availing of loan is not proved, the so called loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- cannot be included into the income of accused either. Therefore, the expenditure in item No.23 is to be considered as NILL.
Item Nos.50 and 51:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Repayment of Rs.21,018/- 0 amount to credit card Repayment Rs.2,35,374/- 0 amount to credit card
65. The prosecution relies upon Ex.P40, statement of account and letter of Branch Manager, HSBC Bank to prove the expenditure of Rs.21,018/- in item No.50 and Ex.P41 statement of account and letter 115 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 of Manager, R.B.S. Bank to prove the expenditure of Rs.2,35,374/- in item No.51. The Investigating Officer in his final report has stated that during investigation it was found that several purchases were made by Dr.Vinod Kumar using his credit cards of HSBC Bank and RBS Bank and hence, the amount has been included as expenditure. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that since, accused had not provided any explanation nor disputed the fact that these purchases are expenditure, these amount have to be included the expenditure of accused. The learned counsel for accused submits that the concerned banks have provided money as credit for the purchases made by Dr.Vinod Kumar through credit cards, the said amount has to be included into the income of accused and since the prosecution has not proved the repayment of these amounts, these cannot be included into the expenditure of accused.
116
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
66. Here Ex.P40 and Ex.P41 are letters of Bank Manager concerned and the statements of account pertaining to the credit card account of Dr.Vinod Kumar. As per the prosecution, an expenditure of Rs.21,018/- has been incurred for purchase of several things and the money for the same has been used by swiping the credit of HSBC Bank. Ex.P40 is the document to prove the said expenditure. It is the known fact that if payment through credit card is made, the amount will be given by the Bank as loan. If any payment is made through debit card, the money utilized would be the balance amount available in the account of the person making it. Credit card payment is as good as availing loan from bank. Hence, the payment made for purchase of goods through credit card has to be included into the income and any repayment made to the bank for the same with 117 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 interest is to be included into the expenditure if such repayment is proved to be made during check period. Here, the prosecution has alleged that payment by means of credit card has been made by Dr.Vinod Kumar and this is admitted by the accused in toto. In the Final Report also the investigating officer submits that the amount expended through credit card of HSBC and RBS Banks have been included into the expenditure. There is no whisper with respect to the fact that whether any investigation has been made by the investigating officer to ascertain the repayment of those amount to the bank. Since, the investigating officer has considered the payment made by banks via credit card for the purchases made by Dr.Vinod Kumar as expenditure of accused, one cannot expect that the investigating officer would make any further investigation with regard to repayment amount. Therefore, payment made by HSBC as credit is proved 118 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 before this Court and the said amount has to be considered as income and as the prosecution has failed to prove the repayment of the said credit amount to the bank, no amount can be included as expenditure. The contents of Ex.P40 are not proved before this Court. As far as Ex.P41 is concerned it is only a letter from Branch Manager, RBS bank which states that the credit card was issued to Dr.Vinod Kumar and the statement of account appended with it is pertaining to a Savings Bank account of Dr.Vinod Kumar. Nothing fruitful for prosecution is proved through Ex.P41. The prosecution case itself is that an expenditure of Rs.3,07,374/- has been incurred for purchases of goods and payment for Aviva Life Insurance for Dr.Vinodkumar and the said amount has been paid using RBS Credit Card. The explanation of investigating officer is that an amount of Rs.72,000/- which Dr.Vinod Kumar had incurred for Aviva Life 119 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Insurance has already been taken as expenditure, the said Rs.72,000/- has been deducted from Rs.3,07,374/- and the remaining Rs.2,35,374/- is taken into consideration under expenditure head. As in item No.50, here also the investigating officer did not conduct any investigation to ascertain the repayment made to RBS bank by Dr.Vinodkumar since, the Investigating Officer has included the amount paid by the bank into the expenditure. Under expenditure item No.61 the investigating officer has included the Rs.72,000/- paid for Aviva Insurance and it is clear that the money for the same has been paid by RBS bank and the accused is answerable only to the repayment if any made to RBS bank during check period. Prosecution has not proved what expenditure have been particularly made to include the said expenses to expenditure, even though if it is assumed that the prosecution has proved the repayment, as item No.66 120 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 of expenditure gives out separate amount as family expenditure. The prosecution has to prove that the goods purchased through credit card payments does not include the items included under item No.66 family expenditure. Hence, the amount of Rs.21,018/- and Rs.3,07,374/- the amount paid by HSBC and RBS banks respectively through credit cards has to be positively included into the income of accused and the amount of Rs.21,048/- and Rs.2,35,374/- which have been wrongly included into the expenditure head of accused is to be removed and hence, the expenditure at item Nos. 50 and 51 are considered as NILL. Item No.66:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Family Rs.11,14,028/- Rs.5,57,014/- maintenance expenditure 121 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
67. The Investigating Officer during investigation after collecting all the information with regard to income, food habits, extent of agricultural property, living standard of accused and his family members provided these information to CW81, the Deputy Director of Statistics wing of Lokayuktha and obtained Ex.P106 report from CW81. The prosecution allegation is that during the check period from 26.8.1977 to 30.08.2013 the total invisible and non-verifiable expenditure of accused and his family members for house hold food and non-food item is Rs.11,14,028/-.
68. The learned counsel for accused vigorously opposed this amount and submits that Ex.P106 is not proved before this Court as per law. CW81, the Deputy Director of Statistics has not been examined before this Court. It is further submitted that the accused used to get food grains like ragi, rice, jower, vegetables, fruits etc., from his own agricultural land 122 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 and since accused was rearing poultry, sheep and cow, milk and milk products, meat, chicken etc., were getting from his farm and he did not have to make any expenditure for the same. CW81 has calculated all the items and had not deducted the rate of those items which accused used to get from his own farm. Hence, it is submitted that the amount CW81 stated is exorbitant and accused submits that 50% of said amount i.e., Rs.5,57,014/- is accepted as expenditure and that has to be considered.
69. Ex.P106 is the report prepared by CW81. Admittedly, CW 81 is not examined and hence, the contents of Ex.P106 as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused, are not proved before this Court as per law. Ex.P106 is marked through PW16 the investigating officer who prepared the Final Report. He has included the amount mentioned in Ex.P106 as family expenditure of accused. It is admitted fact that 123 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 accused is having agricultural land where ragi, rice, vegetables etc., were grown and accused had also obtained income through sale of these cereals and vegetables. It is also not in dispute that accused had cattle farming, sheep rearing and also obtained income through this. It is natural that no person would sell all these products and purchase from outside market for his own consumption. Hence, the claim of the accused that he used to get ragi, rice, milk, meat, chicken from his own farm for their own consumption and would place the remaining food grains and other items for market to gain money, sounds logical and has to be accepted. Now the question arises as to what amount has to be deducted as expenditure under this head. As stated earlier the prosecution has not examined CW81 who prepared Ex.P106 report and hence, the content nor the amount mentioned therein is proved before this Court to show that precisely an amount of 124 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Rs.11,14,028/- is incurred as family expenditure for accused. Strictly speaking the prosecution has not proved any amount before this Court and the investigating officer is not an expert to explain the expenditure of said expenses. This does not mean that for a period of 37 years' check period the accused and his family members did not incur any expense. Accused himself admits that an amount of Rs.5,57,014/- has been approximately expended for the maintenance of his family during the check period and hence, it is to be accepted and the amount as fixed by the investigating officer is to be replaced and the expenditure under this head is considered as Rs. 5,57,014/-.
Item No.69:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Maintenance of Rs.3,04,450/- Rs.4,000/- Dalmatian dog 125 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
70. The investigating officer in his final report has stated that he obtained report from Veterinary doctor with regard to the expenditure that might have been incurred to the accused for maintenance of a Dalmatian dog and the Doctor in his report states that Rs.3,04,450/- would be the approximate expenditure and hence, the said amount has been included in the expenditure of accused. It is also admitted that the accused during investigation had submitted his schedule and the statement-19 of schedule says that the accused incurred Rs.4000/- as expenditure for maintenance of his pet animals. The investigating officer has not stated any reason for not discarding the statement-19 submitted by the accused.
71. The learned counsel for accused in his arguments submits that the investigating officer has obtained Ex.P60 report from PW19 by providing 126 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 information that the pet dog found at the residence of accused was Dalmatian breed of age 7 years 8 months and PW19 has given Ex.P60 report based on this information and on presumption that the said breed dog consumes around 300 grams to 500 grams of pet food which costs Rs.200/- per kg of food and medical expenses and other expenses for the said pet dog for 7 years and 8 months. But, the accused had in fact had a pet dog at his home which do not belong to the costly Dalmatian breed and they were feeding their pet dog with homely food and vaccination and other medical facilities were provided at the Corporation Veterinary hospital and hence, the accused did not incur any expenses as mentioned in Ex.P60 report and hence, he prays to delete the said amount from the expenditure head and submits to include Rs.4000/- which the accused had approximately incurred from 127 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 2010 to 2013 to maintain his pet dog which he found in abandoned condition on road and he raised it.
72. Ex.P1 is the house search mahazar and Ex.P7 is the search mahazar of the farm house of the accused. In both these mahazars there is no whisper with regard to presence of any pet dog, much less a Dalmatian dog at the residence or farm house of the accused. From the entire perusal of prosecution records no where it is stated that the accused had a Dalmatian dog aged 7 years and 8 months old. It is not forthcoming in the prosecution records from where the investigating officer got the information of the dog, which he had provided to PW19 to prepare the Ex.P60 report. PW19 in his evidence before this Court has stated that he prepared Ex.P60 report based on the information given to him by the investigating officer. He admits that he did not personally see the dog and 128 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 hence, he do not know the age, breed etc., of the dog which the accused had. The accused in his evidence before Court testifies that the dog he raised was a cross breed dog and he found it in an abandoned state on road and he did not give the dog any pet food but fed the dog with homely food. His further evidence is that he had given the expenditure incurred for him to raise the said dog from 2010 to 2013 in his schedule to the investigating officer. It is not clear from the evidence of PW16, that as to why he did not consider the explanation given by the accused with regard to the said expenditure. The prosecution has not proved that the accused had a costly breed Dalmatian dog aged 7 years 8 months. The prosecution has no case that such a dog was found either at the residential premises of accused or farm house of accused. Ex.P60 report is based prepared by PW19 based on the information provided by investigating officer, not by 129 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 personally examining the pet. Ex.P60 report says that to raise a Dalmatian dog of age 7 years 8 months old the expenditure would be around Rs.3,04,450/- and it is not disputed by the accused either. The specific case of accused is that he did not own any Dalmatian dog and the pet dog he had was a cross breed dog. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the expenditure of Rs.3,04,450/- cannot be included into the expenditure head instead Rs.4000/- the admitted amount is to be included in item No.69 of expenditure. Item No.72:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Expenditure for Rs.3,15,284/- 0 rearing sheep and cows
73. The investigating officer has included an amount of Rs.3,15,284/- as expenditure incurred for 130 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 accused for sheep and cow rearing on the basis that he provided information to the Veterinary Doctor B.G.Doddi, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. The report submitted by the said Veterinary doctor is marked as Ex.P89 by the prosecution. The said report gives the details of expenses incurred for purchase of cows, sheep, equipments used for cattle and sheep rearing, fodder development charges, expenses for feed, insurance premium amount, salary for workers, veterinary aid and medical expenses etc. The investigating officer has deducted the purchase value of cows and sheep as he has taken the said amount into the assets of accused and considered the other expenses into the expenditure of accused. The said veterinary doctor Sri.Harish is cited as CW24 by the prosecution, but was not examined by the prosecution and the defence examined the said witness as DW2. DW 2 in his testimony before Court says that he has 131 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 calculated the net income that may be received from a cross breed cow and it is Rs.4,76,316/- per year and that of a sheep for 9 months is Rs.2,45,000/-. He does not speak about the expenses in his evidence. But the accused who got himself examined as DW9, in his substantive evidence before Court testifies that he bought one cow and 2 sheep in the year 2005 and developed them and as he had agricultural land he fed the animals with maize, ragi, jower, paddy husk which were grown in his land and hence he did not incur any expenditure for the same. He also submits that from 2010 he employed a servant named Manjunath in his farm house and the said employee looked after all the activities of the farm and he did not given any fixed salary for him since, he utilized the food grains grown in the land for his own consumption. The learned counsel for accused submits that the expenditure as stated in Ex.P89 is based only on assumptions and 132 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 presumptions. But, as such the accused do not strongly dispute the expenses stated therein except a bare denial of the same. The investigating officer has taken Rs.9,23,153/- as income obtained by accused from cattle and sheep rearing. Accused claims a huge income of amount of Rs.24,54,560/- as income he derived from cattle and sheep farming and even though he submits that he did not incur any expenses for cattle feed, employee salary etc. the learned counsel for accused in his final argument before Court and in the written arguments did not make any submissions challenging the expenditure stated by the Investigating officer in his final report. It is to be noted that the Veterinary doctor is examined before this Court by the defence as DW2 and the Ex.P89 report is admitted by the accused as such and no dispute with regard to expenditure mentioned therein is put forth and hence, with regard to the expenditure under item 133 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 No.70 is concerned the sum stated by investigating officer Rs.3,15,284/- is to be accepted. Item No.79:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Amount paid to Rs.10,56,410/- 0 Deveraj Urs Medical College
74. The prosecution case is that Smt.A.R.Netravathi daughter of accused joint M.B.B.S. Course at Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar in the academic year 2003-04 and completed course in the academic year 2007-08 and an amount of Rs.9,32,610/- has been paid as fees and an amount of Rs.1,23,800/- has been paid as hostel fees and this information is obtained from the Principal, Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar during investigation and hence the said sum of Rs.10,56,410/- has been taken into the expenditure of accused.
134
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
75. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the said sum of Rs.10,56,410/- is admitted as expenses incurred for A.R.Nethravati's MBBS course, but the said amount was paid by father-in-law of A.R.Nethravati and hence, the accused did not incur any expenditure for the same. It is further submitted that father-in-law of A.R.Nethravati is examined as DW7 before this Court and he in his evidence has substantiated that as he had acquaintance with the accused and his family members from 1999-2000 and they had decided to get A.R.Netravati married to Sri.Chethan Kumar son of DW7 and as Dr.Chethan Kumar was himself a doctor he wanted his wife to be a doctor and the accused expressed his inability to bear the educational expenses, DW7 himself had agreed to bear the same and hence, the entire expenses for M.B.B.S. Course was borne by DW7. This fact was given as explanation 135 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 by the accused in his schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer, but the Investigating Officer without stating any reason has not considered the said explanation and the investigating officer has not conducted any investigation with regard to the same.
76. The prosecution had cited Sri.Chethan Kumar, husband of A.R.Nethravati and Sri.Puttaswamy Gowda, father-in-law of A.R.Nethravati as CW145 and CW146 respectively. It is not forthcoming from the charge-sheet and the prosecution records for what purpose they have been cited as witness. They were not examined by the prosecution during trial, but the defence called them as defense witnesses and examined them as DW6 and DW7 respectively. The letter and copies of receipts showing the payment of fees by A.R.Netravati issued by the Principal of Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar is produced by the 136 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 prosecution and these are marked as Ex.P136 through PW18 P.G.Anil Kumar the investigating officer who obtained the same during investigation. The accused has not disputed the amount mentioned in Ex.P136 and he also admits the said expenses incurred for M.B.B.S. course of his daughter and the dispute is that the said amount is not paid by him but by DW7, father- in-law of said Nethravathi. Now the only question before this Court is that who has paid the amount on behalf of Netravathi. The Principal of the college is examined as PW22 and he in his evidence testifies that Ex.P136 has been issued by him based on the records available at the college. He admits in his cross examination that there were no copies of receipts showing the hostel expenses and hence he could not provide the same. Ex.P136 is covering letter and copies of receipts as to tuitions fees paid for A.R.Netravati from 2003 to 2008. The copies of fee 137 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 paid receipts shows that an amount of Rs.9,500/- is paid on 01.09.2003, Rs.2,04,000/- is paid on 26.06.2004, Rs.2,07,600/- is paid on 15.10.2005, Rs.2,07,940/- is paid on 23.12.2006 and Rs.1,06,570/- is paid on 30.07.2007 and thus a total of Rs.7,35,610/- is paid as tuition fees and there is no hostel fee paid receipts produced by the prosecution and only statement of the same is produced. DW6, husband of A.R.Netravati i.e., son-in-law of accused, DW7, father- in-law of A.R.Netravati, DW9 the accused and DW8 Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused were examined on behalf of accused before this Court. DW6 in his testimony states that he had acquaintance with A.R.Netravati when she was studying PUC and he and his family members had decided to take her in marriage to him then itself and he was in the medical profession he wanted his wife to be a medical professional and hence they decided to bear her 138 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 educational expenses as the accused had expressed his inability to bear such a huge sum of money and thus they had paid all the tuition fees and hostel fees for A.R.Netravati. DW7 Puttaswamy Gowda's evidence is also in tune with the testimony of his son DW6. The evidence of DW6 and DW 7 is further corroborated with the oral evidences of the accused, DW9 and his wife DW8.
77. Marriage of daughter of accused with DW6 was solemnized on 12.06.2008 i.e., five years prior to marriage, the would-be father-in-law is said to have decided to bear the educational expenses of accused person's daughter. Except oral testimony the accused he has not produced any documents to show that the expenses i.e., to the tune of Rs.10,56,410/- is paid by DW7. Accused being a Government servant is duty bound to inform the same to his department. Accused had submitted his APRs time to time to his department 139 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 and he has not declared the said information in any of his APRs.
78. Neither DW6, nor DW7 has produced any documents to show their source of income to bear such a huge amount. It is not explained by them whether the amount has been paid by DW7 by cash or through any bank transaction. DW7 has not produced any document such as income tax returns to show that he had enough income to bear educational expenses of his friends' daughter, along with the M.B.B.S. course expenses of his own children at the same time. Prosecution has produced documents showing Rs.7,35,610/- has been paid in the name of Kum. Netravati as tuition fee for her MBBS course and the prosecution alleges that including hostel expenses an amount of Rs.10,56,410/- has been spent for the said course, which is squarely admitted by the accused. Hence, eventhough the documents show the payment 140 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 of Rs.7,35,610/- as the accused has admitted the whole amount, the accused has to show that the amount was not paid by him to relieve him of the said burden of expenses. True, the accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, and it is enough his claim has to shown before this Court on preponderance of probability theory, but the probability he put-forth should be believable one by an ordinary prudent man. The story put-forth by the accused in his case that his friend DW7 has borne the expenses of Rs.10,56,410/- anticipating that the girl will be taken into marriage 6 years later cannot be believed as such unless some corroborative documentary evidence is produced before this Court. Hence, the amount as alleged by the investigating officer in his final report that Rs.10,56,410/- is to be taken as amount spent by accused for his daughter's M.B.B.S. study course and thus, I am of the opinion that the investigating officer 141 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 has rightly included Rs.10,56,410/- under item No.79 of expenditure of accused.
Item No.88:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Marriage Rs.4,79,056/- Rs.1,50,000/-
expenses of daughter of accused 79. The prosecution case is that marriage ceremony of Ms.Netravathi, D/o accused was
solemnized on 12.06.2008 and during the house search of accused, the accused had informed the investigation that he had spent Rs.5,30,000/- for the marriage of his daughter. On investigation, it was found that on 15.02.2008 the wife of accused had withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/-, on 25.02.2008 Rs.1,15,000/-, on 30.04.2008 Rs.1,00,000/- and on 13.05.2008 Rs.1,00,000/- and she borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from one Anand Movva. The Investigating officer in his Final 142 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Report has admitted that the accused had submitted a schedule statement 18A(1) and (2) wherein he has explained that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was the expenditure he had incurred for celebrating the marriage ceremony of his daughter and the remaining amount was spent by DW7 father-in-law of his daughter. The marriage was solemnized at Saraswathy Convention Hall and during the home search of the accused a receipt showing that the said Hall was booked for conducting the marriage ceremony and an amount of Rs.50,944/- has been paid by Puttaswamy Gowda, DW7. It is the prosecution case that since no other documents to show that DW7 had spent the remaining amount, after deduction the said Rs.50,944/-
from Rs.5,30,000/- Rs.4,79,056/- has been included into the expenditure head of the accused.
80. The investigating officer has arrived at a conclusion that a total amount of Rs.5,30,000/- was 143 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 spent by the accused based on the oral statement of the accused said to have been given by the accused to the investigating officer on the day when the house search of the accused was conducted. No such statement has been recorded by the investigating officer and even if such a statement is recorded that is inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution has to produce sufficient legally admissible evidence to show that such an amount was spent for marriage ceremony and the said amount was spent by accused. The specific case of accused is that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- for solemnizing the marriage ceremony of his daughter, and it is his specific contention that the remaining amount was spent by DW7. The receipt which was seized from the residential premises of accused shows that an amount of Rs.50,944/- has been paid by Puttaswamy for the Saraswathi Convention Hall where the marriage ceremony was conducted. The 144 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 defence has examined DW6, DW7 and DW8 to prove that DW7 had spent money for the marriage. They all in their testimony before this Court testify that DW7 had spent money and accused also stepped into the witness box and got himself examined as DW9 and his evidence also corroborates the version of DW6, DW7 and DW8. Above all the receipt which was seized by the investigating officer during search and produced by the prosecution before Court probabalise the contention of the accused that some amount has been spent by DW7 for celebrating the marriage ceremony of his son with daughter of accused. The investigating officer has also collected information from the Manager of Saraswathi Convention Hall which also corroborates the prosecution as well as defence version that the said hall was booked by DW7 by paying Rs.50,944/- for celebrating marriage ceremony of his son. Moreover, the prosecution has produced the statement of 145 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 account of the bank account maintained by wife of accused which shows that she has withdrawn amount from her bank account on several occasions and it is the prosecution case that the said withdrawals were for conducting the marriage ceremony of her daughter. It is to be noted at this juncture that marriage was solemnized on 12.06.2008 and the withdrawals of amount by wife of accused from her bank accounts are in the month of February, April and May 2008. Unless and until the prosecution proves that these withdrawals were made to spend for some expenses arising for the conducting of marriage such as purchase of gold ornaments, clothes, payment for food and other arrangements, transportation etc., it cannot be presumed that these withdrawals which were made 5 months prior to marriage were made for marriage expenses. Hence, it can be safely arrived that the defence version that some amount were spent by DW7 146 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 for conducting his son's marriage with daughter of accused is probabilised by the oral testimony of DW6, DW7, DW8 and DW9 accompanied with the receipts showing payment made by DW7 and hence, the admitted amount of Rs.1,50,000/- expenditure for marriage has to be taken into account under expenditure item No.88.
Item No.96:
Description As per As per accused Investigating officer Advance Rs.1,00,000/- 0 amount paid for purchase of site
81. The investigating officer during the search of the residence of accused seized several original documents and those documents are produced before this Court and marked as Ex.P29 which contains 421 pages. One of the documents found in said bunch of Ex.P29 is the original document of Agreement for Sale of a site situated at Dasanapura belonging to one 147 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Sri.Umashanker. The said agreement is made between Sri.Umashankar and Dr.Vinod Kumar, son of accused on 07.06.2007 and as per the agreement, the said site is agreed to be sold to Dr.Vinod Kumar by the vendor Umashankar for Rs.3,70,000/- and one of the recitals of the said agreement which is at page 63 to 66 of Ex.P29 says that on 07.06.2007 an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is received by Umashankar from Dr.Vinod Kumar and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- is to be paid within 3 months of the date of agreement by Dr.Vinodkumar to Umashankar. Later the investigating officer has collected certified copies of sale deed from Sub-Registrar, Dasanapura pertaining to the said property which is marked as Ex.P107 which shows that the said property is purchased by Dr.Vinodkumar from the vendor Umashankar for Rs.1,32,000/- on 22.01.2008 and the 148 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 said sale deed is silent with regard to the agreement for sale dated 07.06.2007.
82. The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that the investigating officer has not considered the fact that the sale consideration of Rs.1,32,000/- includes the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh paid on 07.06.2007 and hence, considering the total value of the asset as Rs.1,32,000/- which is already included under asset item No.8 by the Investigating Officer, he ought to have excluded the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh paid by Dr.Vinod Kumar under expenditure head.
83. The learned Public Prosecutor argues that since, Ex.P107 is totally silent about the agreement made on 7.6.2007 and the amount received as advance, and the document shows that the said 149 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 consideration of Rs.1,32,000/- is received on the date of Ex.P107 sale deed the investigating officer has rightly taken the advance amount into the expenditure of the accused.
84. On the thorough perusal of both the documents i.e., Ex.P29 (page 66) Agreement for sale and Ex.P107 sale deed it is clear that both the documents are pertaining to one and the same property between same parties. Ex.P29 says that an amount of Rs.1 lakh is received by Umashankar from Dr.Vinodkumar being the advance amount and it further says that the remaining sale consideration Rs.2,70,000/- is to be paid within 3 months from 7.6.2007. Ex.P107 is the sale deed which unequivocally says that on 22.01.2008 an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- is received by Umashankar and others from Dr.Vinodkumar being the sale consideration 150 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 amount. The document says that the site measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at Dasanapura Hobli is transferred by the vendor Umashankar and others to the vendee Dr.Vinodkumar for a sale consideration of Rs.1,32,000/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor the said document does not refer the Ex.P29 agreement. Ex.P29 agreement for sale says that Umashankar has agreed to transfer the property to Dr.Vinodkumar for an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- but Ex.P107 sale deed speaks that the property is alienated by Umashankar and others to Dr.Vinodkumar for sale consideration of Rs.1,32,000/-. Ex.P29 further says that if the vendee do not pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.2,70,000/- within 3 months i.e., 7.9.2007, he will forfeit the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh paid to the vendor. Ex.P107 sale deed shows that the conveyance of the property has taken place after the lapse of 7 ½ months from the date of 151 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 agreement. What conspired in between is not forthcoming either in Ex.P107 or from the oral evidence of any of the witnesses adduced before this Court. Since Ex.P29 specifically says that the vendee would forfeit the amount after lapse of 3 months from 07.06.2007 and Ex.P107 sale deed is totally silent with regard to the agreement for sale dated 07.06.2007, and there is no mention of any advance amount paid and further Ex.P107 specifically speaks that full sale consideration amount of Rs.1,32,000/- is received by the vendors on 22.01.2008, the burden is on the accused to prove that Rs.1,32,000/- sale consideration amount includes the advance amount paid on 7.6.2007. Hence, the contention of the accused that the investigating officer has wrongly included Rs.1 lakh advance amount into the expenditure does not appeal this Court and therefore, I am of the considered opinion 152 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 that the investigating officer has rightly included Rs.1,00,000/- into the expenditure head.
85. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the expenditure incurred by the accused during check period is as mentioned in Table No.2C below.
Table No.2C Sl.
No Description of Expenses Value in Rs. .
Stamps & registration charges Lease agreement entered into on 18.11.2011 by 1 Sri.Vinodkumar for the purpose 7,785-00 Dental Clinic at Kangeri Satellite Site No.332, Bapuji Layout, 2 40,660-00 measuring 40 x 41 feet Sy No.26 measuring 2 acre 5 ½ guntas of land situated at Annekaranahalli village, 3 12,950-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District 153 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Sy No.26 measuring 1 acre of land situated at Annekaranahalli village, 4 7,550-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District Sy No.26 measuring 25 ½ guntas of land situated at Annekaranahalli village, 5 4,984-00 Madabalu Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District Site No.175, Anajanapura 6 Extension Layout, Block-9, 16,580-00 Bengaluru Site No.184, Raghuvanahalli 7 village, Uttarahalli Hobli, 12,925-00 Bengaluru South Taluk Site No.340, Vinayaka Layout, 8 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari 27,890-00 Nagara, Bengaluru Mortgage deed No.722 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagarabavi mortgaging the property for 9 15,210-00 availing loan of Rs 15,00,000/-
by the accused and his wife
jointly from Vijaya Bank,
Gandhi Bazaar Branch
154
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
Site No.175, Anjanapura
10 extended layout, Block-9 4,126-00
Bengaluru
Site No.45 measuring 30 x 40
formed in Sy.No.43/1 of
11 Vaddarahalli village, 12,760-00
Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk
Site No.157, measuring 30 x 35
feet, municopal khatha
12 17,715-00
No.7896, Yelekere Layout,
Channapattana
Taxes
Fee paid for preparing plan for construction of house at #340, 5th Main Road, Nagarabhavi 2nd 13 6,377-00 Stage, Bengaluru by the accused and his wife Tax paid to the Farm House bearing Khatha No.51, 14 2,222-00 Annekaranahalli village, Magadi Taluk Tax paid to house No.340, 15 38,888-00 Mallige, Nagarabavi Amount paid for obtaining water connection R.R.No.W-
530973 and prorata fees to the 16 62,771-00 house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, Nagarabavi, Bengaluru 17 Electrical connection to house 1,14,008-00 No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka 155 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Extension, Nagarabavi, Bengaluru to the residential house of the accused R.R.No.69495, RR No.69496, RR No.69497 Temporary electrical connection to house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, 18 16,531-00 Nagarabavi, Bengaluru to the residential house of the accused R.R.No.N2TPM 2399 Electrical connection to Farm 19 house of the wife of accused 10,690-00 MHDL31631 Development charges for getting electrical connection to house No.340, 2nd Stage, Vinayaka Extension, 20 6,600-00 Nagarabavi, Bengaluru to the residential house of the accused Fuel and maintenance of 21 Vehicle No.KA.02.EF.1689 88,075-00 Fuel and maintenance charges 22 of Royal Enfield Bullet vehicle 6,209-00 No.CTK 750 156 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Fuel and maintenance charges 23 49,385-00 of vehicle No.KA.02.Z.0126 Life Tax and registration 24 charges to Vehicle 3,633-00 No.KA.02.EF.1689 Insurance amount paid in 25 respect of vehicle 7,648-00 No.KA.02.Z.0126 Insurance amount paid in 26 respect of vehicle 8,059-00 No.KA.02.EF.1689 Telephone charges to 27 78,243-00 23397595 Repayment of loan to Loan 28 account No.126108351000043, 18,83,421-00 Vijaya Bank, Gandhi Bazaar Repayment of loan to Loan account No.1564, The Bharath 29 38,068-00 Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mattikere Branch, Bengaluru 157 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Repayment of loan to Loan 30 account No.MEN002200020462 4,49,660-00 Yes Bank, Indiranagara Branch, Repayment of loan availed for the purpose of two wheeler to 31 18,400-00 The Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Repayment of Loan availed for
32 the purchase of vehicle 37,020-00
KA.02.EF.1689
Repayment of loan
33 LBBNG00000364286 ICICI 1,92,645-00
Bank, Vijayanagara branch
Repayment of loan to Loan
34 account No.13303487, HDFC 4,36,860-00
Bank, Indiranagara Branch
Repayment of education loan
35 by Vinod Kumar from Vijaya 2,00,000-00
Bank
Repayment of EMI to Bajaj
36 1,28,910-00
Finserve Loan
Repayment of EMI to G.E.
37 18,77,615-00
Capital by Vinod Kumar
38 Repayment of loan to Loan -
account BF-11 to Supriya
Enterprises availed jointly by Smt.Jayasheela and Smt.Dr. 158 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Meenakshi Repayment of loan to Loan account BF-11 to Supriya 39 1,77,319-00 Enterprises availed by Smt.Jayasheela Repayment of loan along with interest to Rajathadri Jewellers 40 2,12,000-00 by Smt.Jayasheela wife of accused Repayment of loan by the 41 1,50,000-00 accused to Vijay Battery Shop Repayment of laon to 42 1,50,000-00 Ramachandra Repayment of loan to Anand B 43 2,00,000-00 Mavva builders Out standing balance in S.B. Account No. 517602010002525, Union Bank 44 555-00 of India, Vijayanagara Bengaluru standing in the name of accused Bank charges to S.B.Account No.42323 standing in the name 45 of A.R.Vinod Kumar, at Canara 1,291-00 Bank, Vijayanagara branch, Bengaluru Payment of interest and bank charges for maintaining S.B. Account No.12067930000066 46 3,338-00 in the name of A.R.Vinod Kumar, at HDFC bank, K.H. Road, Bengaluru 47 Bank charges to Bajaj Finserve 34,382-00 Brokern period interest to Bajaj 48 8,447-00 Finserve 159 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Service charges to Kanva 49 Credit-Co-operative Bank Ltd 80-00 by Sri.Vinod Kumar Repayment amount incurred by using credit card 50 00 No.4476929993184404 of HSBC Bank by Vinod Kumar Repayment of amount incurred by using credit card Nos.
541537232112174, 54153824050783627, 51 00 5415382405173089, 5415382405198920 of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) by Sri.Vinodkumar Amount paid to Reliance Life 52 1,50,000-00 Insurance Policy No.11645449 I.C.I.C. Prudential Life 53 16,500-00 Insurance Policy No.04213590 I.C.I.C. Prudential Life 54 1,500-00 Insurance Policy No.3823955 Life Insurance, R.T.Nagar, 55 Policy No.06170862 standing in 0-00 the name of accused Bajaj Alliance Group Ins police 56 No.50725036 by 64,000-00 Sri.Vinodkumar LIC Policy No.610202768 57 stansing in the name of 0-00 accused 58 Peerless General Finance & 19,000-00 Investment Co Ltd Certificate 160 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 No.45074321 by the accused Policy No.500-4871934 of 59 Bharathi Ex Life Insurance Co. 12,000-00 India Pvt Ltd by Smt.Jayasheela Policy No.500-4874805 of 60 Bharathi Ex Life Insurance Co. 24,000-00 India Pvt Ltd by Smt.Jayasheela Policy No.NSG1260061 of Aviva 61 Life Ins. Co. India Pvt Ltd in the 72,000-00 name of Sri.A.R.Vinod Locker charges at S.B.M 62 8,750-00 Mallathalli branch Income tax paid by Vinod 63 2,24,939-00 kumar 64 Income tax paid by accused 7,886-00 Income tax paid by 65 11,930-00 Smt.Jayasheela Expenditure incurred by the 66 accused for the maintenance of 5,57,014-00 the family Amount paid to the maid 67 servant working in the house of 24,000-00 the accused 68 Amount paid to T.V.Cable 6,400-00 Amount incurred for 69 4,000.00 maintenance of Dalmatian dog 161 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Expenditure incurred for 70 3,15,284-00 rearing sheep and cow 71 Gas cylinder 19,180-00 Paid to Neev Public english School, Govindarajanagara 72 6,060-00 Main Road, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru Paid to Neev Public english School, Govindarajanagara 73 10,980-00 Main Road, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru Paid to Vidyavardhaka Sanga 74 High Schoo, Saptharushi 138-00 Dhama Rajajinagara, Bengaluru Expenditure on education of 75 A.R.Nethravahi daughter of 239-00 accused Paid to St.Joseph Pre-University 76 College, K.M.Kariyappa Road, 2,500-00 Bengaluru Expenditure on education of 77 A.R.Nethravathi daughter of 9,580-00 accused Paid to Vokkaliga Sangha Dental medical college and 78 3,16,500-00 Hospital, K.R.Road, V.V.Puram, Bengaluru Paid to Sri.Devaraj Urs Medical 79 10,56,410-00 College, Kolar 162 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Paid to the Oxford Dental 80 College, Bommanahally Hosur 4,73,950-00 Road, Bengaluru Monthly fee paid for admission of Yadunandan grand son of 81 16,375-00 accused to High Tech Play School and Day Care Centre Subscription charges for 82 getting membership of Country 10,800-00 club Passport No.F 0275159 in the 83 1,000-00 name of Sri.A.R.Vinod Kumar Paid to Sri.Mookambika Temple 84 2001-00 Kollur for permanent pooja Donation to Iscon Temple, 85 10,000-00 Bengaluru Donation to Sri.Bramha-
lingeshwara Swamy Temple, 86 Building fund, Makali, 25,000-00 Channapattana Tq, Ramanagara District Performing pooja at 87 Hanumagiri Temple Trust 5,001-00 (Regd) Nagarabavi
Amount incurred for performing 88 marriage of the daughter of the 1,50,000-00 accused Amount incurred for performing 89 25,000-00 house warming ceremony 163 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Amount incurred for performing 90 the marriage of the son of the 1,15,000-00 accused Rent [aod by the accused for 91 2,31,600-00 his residence Expenditure incurred for 92 borewell in the land of 2,15,893-00 Annekaranahalli Amount paid to Siriprabha Chit 93 1,74,450-00 fund by the wife of the accused Purchase of site formed in Sy.No.65/4, Kamakshipalya, 94 Saneguruvanahalli, 14,000-00 Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Purchase of site No.184, 95 Raghuvanahalli, Uttarahalli 60,000-00 Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Advance amount paid for purchase of site No.45, 96 1,00,000-00 Vaddarahalli, Dasanapura measuring 30 x 40 feet Registration of TVS Champ 97 13,185-00 KA.02.8.8430 Fuel, Maintenance charges and 98 registration of vehicle 18,763-00 No.KA.02.H.1415 Amount paid for Beautician 99 3,000-00 Course by Smt.Jayasheela 164 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Member Registration fee 100 No.38021, dated 26.10.1984 at 100-00 B.D.A by the accused Management fees paid by 101 Vinodkumar son of accused in 48,000-00 the name of medi loan Paid to purchase plastic materials at Blassom Party 102 1,821-00 Sales by Smt.jayasheela wife of accused Total 1,15,39,214-00
86. According to the prosecution the accused had derived Rs. 2,39,37,123/- as income during the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013 and the details of the same is as mentioned under in Table 3A:
Table No. 3A:
Sl.
Description of Income Value (in Rs.)
No
1 Income from salary 36,60,792-00
Rents received by
Smt.Jayasheela the wife of
2 accused in respect of Flat 1,13,200-00
No.65/4A, Kamakshipalya,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru
165
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
Professional Income of Smt.
3 Jayasheela from Beauty 2,58,800-00
Parlour
Particulars of income of
4 Sri.Vinod Kumar from his 41,34,568-00
Dental Clinic
Income from Doctor
profession received by Dr.P.
5 0-00
Nethravathi, daughter-in-law of the accused.
Agriculture and Horticulture income received by the accused from the land 6 2,53,592.00 bearing Sy.Nos 16/24, 5/2, 86, 16/70, 16/61, 16/69 of Ajjanahalli village Agriculture and Horticulture income received by the wife of the accused from the land bearing Sy.No.74/1, 74/2, 7 75/1 of Rampura village, 3,16,259.00 Channapattana Taluk and Sy.No.26 of Annekaranahalli Magadi Taluk Income from sheep rearing and Cows from the Farm 8 9,23,153.00 House of the accused 9 Loan availed from Loan 15,00,000-00 Account No. 126108351000043, Vijaya Bank, Gandhi Bajazar, Bengalury by the accused and his wife 166 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Loan availed from The Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mattikere branch, 10 25,000-00 BengaluruAccount No.1564 by the accused Loan availed by Sri.Vinod Kumar, son of the accused 11 from Yes Bank, Indira Nagara 56,00,000-00 Branch, vide account No.MEN002200020462 Loan availed by the accused 12 for purchase of motor cycle 18,400-00 bearing No.KA.02.H.1415 Loan availed by the accused for purchase of TVS Fero 13 31,621-00 KA.02.F.1689 Loan availed by Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused 14 from HDFC Bank, 3,50,000-00 Indiranagara Branch vide Loan account No.13303487 Loan availed by the accused from ICICI Bank vide loan 15 1,50,000-00 account No.LBBNG 00000364286 Loan availed by Sri.Vinod Kumar, son of the accused 16 24,00,000-00 from J.E. Health Care Capital 17 Loan availed by Sri.Vinod 15,30,000-00 Kumar son of the accused from Bajaj Finserve, M.G. Road 167 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Education loan availed by 18 Sri.Vinod Kumar from Vijaya 1,60,000-00 Bank Interest amount received from S.B. Account No. 19 126101011000326 Vijaya 8,320.00 Bank, Gandhi Bazaar, by the accused and his wife Interest received by the accused from Account 20 No.1559, The Bharath Co- 2,724.00 operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagara branch Interest received by the accused from Account 21 No.312, The Bharath Co- 2,653.00 operative Bank Ltd., Mattikere branch Interest received by Smt. Jayasheela the wife of 22 accused from Account 27,648-00 No.24900, Canara Bank, Vijayanagara branch Interest received by Smt.Jayasheela the wife of accused from Account No. 23 23,919-00 64046517769, S.B.M Mallathalli Branch Interest received by Smt. P.Nethravathi, daughter-in-
law of the accused from 24 Account No.31467368393, 4,087-00 State Bank of India, Nagarabavi branch 168 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Interest received by Sri.Vinod Kumar from Account No. 25 1074927, The Royal Bank of 811.00 Scotland Bank Interest received by the accused from S.B.Account 26 35,856-00 No.1559, Union Bank of India, Vijayanagara branch Interest received by Smt.Jasheela the wife of the 27 accused from S.B.Account 10,460-00 No.433921510, Indian Bank, Prashanthanagara branch Interest received by the accused from Account 28 No.11718, The Bharath Co- 1,114-00 operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagara branch Loan availed by the accused 29 2,00,000-00 from Anand B.Movva Builders Loan availed by Smt. Jayasheela wife of the 30 2,00,000-00 accused from Rajathadri Jewelers 31 Loan availed through ICICI 1,50,000-00 bank cheque No.524173 from Vijaya Batteru shop 32 Loan availed by 1,50,000-00 Smt.Jayashela wife of accused from Ramachandra Loan availed by Smt.Jayasheela and Smt.Dr. 33 3,00,000-00 B.Meenakshi from account No.B.F.11 Supriya Enterprises 169 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Loan availed by Smt. 34 Jayasheela and from account 1,50,000-00 No.B.F.11 Supriya Enterprises Amount received by Smt. 35 Jayashella wife of accused 1,68,000-00 from Siriprabha Chit Fund Divident amount remitted to S.B.Account No.1954, 36 Graduate Co-operative Credit 54.00 Society Ltd., Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru Maturity amount received by 37 the accused from LIC Policy 56,957-00 No.610202768 Amount received by Sri.A.R.Vinod by surredering 38 Policy No.NSG 1260061 of 54,927-00 Aviv Life Insurance Co. India Private Ltd Profit amount received by the accused under Certificate 39 No.45074321 of Peerless 32,547-00 General Finance and Investment Company Ltd Amount received by the accused from LIC Policy 40 38,750-00 No.061170862 of Life Insurance, R.T. Nagar Amount received by the accused from Policy 41 1,60,428-00 No.11645449, Reliance Life Insurance Amount received by Sri.Vinodkumar from Policy 42 27,029-00 No.50725036, Bajaj Alliance Group Insurance 170 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Amount received by sale of site No.184, situated at 43 1,32,000-00 Raghuvanahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Amount received by sale of vacant Site formed in Sy.No.65/4, Kamakshipalya, 44 3,88,000-00 Saneguruvanahalli Dakhale, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Amount received by Smt.Jayasheela wife of the 45 accused by sale of gold 1,17,000-00 ornaments to Rajathadri Jewellers Income received by the 46 68,454-00 accused from poultry farmng Total 2,39,37,123-00
87. The Investigating officer has calculated Rs.2,39,37,123/- as the income obtained by the accused from his known source during the check period and this income is classified under 46 items by the investigating officer. Out of these 46 items, the accused disputes item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18 and submits that the investigating officer has deliberately shown a smaller amount of income than 171 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 actually earned by the accused to purposely rope the accused into this case. The learned counsel for accused also submits that certain income lawfully earned by accused was also knowingly left out by the investigating officer and he submits the details of those spilled over income under 7 heads. Item No.1:
As per Descrip- As per Investigating Difference tion accused officer Salary of Rs.36,60,792/- 37,01,079/- 40,287/- accused
88. The prosecution case is that during the check period from 26.08.1977 to 30.08.2013, the accused had obtained Rs.36,60,792/- as salary income from his department and to prove the same the prosecution has produced 5 bunches of documents and marked as Ex.P57, P88, P134, P135 and P137 the salary details of 172 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 accused obtained by the investigating officer from Commissioner, B.B.M.P.
89. It is the case of the accused that he had earned Rs.37,01,079/- as salary income from his department and the investigating officer did not collect the salary details of February 1984 to July 1984 and the salary details of September 2008 and October 2008 which would be Rs.40,287/- and hence, he claims that the said amount has to be included in the salary income.
90. From the close scrutiny of Ex.P57, P88, P134, P135 and P136, it has come to my notice that these documents do not cover the salary income of accused earned by him for 36 years i.e., during the entire check period from August 1977 to August 2013. This bunches of documents only give out the salary details of accused for the period shown below.
173
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
i) From July 1985 to June 1996
ii) From February 1997 to August 2000
iii) From November 2002 to March 2007
iv) From June 2007 to August 2008 The salary details of accused from August 1977 to June 1985, from July 1996 to January 1997, from September 2000 to October 2002, from April 2007 to May 2007 and from September 2008 to August 2013 are neither produced nor marked by the prosecution. It is not forthcoming from the oral testimony of the investigating officer PW16 as to how he calculated and arrived at a sum that the accused had earned Rs.36,60,792/- as salary income from the documents produced before this Court. There is no explanation either in the Final Report or in the oral testimony of PW16 with regard to same and from the available records before this Court the submission of the accused that the salary income lawfully earned by him for a period from February 1984 to July 1984 and September 2008 to October 2008 is not considered by 174 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the investigating Officer while calculating the salary income of the accused sounds reasonable and hence, the claim of accused that salary for a period of 5 months from February 1984 to July 1984 Rs 2,513.50 and salary of two months i.e., September 2008 and October 2008 Rs 37,374/- is to be included thus bringing the salary income of the accused under item No.1 of income to Rs.37,01,079/-. Item No.3:
As per As per Description Investigating Difference accused officer Income of wife of accused 2,58,800 /- 16,75,420/- 14,16,620/- from beauty parlor
91. Investigating officer has taken Rs.2,58,800/- under the income of accused, which Smt.Jayasheela 175 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 wife of accused had earned from her profession as a beautician. The prosecution relies upon the income tax returns submitted by Smt.Jayasheela under PAN No.AAGPJPJ9617K for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is submitted in the Final Report by the investigating officer that during investigation when the accused was asked to furnish the schedule, the accused had submitted his schedule and in statement 4(A) of the schedule the accused has claimed that his wife Smt.Jayasheela being a professional beautician had earned an income of Rs.19,48,980/- from 1999-2000 to 2013 and he had submitted a certificate showing that Smt.Jayasheela is a certified beautician and he also submitted the copy of rental agreement of her beauty parlor along with the copy of income tax returns of 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2013-14. Since, the accused had not declared the income earned by his wife in any of his APRs, the income declared in the tax returns 176 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 submitted to the income tax department by Smt.Jayasheela on 02.07.2014 after the registration of this case, stating that her income earned in the assessment 2012-13 is Rs.3,73,810/- is not considered.
92. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused has not stated in any of his APRs that his wife is professional beautician and she has her own huge source of income from her profession. The income tax returns submitted by her also shows that she had earned an income of Rs.1,26,560/- during 2005-06 and Rs.1,32,240/- during 2006-07 and thereafter she did not submit any returns before the income tax authorities depicting her income and suddenly after the registration of this case, an income tax return is filed before the authority declaring that she earned an income of Rs.3,73,810/- during 2012-13 and has not produced any documents before this Court 177 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 or the Investigating Officer to substantiate the same. Hence, the investigating officer has rightly taken an amount of Rs.2,58,800/- the amount she had declared, into the income of the accused.
93. The learned counsel for accused strenuously opposed this stance taken by the prosecution and argues that the tax amount paid by wife of accused has been taken into account under expenditure of the accused while the declared income for which the tax is paid is not considered alleging that there is not supporting evidence to prove the same. It is further argued that the prosecution has no dispute that Smt.Jayasheela is a beautician by profession and she was earning income from her beauty parlour as on date of raid of the house of accused. The income earned by her during 2005-06 and 2006-07 is considered by the investigating officer and the 178 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 prosecution has no case that she was not working thereafter. The furniture and other equipments found in the beauty parlour of Smt.Jayasheela have been taken into account as item No.49 and 50 of assets of the accused. The items purchased for beauty parlour activity have been taken into account as item No.102 of expenditure of accused but the income lawfully earned by her is deliberately excluded by the investigating officer to lessen the income of the accused and hence, he prays to include the entire income as detailed by the accused in his schedule statement 14(A) as professional income lawfully earned by his wife, into his income.
94. The copies of the income tax returns pertaining to Smt.Jayasheela have been submitted by the accused to the investigating officer during investigation along with his schedule and the same is 179 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 found in Ex.P67 at page 431 to 484. These are income tax returns for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2013-14 pertaining to the income earned during the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2012-13 respectively. There are statements of affairs annexed with these income tax returns. The returns of 2013-14 contains statement of affairs of the financial years 2012-13, 2011-12, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2008-09 and 2007-08. Income Tax returns are not submitted for the years 2007-08 to 2012-13. After the registration of this case against the accused, income tax returns have been filed after the lapse of 6 years. The last income tax returns filed prior to the registration of this case is for the year 2006-07. The case is registered in August 2013 and the next income tax returns are filed in July 2014. The submission of the learned counsel for accused is that Smt.Jayasheela did not have a taxable income during these years and hence she did not file 180 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the returns or pay income tax for these years. But at the same time it is submitted that she was earning a huge sum as agricultural income, rental income, income from dairy farming etc., along with professional income. In such a situation it is mandatory to file income tax returns to the concerned authority. Separate tax returns are not filed for separate income. Tax returns are filed for the total income earned by an individual from all sources and the taxable income is computed after deducting the agricultural income and after availing all deductions available. Moreover, the accused has not declared in any of his APRs submitted before his Superior authorities that his wife was earning any professional income. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for accused that Smt.Jayasheela did not submit Income Tax Returns with regard to her professional income for the period 2007 to 2013 cannot be accepted. Here in this case the 181 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 investigating officer has considered Rs.2,58,800/- as the professional income of Smt.Jayasheela which she earned during the period 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the investigating officer did not consider Rs.2,73,810/- the income earned by her during the period 2013-14 for which she had filed Income Tax Returns in the month of July 2014 on the ground that it is filed after registration of the case. This case is registered against the accused in August 2013, and the tax return for the financial year 2013-14 is to be filed after March 2014. Hence, I am of the opinion that investigating officer ought to have considered the income declared by Smt.Jayasheela through her income tax returns filed in July 2014, unless prosecution proves through any legally admissible evidence that she did not in fact earn any income as declared by her in her income tax returns. Hence, the income of accused in item No.3 is to be considered as Rs.6,32,610/-. 182
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item No.4:
As per As per Description Investigating Difference accused officer Income of Dr. Vinod 41,34,568 /- 42,56,048/- 1,21,480/- Kumar
95. The prosecution relies upon the income tax documents submitted by Dr.Vinod Kumar son of accused to the income tax department and the documents seized from the residence of accused during house search for arriving at a sum of Rs.41,34,568/- as the income earned by Dr.Vinodkumar from his medical profession during the period from 2004-05 to 2012-13. The investigating officer has taken Rs.41,34,568/- income as declared in the income tax returns of Dr.Vinodkumar for the assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The investigating officer did 183 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 not consider the income earned during 2008-09, as he did not get document showing the same. On enquiry with the income tax department with regard to the income tax returns, the department furnished the copies of returns pertaining to the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and informed the investigating officer that the documents pertaining to the years 2007-08 and 2008- 09 are not available with them. During the house search the original acknowledgment receipt with regard to the income tax returns filed by Dr.Vinod Kumar for the year 2007-08 was found and seized by the investigating officer wherein it is declared that Dr.Vinodkumar had earned an income of Rs.2,23,800/- for the financial year 2006-07 and hence considered the said amount as income, even though the income tax department did not provide any information with regard to the same.
184
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
96. The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has no case that Dr.Vinodkumar did not earn any income during 2008-09. It is only because no documents were available with regard to same the investigating officer did not consider the amount as stated by the accused in his schedule and hence, the investigating officer has erred in not taking the same into the income heard.
97. It can be seen that Dr.Vinod Kumar, son of accused is earning income from 2004-05 for which he is submitting income tax returns from 2005-06. The income tax department provided copies of the returns filed by Dr.Vinod Kumar for the period from 2005-06 to 2013-14 except for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 stating that no information is available with them, but as per the acknowledgment receipts seized from the possession of accused the copy of income tax returns 185 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 submitted by Dr.Vinodkumar for the period 2007-08 is considered by the investigating officer. There are no documentary records before this Court to show that Dr.Vinodkumar had earned an income of Rs.1,21,480/- except the statement given by accused in his schedule. Dr.Vinodkumar was examined by the accused as defence witness DW3 and he in his substantive evidence states that he did not submit income tax returns for the period 2008-09 before the income tax department owing to some personal reasons, but he had earned an income of Rs.2,50,000/- during that period from his medical profession. Accused states in his schedule that the income of his son was Rs.1,21,480/- while DW3 Vinodkumar states that he earned Rs.2,50,000/- and the learned counsel for accused during his final arguments and in the written arguments submitted before this Court prays to consider Rs.1,21,480/- with the income of 186 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Dr.Vinodkumar. Even though income tax returns are not submitted before the concerned authorities, that does not mean that the individual did not earn any income during that period, but to consider a specific amount as income earned, this Court expects a consistent claim proved either on oral accounts or through documents to show what is the amount earned by Dr.Vinod Kumar during 2008-09, to include the same into the income heard. Here the statement of accused submitted in his schedule do not corroborate with the oral testimony of DW3 as DW3 states an amount which is more than twice the amount as stated by accused. Hence, I am of the opinion that the defence had not shown that Dr.Vinodkumar earned an amount of either Rs.1,21,800 or Rs.2,50,000/- before this Court, the income as stated by the investigating officer in item No.4 as Rs.41,34,568/- is to be considered as proved.
187
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Item No.5:
As per As per Description Investigat- Difference accused ing officer Income 7,55,860/- 7,55,860/-earned by 0
Dr.Netravathi
98. The accused in his schedule statement No.4A(13)(14) has submitted that his son married Dr.Netravathi, a dentist by profession in the year 2012 and both his son and daughter-in-law were staying with him. During the financial year 2012-13 Dr.Netravathi earned an income of Rs.7,55,860/- and she had submitted the income tax returns pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on17.07.2014 and had paid income tax of Rs.93,639/-.
99. Investigating officer in his Ex.P111 Final Report states that he obtained the income tax returns pertaining to the year 2013-14 from the income tax 188 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 department and he had considered the income declared by Dr.Netravathi into the income of the accused. But while computing the income he has stated the as income considered as Rs.0/-. There is no explanation as to why he did not consider the same either in his Final Report or in his testimony before this Court. Hence, Rs.7,55,860/- income ought to be included in item No.5 of income of accused. Item Nos.6 and 7:
As per As per Description Investigati Difference accused ng officer Agricultural income from 2,53,592 /- 5,20,000/- 2,66,408/- Ajjanahalli village Agriculture and horticulture 3,16,259/- 22,30,000/- 19,13,741/ income from Annekaranahalli 189 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
100. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW 7 Lalitha, Director of Horticulture and her Ex.P10 and P11 report, PW8 Hanumantha Raju, Director of Agriculture and his Ex.P8 report, PW12 Anand, Agricultural Officer and his Ex.P19 report and PW13, Nagarathnamma, Director of Horticulture and her Ex.P12 report to prove the agricultural and horticultural income derived by accused and his wife from their agricultural land situated at Annekaranahalli and Ajjanahalli.
101. At the same time accused disputes strongly to the above reports and submits that he had promptly declared the agricultural and horticultural income earned by him and his wife time to time in his APRs submitted to his department from 1996-97 to 2013-14. The copies of these APRs were seized by the investigating officer from the residence of the accused on 30.08.2013 during house search and the 190 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 investigating officer without giving proper explanation has discarded the amount mentioned therein and to rope the accused into this case had made PW7, PW8, PW12 and PW13 to prepare Ex.P10, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 as per his instructions to diminish the agricultural and horticultural income of accused and hence, prays to consider the income as he had declared in his APRs much prior to the registration of this case.
102. The investigating officer has considered Rs.5,69,851/- as agricultural and horticultural income earned by accused and his wife from their lands situated at Annekaranahalli and Ajjanahalli while the accused claims that they had earned Rs.27,50,000/- agricultural and horticultural income from this land. Hence, there is a huge difference of Rs.21,80,149/-. The prosecution strictly relies upon the evidence and reports of agricultural and horticultural officers while the accused claims the amount based on the 191 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 declaration he had made before his competent authorities much earlier to the registration of this case against him. Hence, it is apposite at this stage to look into the evidence tendered by the prosecution along with the reports. PW6, Lalitha is the Director of Horticulture and she in her testimony before this Court submits that Lokayuktha police had sought for a report of horticultural income that could have been earned by he accused from his agricultural land situated at Sy.No.16/69, 16/12, 5/2, 88, 16/70, 26, 86 at Ajjanahalli. Her further testimony is that she sent one of Assistant Horticultural Officer to the agricultural land and as per her instructions, the assistant visited the land and submitted the mahazar. Based on the said mahazar she prepared as Ex.P10, P11 and P12 reports. She admits in her cross examination that she did not personally visit the lands and she had prepared the reports on the basis of the RTCs pertaining to the land 192 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 sent by the Lokayuktha Police. She also admits that if the family members themselves without depending upon any paid labourers cultivated the land, the expenses would be less than as shown in the reports. She further admits that instead of selling the fresh coconuts grown in the farm, if sold after drying them, the income earned would have been more than that as mentioned in the reports. She also admits that she did not make any enquires with regard to that whether the coconuts were sold fresh or they were sold after converting them to dried coconuts.
103. PW8 Hanumanth Raju, Assistant Agricultural Director in his testimony says that as per the request of the Lokayuktha police, based on the RTCs sent by the police pertaining the lands of Smt.Jayasheela situated at Sy.No.74/2, 74/1 at Annekaranahalli, he prepared a report with regard to the agricultural income that would have been earned for a period from 193 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 2006-07 to 2012-13 and submitted Ex.P13 report. He admits in his cross examination that with regard to Sy.No.74/1, the income earned during 2008-09 and 2011-12 is not included as the police did not send the RTCs pertaining to those two years.
104. PW12, Anand, Agricultural Officer in his evidence before this Court testifies that the Lokayuktha police had sent RTCs of agricultural land owned by accused and his wife at Ajjanahalli and Annekaranahalli and sought a report of agricultural income that could have been earned by the accused from 1982 to 2013. The RTCs showed the Ragi, Paddy, etc., were grown in the land. After obtaining the rate card from the APMC and after visiting the land he prepared Ex.P19 report which shows the net agricultural income earned by accused from 1986-87 to 2013-14. In his cross examination it is brought out from the learned counsel for accused that with respect 194 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 to Sy.No.26 of Annekaranahalli the agricultural income earned during 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 is not calculated or included. He further admits that with regard to the land at Sy.No.86 of Ajjanahalli, the income earned during 2012-13, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 are not calculated. It is also admitted by him that with regard to land at Sy.No.16/70 of Ajjanahalli the income earned during 1998-99, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 is not calculated and with regard to land at Sy.No.16/69 the income earned during 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2008-09 to 2011- 12 are not calculated. With regard to Sy.No.16/61 the income earned during 1989-90, 1991-92, 2002-03, 2003 to 2008, 2009-10 to 2012-13 are not calculated. He clarifies that the RTCs pertaining to these years when verified had no mention of any crops grown in the land and hence, he did not calculate the income for 195 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 those period. He further admits that he did not make any enquires with the Revenue Department to ascertain the same.
105. PW13 Smt.Nagarathnamma, the Senior Director of Horticulture testifies in her evidence that the Lokayuktha police had sought for a report with regard to the income that would have been earned by the accused from his farm land, from horticultural crops from 2005 to 2013, and hence after calculating the same based on the index of her department, she submitted Ex.P18 report. She in her cross examination testifies that her assistant based on his experience had informed her the age of the coconut trees planted in the land. She also admits that the income would be increased if dried coconuts are sold instead of raw coconuts and she did not enquire whether accused had sold coconuts in dried form or raw form. 196
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
106. Ex.P11 shows that that an income of Rs.1,18,907/- is earned while Ex.P12 shows the income earned as Rs.1,10,272/-, Ex.P13 shows the income as Rs.1,37,600/-, Ex.P18 shows the income as Rs.3,64,944/- and Ex.P19 shows that income earned as Rs.6,03,256/-. Out of these some properties were in the name of Sri.Guddaiah, father of accused and there were four male members in the family of Guddaiah and hence, the income earned from the agricultural land is divided by four parts and one part of such income is included into the income of accused and thus the investigating officer has arrived at a sum of Rs.2,53,592/- as income earned from Ajjanahalli land and Rs.3,16,259/- from Annekaranahalli land, even though the Ex.P11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 reports cumulatively show an income of Rs.11,52,507/-. 197
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
107. From the analysis of the evidence of PW 7, 8, 12 and 13 it is clear that they have calculated income based on the RTCs provided by the investigating officer. It is also brought out in cross examination that the income earned for a complete period as stated by the witnesses in their chief examination is not calculated. There are some missing periods, the income earned from the land are not calculated due to non-availability of RTCs or non-mentioning of any crops in the RTCs during those period. This shows that the figures arrived at by these experts do not show at least the approximate income that would have been earned. The investigating officer has divided the income earned from the land in the name of father of accused in four parts. On what basis it is divided into four parts is not forthcoming. On the other hand the Ex.P30 Annual Property Returns, the copies of which were seized by the investigating officer from the house of 198 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 accused during search and produced before this Court as part of prosecution records shows that the accused had from time to time declared his agricultural income each year before his Superior officers. It is to be noted that these declarations were made much earlier to the registration of this case against the accused. Only on the basis that accused or his wife did not declare these incomes before the Income Tax Department it is not considered by the investigating officer.
108. If the total income earned after all deductions do not come under the purview of income tax then there was no need to submit any income tax returns earlier. Hence, the contention of the accused that he or his wife did not submit any income tax returns with regard to their income, in the light that accused had declared the same in his APRs promptly every year has to be considered. Explanation to 199 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 section 13(1)(e) of PC Act before 2018 Amendment, says that "known sources of income means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules, or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant."
109. Here the accused was bound to submit his APR every year before his superior officer and right from 1986 to 2012 he has submitted his APRs wherein the agricultural income earned by him from his agricultural lands situated at Annekaranahalli and Ajjanahalli is mentioned. Hence, the Ex.P10, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 reports which cannot be considered as a complete report of income, cannot be accepted and the income as mentioned in the Ex.P30 APRs of the accused has to be taken into account and the figures in 200 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 item Nos.6 and 7 of income is to be considered as Rs.27,50,000/-.
Item No.8:
As per As per Differenc Description Investigating accused e officer Income from sheep rearing and 9,23,153 /- 31,30,264/- 22,07,111/- dairy farming
110. As per the prosecution the accused had earned an income of Rs.9,23,153/- from his dairy farming business for a period of four years from 2009- 10 to 2012-13 and to prove the same the prosecution relies upon the Ex.P89 report of Dr.Hareesh, Veterinary Surgeon and the letter of Athigere Milk Producers Co- operative Society, Ramanagara. It is the prosecution case that during the search of Farm House of the accused, the investigating officer had prepared Ex P7 201 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 mahazar wherein it is clear that accused had six cows, 5 calves, 57 sheep and 13 lamb, 5 ½ acres of land abutting the farm house were cultivated to grow feed to these animals. During investigation, the accused had submitted a statement-3A wherein he claimed that he had earned Rs.24,54,560/- income from 2006-07 to 2013 from cattle farming and sheep rearing. The investigating officer had obtained a report from the Secretary, Athingere Milk Producers Co-operative Society where wife of accused is a member and the milk produced were sold to the said society by Smt.Jayasheela from November 2011 and the report says that Smt.Jayasheela had obtained Rs.5,86,571/- from sale of 28,503 liters of milk to the society and also earned a bonus of Rs.73,582/-. The investigating officer also procured statements of the employees who were working in the farm house at the time of search of farm house. The investigating officer further 202 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 obtained a report from one Dr.Harish Veterinary Surgeon. The said Veterinary Surgeon on the information provided by the investigating officer with regard to the number of sheep and cows maintained by the accused for 4 years in his Ex.P89 report has given the details of initial investment that would have incurred to the accused to purchase the number of cows and sheep, the non-recurring expenditure incurred such as putting up shed, other items, the recurring expenditure such as cattle feed, insurance, medical expenditure, etc., that would have incurred per year to maintain the cows and sheep and the income that could have been earned by accused per year by sale of milk, manure, meat, etc. The prosecution relies upon this report in calculating the income earned by accused and the prosecution has relied upon this Ex.P89 itself to calculate the expenditure. Based on this report and on the report of 203 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the Secretary of the Athingere Milk Producers Co- operative Society, the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the accused earned Rs.5,86,571/- and Rs.73,582/- from sale of milk, Rs.20,000/- from sale of manure, Rs.3,000/- from sale of calves, Rs.2,40,000/- from sale of sheep and thus Rs.9,23,153/- has been considered into the income of accused. Dr.Harish is cited as CW 24 and the Secretary of Milk Producers Co- operative Society has been not cited as witness.
111. The learned counsel for accused strenuously objected the method adopted by the investigating officer to calculate the income of the accused under this head. He argued that the prosecution has relied upon the report of the Secretary, Athinagere Milk Producers Co-operative Society to calculate the income earned by accused by sale of milk to the society. The Secretary is not cited as witness and hence, the report 204 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 of the Secretary which is marked through investigating officer cannot be admitted into evidence as it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. as per the law laid down in Kaliram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1973 AIR 2773 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
112. Further, the prosecution strongly place reliance upon he report of Dr.Harish, the Veterinary Secretary who was cited as CW24, but he was not examined by the prosecution. His report is marked as Ex.P89 through the investigating officer by the prosecution and the income as mentioned in the report is taken as such by the investigating officer for the whole period of 4 years whereas the report specifically says that the income shown is the income earned from cows for a period of 365 days and that of from sheep is for 9 months. The investigating officer failed to appreciate this fact and he further submits that the 205 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 prosecution purposely did not examine this witness before court and therefore, the defence called the said witness and examined him as DW2 on their behalf and he identified his report and he has categorically testified before this Court that the figure he had given as income earned for a year for cows and for 9 months to sheep. Therefore, the said income has to be multiplied by 4 years and prays that the said amount of Rs.31,30,264/- has to be taken into the income.
113. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused and as admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution relies upon 2 reports. First one is the report of the Secretary of Milk Producers Co- operative Society and the said report is marked through the investigating officer. The Secretary is not even cited as one of witnesses for the prosecution. The report says that wife of accused joined as member of the society in November 2011 and till 2013 August 206 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 she earned Rs.6,60,153/- from sale of milk to the society. It is not the prosecution case that she had sold milk only to the society. She might have sold to others also as there is no evidence produced by the accused the investigating officer has considered only the figures given by the Secretary of the Society. The investigating officer further obtained report from Veterinary Surgeon to calculate the initial investment, expenditure and income that could have earned by accused by rearing 6 cows, 5 calves, 67 sheep and 13 lamb and Ex.P89 report is relied for this purpose. The initial investment amount as stated in the report has been blindly accepted by the investigating officer and included the amount into the assets of accused. The investigating officer did not produce sufficient legally admissible evidence to prove that all these animals were purchased by accused or whether these numbers of animals were developed from 2 or 3 of them. The 207 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 expenditure as stated in the report is also taken as such by the investigating officer into the expenditure head of the accused which the accused has not raised any dispute. But calculating the income the investigating officer did not completely rely upon the figures stated in the report instead, he went back to the report of the Secretary of Milk Producers Society. It is clear from the Ex.P89 report that the income earned from cows per annum from sale of milk is Rs.4,58,316/- by sale of manure is Rs.15,000/- and by sale of male calf is Rs.3000/- and income earned from sheep per annum by sale of lamb is Rs.2,40,000/- and from sale of manure is Rs.5,000/-. It is made clear in the report that income calculated is for one breed cycle which is 9 months for sheep and 12 months for cows. The investigating officer did not take the Ex.P89 report as a whole. He has taken the income earned from sale of manure of sheep and cows and from sale of lamb and 208 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 male calf as mentioned in the report to the whole period of 4 years whereas the report specifically states it is for one breed cycle. Further, for calculating the income earned from sale of milk, the amount as stated by the Secretary, Milk Producers Society is taken into account and the investigating officer has not given any clarification as to why he is not accepting the figures as stated in Ex.P89. It is also noteworthy that the prosecution did not examine the Veterinary Doctor even though he was cited as CW24 in the charge sheet witness list, while the said Doctor is examined as DW2 by the defence and he in his deposition before this Court categorically states that the income details that he has stated is for a year and not for the whole period. Hence, I am constrained to look into Ex.P89 report to ascertain what would have been earned by accused for a period of 4 years from dairy farming and sheep rearing in the light of the fact that the report of 209 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 the Secretary Milk Producers Society has not been proved before this Court as per Indian Evidence Act, through any legally admissible evidence in the manner known to law. The report as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused takes the character of Section 161 statement obtained by the investigating officer of this case during investigation under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C and therefore, hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C as the report contains the signature of the maker and also the maker of the statement is not examined before this Court.
114. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaliram's case (supra) it is held that "The prohibition contained in section 162 of the Cr.P.C. relates to all statements made during the course of an investigation. The prohibition relating to the use of a statement made to a police officer during the course of 210 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 an investigation could not be set at naught by the police officer not himself recording the statement of a person but having it in the form of communication addressed by a person concerned to the police officer. If a statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation is inadmissible except for the purpose mentioned in section 162, the same would be true of a letter containing narration of facts addressed by a person to a police officer during investigation. It is not permissible to circumvent the prohibition contained in section 162 by the Investigating Officer obtaining written statement of a person instead of the Investigating Officer himself recording the statement."
Even otherwise, if the figures mentioned in the report is accepted, that does not prove that the accused had earned only that much income. It only proves that Milk of value Rs.6,06,153/- has been sold to the society and 211 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 it does not mean that the entire quantity of milk procured from 6 cows was sold to the society. Ex.P89 report says that 12 liter milk per day per cow at Rs.21.95 per liter for 290 days will fetch Rs.4,58,316/-. Hence, 3,480 liter of milk can be fetched from each cow. The investigating officer states that Smt.Jayasheela sold 28,503 liters of milk to the society and earned Rs.6,06,153/- which is clear that each liter of milk earned her Rs.21.26/- which corroborates with the amount specified in Ex.P89 by DW2. From the prosecution records and evidence before Court, it is not proved by the prosecution that the amount specified as earned by accused from sale of milk is for the entire period of 4 years, but the defence has produced sufficient evidence, by relying upon the records submitted by prosecution itself and by examining the witnesses cited by the prosecution itself that accused had earned an amount of Rs.4,76,316/- income from 212 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 cows per year and Rs.2,07,960/- has been incurred as recurring expenditure for the same thus bringing the income to Rs.26,856/- per year and Rs.2,45,000/- as income from sheep rearing for which Rs.95,124/- has been incurred as expenditure bringing down the net income to Rs.1,49,876/- per nine months. Hence, income from cattle rearing is to be calculated as Rs.2,68,356 multiplied by 4 that would be Rs.10,73,424/- and from sheep farming Rs.1,49,876 multiplied by 5 that would be Rs.7,49,380/-. Thus the total income earned for a period of 2010 to 2013 from cattle rearing and sheep farming is to be considered as Rs.18,22,804/-.
Item No.18:
As per As per Description Investigating Difference accused officer Loan obtained by 1,60,000 /- 2,00,000/- 40,000/- Dr. Vinod Kumar 213 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
115. The investigating officer has taken Rs.1,60,000/- as income of accused based on the statement obtained from Dr.Vinod Kumar that while proceeding to Romania for his higher studies he had obtained loan from Vijaya Bank and the accused has submitted in his schedule that his son had obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for his higher studies. During investigation, investigating officer did not get any records with regard to the same with the Vijaya Bank. The learned counsel for accused submits that the investigating officer has taken Rs.2 lakhs under the expenditure head as repayment of loan amount and hence, the whole amount has to be considered in income head also. Here, the accused has not specifically shown under which item of expenditure the said Rs.2 lakhs has been added by the investigating officer whether the amount includes the interest paid 214 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 along with the principal amount is also not forthcoming. Even though there is no specific records to show what is the exact amount received as loan and there are contradictory statements from accused and his son with regard to amount received the investigating officer has taken Rs.1,60,000/- the lesser amount into income. Dr.Vinodkumar is examined as DW3 by the defence and DW3 while giving evidence before the Court has not stated anything with regard to the receipt of the said loan. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the conclusion of the investigating officer is to be considered as such and the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is to be included in this head.
116. The accused further claims 7 items of income as the investigating officer has completely left out to include the same into the account of accused. 215
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
117. Spilled over income: Rs.3,50,000/-:- It is the case of the accused that he joined Government service on 26.08.1977 and the submission of APRs were compulsory only from 1996-97. Hence, before joining Government service he had source of income which he had saved and after joining Government service from 1977 to 1997 till the 1 st APR is submitted by accused, the accused had earned agricultural income and other income along with the salary income and the accused had submitted the statements with regard to the same to the investigating officer, but the investigating officer discarded the same as there were no documents submitted by accused to support the same. It is highly impossible for a person to keep all the documents for 30-35 years anticipating that a case may be registered against him after 30 years. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused had only salary income for the entire check period from 1977 to 216 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 2013. There are professional incomes earned by his wife, children, daughter-in-law, agricultural income, horticultural income, income from dairy farming, sheep rearing etc. It is also clear that accused and his wife were holding agricultural land and earning income from the same. When accused had specifically stated that he had earned income other than salary income, it is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct investigation with regard to the same instead of discarding the same as such. Hence, the claim of the accused that he had earned income other than salary income from 1977 to 1997 and also had savings before joining Government service has to be taken into account in the light of other income he and his family members have earned subsequently and hence, Rs.3,50,000/- is to be included into the income head as spilled over income.
217
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
118. Unsecured loan of Rs.10,50,000/- earned by Dr.Vinodkumar:- The accused states that his son Dr.Vinodkumar had obtained unsecured loan of Rs.10,50,000/- and this has been declared in his income tax returns pertaining to 2010-11. The amount of Rs.7,65,466/- has been taken into the assets of accused based on the information in the said return but the investigating officer has not considered the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- which Dr.Vinodkumar has obtained as loan into income of accused and hence, prays to include the same into the income of accused.
119. It is clear from Ex.P67 page 389 the copy of balance sheet appended with the income tax returns of Dr.Vinodkumar that his money to the tune of Rs.7,65,466/- has been advanced as loan and in the same balance sheet an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- is received by him as loan from other sources. The 218 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 amount of Rs.7,65,466/- is the money which becomes his assets and this is not disputed by the accused and he admits the same. But the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- loan amount claimed to be received as loan is not clear from whom he has received the same. DW2, Dr.Vinodkumar, when he was examined before this Court on behalf of accused, he did not speak about this loan amount. The accused even if he did not claim the same while submitting his schedule specifically with regard to the said loan amount had opportunity to bring the same before this Court when Dr.Vinodkumar himself was available for him as witness. Therefore, the claim of the accused that a huge sum of Rs.10,50,000/- is to be included into his income without any proof that from whom he received the amount, when it was received, whether any repayment made, whether any interest is paid to the same, etc., the said claim of the accused cannot be accepted. 219
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
120. Gift in form of cash to the tune of Rs.2 lakh received by the son of accused during his marriage: The accused claims that his son got married on 18.03.2012 and he had declared in his Annual Property Returns submitted to his department in the subsequent year i.e., 2012-13, he had declared that his son got Rs.2,00,000/- cash as gift on his marriage. This declaration is made on 11.06.2013 i.e., two months earlier to the registration of this case. This is found in Ex.P30 page 147. Hence, this amount ought to have been taken by the investigating officer. The investigating officer has not given any explanation for not considering the same.
121. Loan advanced by HSBC and RBS Banks through Credit Cards of Dr.Vinod Kumar:-
The investigating officer in his Final Report has taken Rs.21,018 and Rs.2,35,374/- as expenditure incurred 220 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 by accused under expenditure item No.50 and 51 respectively on the basis that by using his credit cards Dr.Vinodkumar had purchased goods. For the reasons stated in paragraphs No.65 and 66 of this judgment with regard to expenditure in item No.50 and 51 explanation, the said amount is to be included into the income of accused.
122: Deduction under Chapter VI A of Income Tax Act: It is the case of the accused his son Dr.Vinodkumar's salary income has been considered by the investigating officer into the income of accused based on the income tax returns filed by Dr.Vinod Kumar which was submitted by the accused along with his schedule during investigation. As per the said returns Dr.Vinodkumar had earned gross income of Rs.7,06,715/- during 2012-13 and a deduction of Rs.25,000/- is claimed under Chapter VI A 221 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 of Income Tax Act and has paid tax for Rs.6,81,720/-.
Likewise, in 2011-12 the gross income was Rs.6,51,802/- and after deduction of Rs.25,000/- tax is paid to Rs.6,26,800/- and in the year 2010-11 gross income of Rs.3,99,643/- and after deduction of Rs.25,000/- tax is paid to Rs.3,74,640/-. The investigating officer has considered the income of Dr.Vinodkumar to which Dr.Vinodkumar had paid tax.
Deduction under Chapter VI A of the Income Tax Act does not mean that he did not earn the income, instead it is the income which the income tax payee need not pay tax as he is eligible for deduction.
Hence, the said left out amount of Rs.75,000/- is to be included into the income of accused.
123. Accused had purchased a two wheeler in the year 1990 for Rs.24,500/- and the said amount has been taken an assets by the investigating officer 222 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 and the said scooter was disposed of by the accused in the year 2001. The investigating officer has considered the maintenance charges incurred for the said two wheeler into the expenditure of the accused, but he has not taken the sale consideration which the accused got on disposal of the said two wheeler into the income of the accused and the learned counsel for accused prays to include the sale consideration into the income of the accused.
124. On perusal of the Final Report, it is clear that the investigating officer has considered Rs.24,500/- as asset item No.33 of the accused. The accused during investigation while submitting his schedule to the investigating officer had claimed that he has sold the said vehicle for Rs.16,000/- and claimed the said amount to be included into his income and since, he did not produce any documents with regard to the 223 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 same, the investigating officer did not consider the said amount. Moreover, on investigation, it is found that the said two wheeler bearing Reg.
No.KA.02.H.1415 was still in the name of the accused. The accused during trial also did not submit any documents to substantiate his claim. When he got himself examined as DW9 he has not spoken any word that to whom he had sold the said scooter and for what amount it is sold. Hence, devoid of any oral or documentary evidence to the same, the claims of the accused do not inspire confidence of this Court to consider the said amount as income of accused.
125. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution and the defence the income accused derived during check period is as mentioned in Table No.3C below.
224
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Table No.3C:
Sl.
Description of Income Value (in Rs.)
No
1 Income from salary 37,01,079-00
Rents received by
Smt.Jayasheela the wife of
2 accused in respect of Flat 1,13,200-00
No.65/4A, Kamakshipalya,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru
Professional Income of Smt.
3 Jayasheela from Beauty 6,32,610-00
Parlour
Particulars of income of
4 Sri.Vinod Kumar from his 41,34,568-00
Dental Clinic
Income of Doctor profession
received by Smt.P.
5 7,55,860-00
Nethravathi, daughter-in-law of the accused.
6 Agriculture and Horticulture income received by the accused from the land bearing Sy.Nos 16/24, 5/2, 27,50,000-00 86, 16/70, 16/61, 16/69 of Ajjanahalli village 7 Agriculture and Horticulture income received by the wife of the accused from the land bearing Sy.No.74/1, 74/2, 75/1 of Rampura village, Channapattana Taluk and Sy.No.26 of Annekaranahalli Magadi Taluk 225 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Income from sheep rearing and Cow, in the Farm House 8 18,22,804.00 of the accused Loan availed from Loan Account No. 126108351000043, Vijaya 9 15,00,000-00 Bank, Gandhi Bajazar, Bengalury by the accused and his wife Loan availed from The Bharath Co-operative Bank 10 Ltd., Mattikere branch, 25,000-00 BengaluruAccount No.1564 by the accused Loan availed by Sri.Vinod Kumar, son of the accused 11 from Yes Bank, Indira Nagara 56,00,000-00 Branch, vide account No.MEN002200020462 Loan availed by the accused 12 for purchase of motor cycle 18,400-00 bearing No.KA.02.H.1415 Loan availed by the accused 13 for purchase of TVS Fero 31,621-00 KA.02.F.1689 Loan availed by Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused 14 from HDFC Bank, 3,50,000-00 Indiranagara Branch vide Loan account No.13303487 Loan availed by the accused from ICICI Bank vide loan 15 account No.LBBNG 1,50,000-00 00000364286 226 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Loan availed by Sri.Vinod 16 Kumar, son of the accused 24,00,000-00 from J.E. Health Care Capital Loan availed by Sri.Vinod Kumar son of the accused 17 15,30,000-00 from Bajaj Pinserve, M.G. Road 18 Education loan availed by 1,60,000-00 Sri.Vinod Kumar from Vijaya Bank Interest amount received from S.B. Account No. 19 126101011000326 Vijaya 8,320.00 Bank, Gandhi Bazaar, by the accused and his wife Interest received by the accused from Account 20 No.1559, The Bharath Co- 2,724.00 operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagara branch Interest received by the accused from Account 21 No.312, The Bharath Co- 2,653.00 operative Bank Ltd., Mattikere branch Interest received by Smt. Jayasheela the wife of 22 accused from Account 27,648-00 No.24900, Canara Bank, Vijayanagara branch Interest received by Smt.Jayasheela the wife of accused from Account No. 23 23,919-00 64046517769, S.B.M Mallathalli Branch 227 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Interest received by Smt. P.Nethravathi, daughter-in- law of the accused from 24 4,087-00 Account No.31467368393, State Bank of India, Nagarabavi branch Interest received by Sri.Vinod Kumar from Account No. 25 811.00 1074927, The Royal Bank of Scotland Bank Interest received by the accused from S.B.Account 26 35,856-00 No.1559, Union Bank of India, Vijayanagara branch Interest received by Smt.Jasheela the wife of the 27 accused from S.B.Account 10,460-00 No.433921510, Indian Bank, Prashanthanagara branch Interest received by the accused from Account 28 No.11718, The Bharath Co- 1,114-00 operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagara branch Loan availed by the accused 29 2,00,000-00 from Anand B.Movva Builders Loan availed by Smt. Jayasheela wife of the 30 2,00,000-00 accused from Rajathadri Jewelers Loan available through ICICI 31 bank cheque No.524173 1,50,000-00 from Vijaya Batteru shop Loan availed by 32 Smt.Jayashela wife of 1,50,000-00 accused from Ramachandra 228 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Loan availed by Smt.Jayasheela and Smt.Dr. 33 3,00,000-00 B.Meenakshi from account No.B.F.11 Supriya Enterprises Loan availed by Smt. 34 Jayasheela and from account 1,50,000-00 No.B.F.11 Supriya Enterprises Amount received by Smt. 35 Jayashella wife of accused 1,68,000-00 from Siriprabha Chit Fund Divident amount remitted to S.B.Account No.1954, 36 Graduate Co-operative Credit 54.00 Society Ltd., Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru Maturity amount received by 37 the accused from LIC Policy 56,957-00 No.610202768 Amount received by Sri.A.R.Vinod by surredering 38 Policy No.NSG 1260061 of 54,927-00 Aviv Life Insurance Co. India Private Ltd Profit amount received by the accused under Certificate 39 No.45074321 of Peerless 32,547-00 General Finance and Investment Company Ltd Amount received by the accused from LIC Policy 40 38,750-00 No.061170862 of Life Insurance, R.T. Nagar Amount received by the accused from Policy 41 1,60,428-00 No.11645449, Reliance Life Insurance 229 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Amount received by Sri.Vinodkumar from Policy 42 27,029-00 No.50725036, Bajaj Alliance Group Insurance Amount received by sale of site No.184, situated at 43 1,32,000-00 Raghuvanahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Amount received by sale of vacant Site formed in Sy.No.65/4, Kamakshipalya, 44 3,88,000-00 Saneguruvanahalli Dakhale, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Amount received by Smt.Jayasheela wife of the 45 accused by sale of gold 1,17,000-00 ornaments to Rajathadri Jewellers Income received by the 46 68,454-00 accused from poultry farming 47 Spilled over income: 3,50,000/-
Unsecured loan of by 48 Dr.Vinodkumar: 00-00 Gift in form of cash to the 49 received by the son of 2,00,000/-
accused during his marriage Loan advanced by HSBC and 21,018/-
50 RBS Banks through Credit Cards of Dr.Vinod Kumar 51 Loan advanced by RBS Banks 2,35,374/-
through Credit Cards of Dr.Vinod Kumar 230 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Deduction under Chapter VI 52 75,000/-
A of Income Tax Act Total 2,90,68,092-00
126. Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence produced and proved by the prosecution, it can be ascertained that the total income of the accused during the check period was Rs.2,90,68,092-00, the assets in possession of the accused during the check period was found to be of Rs.1,96,15,381-00 and the total expenditure incurred by the accused was at Rs.1,15,39,214-00 and the assets disproportionate was Rs.20,86,503.00.
Sl.
Heads Amount (in Rs.)
No.
Assets acquired during
1. 1,96,15,381-00
the check period
Expenses incurred during
2. 1,15,39,214-00
check period
Sum of assets and
3. expenditure of the 3,11,54,595-00
accused
Income earned during the
4. 2,90,68,092-00
check period
5. Assets disproportionate 20,86,503-00
6. Percentage 7.17%
231
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
Therefore, the accused is found in possession of asset disproportionate to his known source of income to an extent of 7.17%. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Krishnanand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1977) 1 SCC 816 that "10% of the disproportionate assets need to be deducted in arriving at the finding that the accused had disproportionate assets". The Apex Court further held that "it would not be axiomatic that 10% would be the cut off deduction, in an appropriate case deduction could be extended up to 15% and if so extended the accused must be held to be not is possession of any disproportionate assets".
127. Under these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
232
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016
128. Point No 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) Cr.P.C, the accused Sri.A.G.Rangaiah, is acquitted for the offence defined under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused other than the bond executed by accused under section 437A of Cr.P.C. stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, printout taken, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of June, 2020) Sd/-11.06.2020 [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 233 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : B.G.Lohith PW 2 : Gopa Ram Servi PW 3 : Umashanker PW 4: Mahesh Kumar PW 5 : Lokanath PW 6 : Raju.B.Tippashetty PW 7 : Lalitha PW 8 : Hanumantha Raju PW 9 : Eshwara Bhatt Karagodu PW 10 : P.Narasimha Murthy PW 11 : Radhakrishna PW 12: Ananda M.R Pw 13 : Smt.M.A.Nagarathnamma PW 14 : Niranjan Kumar.C PW 15 : Anil Kumar PW 16 : M.Manjunatha 234 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 PW 17 : Sanjeeva Rayappa PW 18 : Dr.P.G.Anil Kumar PW 19 : Dr.Manjunath Shinde PW 20 : Jayanna PW 21: Dr.A.C.Ashok PW 22: Sani Koppad List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution: Ex P 1 : House search Mahazar dated 30.08.2013 Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P1(b) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P1(c) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P1(d) : Signature of PW 14 Ex P 2 : Locker Search Mahazar dtd 30.8.2013 Ex P2(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P2(b) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P2(c) : Signature of PW 14 Ex P3 : Seizure mahazar at Chartered Accountant office Bijayanagar, Bengaluru dtd 31.08.2017 235 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3(b) : Signature of PW 14 Ex P4 : Search Mahazar at KMB Colony Ex P4(a) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P4(b) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P4(c) : Signature of PW 15 Ex P5 : Search mahazar at Ramachandra Arcade Ex P5(a) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P5(b) : Signature of PW 15 Ex P6 : Search mahazar at K.H.Double Road Ex P6(a) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P6(b) : Signature of PW 15 Ex P7 : Farm House search mahazar Ex P7(a) : Signature of PW 6 Ex P7(b) : Signature of PW 17 Ex P8: House Search mahazar at Ajjanahalli Ex P8(a) : Signature of PW 6 Ex P8(b) : Signature of PW 17 Ex P9 : Office search mahazar at Yelahanka 236 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P9(a) : Signature of PW 6 Ex P9(b) : Signature of PW 17 Ex P10 : Letter of Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture dt 20.11.2015 Ex P10(a) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P11 : Horticulture income and expenditure report Ex P 12 : Horticulture income and expenditure report Ex P 13: Agriculture income and expenditure report Ex P14 : Dynamic consultency services report dtd 18.4.2014 Ex P14(a) : Signature of PW 9 Ex P15 : Source report Ex P15(a) : Signature of PW 10 Ex P15(b) : Signature of PW 14 Ex P16 : FIR in Crime No.51/2013 Ex P16(a) : Signature of PW 10 Ex P16(b) : Signature of PW 14 Ex P17 : Building valuation report and sketch Ex P17(a) : Signature of PW 11 237 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P18 : Horticulture income report Ex P18(a) & (b) : Signatures of PW 13 Ex P19 : Agriculture reportedEx P19(a) Signature of PW 12 Ex P20 : Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha dtd 29.8.2013 Ex P20(a): Signature of PW 14 Ex P21 : Search warrant dated 30.8.2013 Ex P 22 : Search warrant dtd 30.08.2013 Ex P23 : Requisition letter to Forest Department Ex P 24: Authority letter under section 165 Cr.P.C Ex P25 : Autority letter under section 165 Cr.P.C.
Ex P26: Corrigendem letter dtd 03.09.2013 Ex P27 : Xerox copies of documents seized by PW 15 Ex P28: Letter of PW 15 dated 30.08.2003 Ex P29 : Documents seized on 30.08.2013 Ex P30: Documents seized on 30.08.2013 Ex P 31: Income tax returns Ex P 32 : Documents furnished by BBMP Commissioner 238 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P 33: Account details seized from the Bharath Co.op Bank Ltd.
Ex P 34: Letter of Sub-Registrar dtd 12.9.2013 Ex P 35: Document collected from Canara Bank Ex P36: Copy of Bank account details of AGO Ex P37 : Site No.175/BDA documents Ex P38 : Documents issued by Sub-Registrar, Magadi Taluk Ex P39: Account details of wife of AGO maintained at Vijaya Bank Ex P40: Credit card details HSBC Bank Ex P41 : Account details Royal Bank Scotland. Ex P42: Electric bills of house of Krishnappa Ex P43 : Letter from M/s Rashmi Indane Gas Agency Ex P44: Car and motor cycle expenses details Oriental Insurance company Ex P45: Details of repairs and Service. Ex P46: Payment details from Milk Dairy Ex P47: Income tax returns details 239 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P48: Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex P49: Loan account details, Yes Bank Ex P50 : Details of account of Nethravathi, SBI Ex P51: Letter of Vijaya Bank, with regard to details of account No.0043 Ex P52: SBM account details of Jayasheela and Nethravathi Ex P53: PUC fee details of Vinod Kumar Ex P54: Details of account No.0066, HDFC Ex P55: Details of account No.2525, Union Bank of India Ex P56: Detials of FD 912, A/c No.1228, Canara Bank Ex P57: AGO's Pay details/BBMP Ex P58: details of vehicle No.KA.02.H.1415 RTO Rajajinagara Ex P59: Letter dtd 28.6.2014 of Sub-Registrar, Nagarabavi.
Ex P60: Covering letter dtd 1.7.14 of A.H & VS Department 240 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P61: Details of account No.4339-21-510 Indian Bank Ex P62: Deposit details, issued by AEE, BESCOM Ex P63 : Details of plan, fees in respect of House No.340, BBMP Rajarajeshwarinagara Ex P64 : 'B' extract details of CTK 750 issued by RTO Kolar Ex P65 : Details of House No.175 issued by BDA Ex P66: Schedule Book volume 8 Ex P67: Schedule Book Volume 9 Ex P68: Schedule book volume 10 Ex P69: Vehicle Loan details, Bharath Co.Op.Bank Ex P70: Loan details from M/s Supriya Enterprises Ex P71: :LIC details issued by J.B.Nagara Branch Ex P72: Details of bills and deposits issued by AEE BESCOM Ex P73 : Details of Prudential Insurance Police - ICICI Ex P74 : Letter of Manager, ICICI in respect of cheque details.
Ex P75: Bharathi AXA Policy details 241 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P76: Policy details issued by LIC JC Road Branch, Ex P77: Police details issued by Aviva Insurance Ex P78: Details of account No.2323, of Canara Bank Ex P79: Details of vehicle No.KA.02/U 8480, RTO Rajajinagara Ex P80: Deposits, Bills details of house of AGO issued by BESCOM Ex P81: RTC and mutation details of Sy.No.74, 75 of Ramapura Ex P82: Peerless Insurance Policy of AGO Ex P83: Hi-TECH Pay Home Education fee Ex P84: TLC report of House No.360 Ex P85: Mutation and RTC details of Sy.No.16, 86, 26, 4/3, 411 issued by Tahasildar, Magadi. Ex P86: Details of vehicle KA.0-2.8430 Bridge Stone Ex P87: Details of Electric Bills, BESCOM, Magadi Ex P88: Pay details of accused issued by Commissioner, BBMP Ex P89: Report of Vetarinary Officer, M.G.Doddi Ex P89(a): Signature of DW 2 dtd 3.10.2018 242 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex.P90: Letter of Deputy Director of Horticulture, Ramanagar Ex P91: Details of RD 7956, Kanva Co.op Society Ex P92: Details of Policy, Reliance M.G.Road Branch Ex P93: LIC Policy details, RT Nagar branch Ex P94: ICICI Branch Loan account 364286 details Ex P95: Details of Bajaj Aliance Insurance policy Ex P96: Details of deposits, Bills, BSNL Ex P97: Loan details, Bajaj En-serv Ex P98: Details of property, issued by Sub-Registrar, Channapattana Ex P99: Loan details, HDFC - CHN Road Branch Ex P100: Details of vehicle No.KA.04/2-126 issued by RTO, Rajajinagara Ex P101: Prasanna Anjaneya Chit details Ex P102: Letter of Sub-Registrar, Peenya Ex P103: Details of Expenditure incurred for drilling the borewell, issued by AEE, Rural Drinking Water Supply, Magadi Ex P104: Siri Prabha Chit fund details 243 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P105: Loan account details, G.E.Capital Ex P106: Family Expenditure Report Ex P107: Letter issued by Sub-Registrar, Dasanapura Ex P108: Letter of Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagara Ex P109: Locker fee details of SBM, Mallathahalli Ex P110: Certified copy of lease deed dtd 18.11.2011 Ex P111: Final report Ex P112: Authorisation letter dtd 03.10.2013 Ex P114: Letter of Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar (kengeri) Ex P114: Letter and details issued by Sri.Mookambika Temple Ex P115: Letter of Oxford Dental College Ex P116: Membership Details at Centuary Club Ex P117: Letter dtd 8.1.2013 issued by Iskon Ex P118: Account details issued by RBS Bank Ex P119: Letter of Sub-Registrar dtd 15.10.2013 Ex P120: Letter dtd 24.9.2013 of Income Tax Department Ex P121: Letter dtd 1.10.2013 of Income Tax Department 244 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 Ex P122: Letter dtd 15.10.2013 of BWSSB Ex P123: Letter of RTO West Bengaluru Ex P 124: Letter of LIC K.G.Road Branch Ex P125: Letter of Vokkaligara Sangha Ex P126: Letter issued by M.S. Ramaiah College Ex P127: Letter of New Public English School Ex P128: Letter of Vidhya Vardaka Sangha Ex P129: Letter dtd 23.11.2013 of BBMP Ex P130: Letter dtd 21.11.2013 of MES Kishore Kendra Ex P131: Letter of Bharathiya Samskrithi Vidhyapeeta Ex P132: Letter from office of the Ajjanahally Grama Panchayath Ex P133: Letter of Saraswathi Convention Centre Ex P134: Letter dtd 23.12.2013 of BBMP Ex P135: Letter dtd 26.12.2013 of BBMP Ex P136: Letter dtd 3.1.2014 of Sri.Devaraj Urs Medical College Ex P137: Letter dtd 18.12.2013 of BBMP Ex P138: Bill of Sri.Ganesh Borewell drillers. 245
Spl.C.C.No.406/2016 List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W 1. Manjunath DW 2 : Dr.Harish DW 3 : Dr.A.R.Vinod Kumar DW 4 : P.Netravathi DW 5 : Smt.B.Meenakshi Parthasarathy DW 6 : Puttaswamygowda DW 7 : Dr.Chethan Kumar DW 8 : Smt.Jayasheela DW 9 : A.G.Rangaiah List of documents marked on behalf of accused: NIL Sd/-11.06.2020 [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 246 Spl.C.C.No.406/2016