Bangalore District Court
And Accused No.1 To 3. The Witness Has ... vs No.1 Was My In-Charge Officer. I Cannot ... on 24 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 24th day of February 2015
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 17953/2012
2.Date of Offence 28-4-2012
3.Complainant Rajajinagar Police Station
4.Accused K.Sundar, S/o late Kuppaswamy,,
aged 45 years, No.nil Kothur village,
Behamangala Post, Bangarpet
taluk, Kolar dist.
5. Offences complained U/s.380 of IPC.
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is Acquitted
8.Date of Order 24-2-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offence punishable under Sec.380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
28-4-2012 at 2.30 p.m., within the limits of Rajajinagar Police
station, in the house of CW 1-Lalitha situated at No.1095, 2nd
Cross, 9th Main, Prakashnagar, the accused committed theft of
2 C.C.No.17953/2012
gold necklace weighing 35 grams and silver ankle chains
weighing 450 grams and thereby committed aforesaid offence.
3. The accused is in judicial custody. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offence and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused.
After hearing on charges, this court framed the charge for the
offence punishable u/s.380 of IPC and questioned the accused
regarding the charge made against him, he denied the charge
and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined only one witness as P.W.1 and got marked one
document at Ex.P1. Since C.Ws.1 to 6, 8 to 11 did not turn
up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, this
court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused U/s.313
of Cr.P.C., Accused denied the incriminating evidence
appeared against him and submitted that he has no defence
evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove guilt against accused has
examined only one witness by name Ramalingappa the Head
Constable who said to have arrested the accused on
suspicious grounds. It appears inspite of giving sufficient
3 C.C.No.17953/2012
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that on 5-5-2012
C.W.9 the Police Sub Inspector of his Police station has
deputed him, his colleagues C.Ws.6 and 7 to trace the accused
persons and properties in old cases of his Police Station.
Accordingly, thy collected the information and found that the
accused was near 1st cross, Prakashnagar. They visited the
said place, took the accused and produced before C.W.9. It
appears the testimony of P.W.1 remained unchallenged.
9. As stated above, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. In a case like this the offence has to be
proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
seizure mahazar beyond all reasonable doubt. In the said case
except examining P.W.1 the Police Head Constable who said
to have arrested the accused on suspicious ground, the
prosecution has not examined other witnesses on record.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure
mahazar. Though P.W.1 has supported the case of the
prosecution his evidence is not sufficient to connect the
accused for the offence alleged against him. Moreover, mere
arrest of accused on suspicious ground is not sufficient to
connect the accused for the offence alleged against him
unless the prosecution proves the seizure mahazar beyond all
reasonable doubt.
4 C.C.No.17953/2012
10. The order sheet indicating that this accused is in
Judicial custody from 2-10-2014. Thereafter, charge has been
framed on 25-10-2014, summons has been issued on eight
occasions, NBW issued on one occasion but the concerned
police have only managed to secure the presence of one
witness. The shara made by the concerned police dated 20-2-
2015 indicating that summons to C.W.1 duly served. Further
summons to C.Ws.2 to 4 served on their respective house.
C.Ws.5 and 6 left the given address. C.W.7 was informed
regarding summons of this case. Since C.Ws.8 and 9 were on
special duty, the process police prayed time to secure their
presence. C.W.10 reported as dead. The process police
informed C.W.11 regarding summons of this case through
telephone. Even before the date of above shara and thereafter
sufficient opportunities have been given to the prosecution to
secure the witnesses before the court, but it has failed to
secure any witnesses before the court. Accordingly, by
rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, examination of C.Ws.1 to 6, 8
to 11 dropped. Even though the prosecution to prove the guilt
against the accused has examined only one witness. His
evidence is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has
proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offence u/s 380 of IPC.
Hence, acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.PC. accused has been acquitted for the above said offence.
5 C.C.No.17953/2012Office to issue direction to jail authority to release this accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of February 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Ramalingappa; LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1, Report;
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION : NIl LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
6 C.C.No.17953/2012Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separate sheet ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offence u/s 380 of IPC. Hence, acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.PC. accused has been acquitted for the above said offence.
Office to issue direction to jail authority to release this accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
AGAIN THE COMPLAINANT ENTERED WITNESS BOX DULY SWORN ON : 24/04/2014 FURTHER EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
The accused No.1 in the month of July-2009 took over the charge as the officer-in-charge of Chemistry Laboratory.7 C.C.No.17953/2012
Now, I see four post acknowledgments for having served my complaint dated 20.01.2011 to my higher authorities, office copy of the said complaint, another office copy of complaint dated 06.01.2011 which is annexure to Ex.P5, another copy of complaint dated 05.02.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 05.02.2011, another copy of complaint dated 14.06.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 14.05.2011, the postal cover with acknowledgment for having sent legal notice to accused No.1 and it was returned as refused, copy of the legal notice dated 27.06.2011, the letter dated 05.08.2011 addressed by the Public Information of my department to me and it is already marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Under RTI Ex.P14 was issued and along with Ex.P14, annexure 1 to 3 are supplied to me which are part of Ex.P14. Annexure-3C is the statement of accused No.2 before the Preliminary Enquiry Committee. Now, I see the letter dated 10.05.2012 supplied by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with one enclosure the report of the fact finding committee along with the statement of all the witnesses before the said enquiry committee and it is marked as Ex.P15. The postal acknowledgment for having served legal notice to accused No.3 dated 27.06.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P16. Another copy of letter dated 23.08.2012 issued by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with copy of statement of Dr.Roopa Bose given before fact finding committee on 16.09.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P17. Copy of the intimation given by me as required under rule 19(2) of Central Civil Service Conduct Rules dated 29.12.2011 along with enclosure and it is marked as Ex.P18. Postal 8 C.C.No.17953/2012 acknowledgment for having served said intimation letter to my higher authorities and it is marked as Ex.P19.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. RN, ADVOCATE;-
Sri. RN, Advocate at request of counsel for accused of cross examination is deferred.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. DULY SWORN ON : 26/05/2014 CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU, ADVOCATE;-
In 1999 I completed M.Sc., in Chemistry from Mahatma Gandhi University. In 2002, I joined IIT Bombay for Ph.D., Course. In between 1999 to 2002 I was working in research project at in two organization, one in Regional Research Lab at Trivendrum and another C.S.I.R., Lab at Karegudi. I have not stated either in my complaint or in my evidence regarding my above said experience. It is true that I have not disclosed my above said experience into my department as it was not necessary. It is false to suggest that I was terminated in the above said organization.
9 C.C.No.17953/2012Further it is false to suggest that i.e., the reason why I have not disclosed the same to my department. It is false to suggest that I was giving trouble to my higher authorities of said organizations and that is the reason why I have been terminated in the said organizations. Initially I joined the IIT Bombay in a research project work. I cannot remember the entry number for IIT Bombay. It is false to suggest that there is pre Ph.D., examination to take admission to Ph.D Course. I have not given any examination for Ph.D., in IIT Bombay. The witness voluntaries that I have given examination as part of course work of Ph.D., for one semester. I have a documents pertaining to said course but I have not produced the same. The topic for PhD., was not decided as I was only doing course work. It is false to suggest that I have not registered to the Ph.D., course and I am deposing falsely.
At request adjourned to 3.00PM.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. DULY SWORN ON : 26/05/2014 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU, ADVOCATE;- Initially was appointed as Scientific Officer Grade-C. Now, I working as Scientific Officer Grade-D. Accused No.1 to 3 are senior officers to me and they are possessing doctorate having done Ph.D., It is not true to suggest that as per the annual programme the work will be assigned every year. Witness voluntaries that the said work is discretion of the officer-in-charge. I have seen the annual programme of our department and I had glance of annual programme but not specific to chemistry laboratory. In the year 2010-2011 there was a annual programme of in our department and I do not have access to said programme. The counsel for the accused has confronted one document and asked whether the said document is annual programme for the year 2010-2011 of your 10 C.C.No.17953/2012 department for which she is stated that she cannot make out said document as annual programme of her department. I do not know whether every year the annual programme is being issued to chemistry laboratory department. It is true that one by name Premdas, Bincy Cyriac, Thomas Dr.A.M., Bose (Ms.) Dr.Roopa, Usha Nathan, Dr.(Ms.), Ojha, (Ms.) Nishma, Shamimul Ahsan, S.A.Md., Kesavan, V.S., Ravi Kumar.S. and myself are the composition of chemistry Laboratory, Southern Region for the year 2010-2011. Like this there are chemistry laboratory of other region also. It is true that six chemistry laboratories are comes under Atomic Minerals Directorate Exploration and Research. It is true that there is a Regional Director for each Region. The officer- in-charge of each Division comes under the Regional Director of each Region. The Regional Director of each Region comes under an Additional Director, operation and he will be in-charge of 2 to 3 Regions. It is true that any decision pertaining to chemistry laboratory will be taken collectively by Additional Director, Regional Director and Officer-in-charge of any lab. The witness voluntaries that the officer-in-charge of lab had discretion in decision making and he can exercise the same without consultation of higher authority. I am not sure whether the annual programme will be for the smooth functioning of the functions of the laboratory concerned which will be evolved in the month of November every year till October next year since I am not directly concerned to the said programme.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. 11 C.C.No.17953/2012 DULY SWORN ON : 06/06/2014 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU, ADVOCATE;-
12 C.C.No.17953/2012It is true to suggest that I am the class-I and gazetted officer. I should know the target of the department. It is false to suggest that the base for target of the department is annual program. it is true that the annual program is available in our library. Each and every officer has access to the said library. It is false to suggest that it is my duty to see the annual program to know the target. The witness was confronted the book titled as annual program and she stated that she do not know above said book. I have seen the annual program occasionally. I do not remember whether I saw the book confronted to me. It is false to suggest that I am deposing falsely to escape from the liability of admitting annual program and assignment given to my department. I do not know whether the annual program book the annual program of chemistry department is spell down. I do not know whether the chemistry lab is functioning as per the assignment given in the annual program. It is false to suggest that the officer-in-charge of particular department has no discretion either to give any assignment or to take back against to the assignment in the annual program. The witness voluntaries the officer-in-charge has got discretionary power like assignment sample analysis to the officers working under him and he is the authority to countersign the report of the analysis and to allot research program. It is true that the officer- in-charge has got supervisory power to see whether the work assigned to any one is fully carried out or there is any short fall and to report to higher authorities. I have attended the seminar and workshop dated 9.1.2010 and there is an article in my name. On 9.1.2010 accused No.1 was the officer-in-charge. It is true that on 9.1.2010 an opportunity was given by the department. The witness voluntaries that was the only opportunity given to me and it was insignificant compared to other officers during in-charge ship of accused No.1. It is false to suggest that was the only 13 C.C.No.17953/2012 opportunity given to me in the department. It is true that a paper was published in the journal called exploration and research for atomic minerals in volume No.19 March-2009. It is true that I worked under accused No.1 for publication of paper in the journal. Witness voluntaries that the said publication was before accused No.1 taking over officer-in-charge. It is false to suggest that on 6.2.2011 I attended the seminar and workshop on recent advances in ICP-AES and ICP-MS and its analytical application. I do not remember whether I was asked to attend the said program through letter. It is false to suggest that I have attended the said program but I am deposing falsely that I have not attended the said program. It is false to suggest that I have been making false complaint to the department that I have not been given opportunity inspite of sufficient opportunities given to me. When I was working at Nagarabhavi office around 10 officers were working and it was single floor. If there is shouting it could be heard by the officers within the room. It is true that apart from officers if any other staff had access to said room they could be also heard if there was any shouting. It is false to suggest that accused No.1 has not asked anybody to take me to the mental hospital to a psychiatrist and A3 have not called me as psysic lady. I have not produced any document to show that I attended the office on 4.2.2011. About 10 to 15 complaints have been given to my higher authorities against my colleagues. It is false to suggest that invariably I use to give complaint against all most all the scientific officers. I have given complaint against one Bincy Cyriac a scientific officer grade-F who is my senior. Like wise I have given complaint against one Smt.Nishma Ojha a scientific officer grade-D. It is false to suggest that I have given complaint against PW-2, V.S.Keshavan and Mr.Ahsan. I have not produced my deposition given before fact finding committee. It is false to suggest that since the said 14 C.C.No.17953/2012 deposition is against me I have not produced the same. It is false to suggest that I made complaint against all the officers in the said deposition. It is true that I have stated before fact finding committee as Mrs.Nishma Ojha called me the roudest lady whom she is ever come across. It is false to suggest that I have stated before fact finding committee one Mr.Ahsan refused to operate the platinum safe key and raised his voice on me telling that he is not suppose to work according to my convenience. It is false to suggest that the two departmental enquiry committee have suggested my transferred to New Delhi. It is false to suggest that immediately after the report of fact finding committee I have been transferred to Nagarabhavi officer to Delhi. It is true that I challenged the my transfer order and it was dismissed before CAT as well as before High Court. I have also filed special Rev. Petition before Supreme Court it was also dismissed. The witness voluntaries that CAT as well as High Court has granted interim stay.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. DULY SWORN ON : 07/06/2014 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU, ADVOCATE:-
15 C.C.No.17953/2012It is true that the committee constituted to deal with my complaints have given their opinion. The witness voluntaries the first committee did not make any break through in finding the accused as guilty. The second committee has probed all my complaints till the date of enquiry. After the enquiry I filed 2 or 3 complaints. The second committee submitted its report on 15th & 16th of September 2011, my transfer date is on September 2012. It is true that the committee has recommended as per Ex.P15. It is false to suggest that the said recommendations are against me. It is true that after the said recommendation I had filed 2 or 3 complaints. The witness voluntaries that since the recommendations was not implemented I was forced file such complaints. I have not produced order passed by the CAT regarding my transfer. It is false to suggest that I have contended before CAT that all the lady officers must be transfer from Bangalore office and it was rejected. It is true that the CAT has held that the transfer passed against me is in the interest of public and also in the interest of office. The witness voluntaries that I am transferred along with other 40 officers. I have not produced the copy of said transfer order. It is false to suggest that my transfer was on the basis of recommendation of the committee. I do not know any other officers has challenged the said transfer order. I have no knowledge whether any other similar applications clubbed with my application. At request of counsel for the accused adjourned to 3.00PM.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC DULY SWORN ON : 07/06/2014 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU, ADVOCATE:-
I did not attempt to get registration to the Phd., course from Bangalore University. It is false to suggest that my senior officer- in-charge and other senior officers have assisted me in getting renewal of recognition. It is false to suggest that unless the 16 C.C.No.17953/2012 Regional Director, Additional Director and Officer-In-charge together right to get the renewal no renewal of recognition to the Phd., Course. The witness voluntaries that only then Regional Director has written such letter to the University. I have not written any letter to said renewal. It is false to suggest that I have given enough of such opportunity. It is true that I have trained several students of Bangalore University during my tenure at Nagarabhavi. I don't remember whether I trained the Bangalore University Students after 2009.
I have not named the names of my colleagues in front of whom A1 said to have called me as stupid idiot lady as stated in my chief examination. Out of my said colleagues I examined only PW-
2. I have not made other my colleagues as witnesses in my complaint. It is false to suggest A1 never called me as stupid idior lady infront of any of my colleagues. It is false to suggest that to harass A1 I am deposing falsely. It is false to suggest that the laboratory work is a team work. It is true that there are chances of working in the laboratory as team work but such chances are very rare. On 30.3.2010 myself, A1 and 2 and PW2 were present in chemistry lab. I cannot say the place of other colleagues on that day. I do not know whether any of my colleagues informed to my higher authorities about any shouting on 30.3.2010. It is true that each and every officer shall submit the monthly report. I have not produced my monthly report in this case. It is not true to suggest that the monthly report should contain all the happenings on every day. I can produce xerox copies of my monthly report for the period from 2009 January to till December-2009. It is false to suggest that there was no shouting or any untoward incident on 30.3.2010. It is false to suggest that the Regional Director takes the report pertaining to any untoward incident on every day basis.17 C.C.No.17953/2012
The witness voluntaries the Regional Director takes such report only if any receipt of complaint. it is false to suggest that A1 has not asked anybody to take me to the psychiatrist with department vehicle. It is false to suggest that no such incident was taken place and I am deposing falsely. I do not know whether under the civil service rules only written instructions has to be issued but not oral instructions. Accused No.1 was officer-in-charge from July- 2009 to 1st week of June-2012. I do not whether any other colleagues have made any complaints against A1 during his tenure as officer-in-charge. I had knowledge that A1 would retire this year. I am not aware whether gratuity and commutation of pension will be held up if criminal case is pending against the official who retires. It is false to suggest that I told to my colleagues that I would file criminal case against A1 and stall his pension or pensionary benefits or retirement benefits. It is false to suggest that only with malasis intention I filed this case against A1. I don't know whether A1 has already retire from his service. I do not know whether because of pendency of this complaint the retirement of A1 is held up. It is true that I got issued legal notice to A1. On 27.6.2011 said legal notice was issued. Right from my joining to Nagarabhavi office A2 has been nurturing hostility against me. It is false to suggest that A2 never nurtured hostility or spite against me. It is false to suggest that A2 never stated that I have behaviour problem. It is false to suggest that I am deposing falsely against A2.
The name of my paternal grand father is C.Appavu Riutar and I do not remember the name of my maternal grand father. So, also the names of my peternal grand mother is Amina Beevi and maternal grand mother Meera Mothi Ammal. My father name is Meera Chini Thankappan and my mother Musavakkammal. My 18 C.C.No.17953/2012 parents are from Kerala. I do not know my earlier officer-in-charge has not made any report to my higher officers about disparage statement alleged to be made by A3 against my parentage. It is true that I have not made any reference either in my complaint or in my sworn statement as A3 has been making disparage remarks against my parentage to other colleagues in the office like Smt.B.Gomathiamma a senior colleague of me. I do not know above any discussion held on 4.2.2011. It is false to suggest that A3 and others were busy to conduct seminar on 4.2.2011 and A3 has not called me totally cystic lady and in order to scuttle the said program I made false allegation against A3.
I do not know who is the sanctioning authority, but officer- in-charge is one of the recommending authorities for PRIS. I do not know the names of other recommending authorities. I do not know whether the Regional Director is the sanctioning authority and the Additional Director (Operation-II) is the recommending authority for PRIS. It is false to suggest that officer-in-charge has no role to play either in sanctioning or for recommendation for PRIS. Now, I am getting PRIS. I am getting PRIS G only. No order preventing me in getting PRIS. Witness voluntaries that she was prevented to get PRIS. I do not know whether due to pendency of this criminal case A1 to 3 are denied PRIS. It is false to suggest that I am referring A1 to 3 are criminals with my colleagues. It is true that I have furnished details of this case against A1 to 3 to my higher authorities. It is false to suggest that I requested my higher authorities to stop all benefits due to pendency of this case. It is false to suggest that I had no reason to file this complaint against A1 to 3 and only to cause mental torture to them I filed this complaint. It is false to suggest that A1 to 3 have not committed any offence.
19 C.C.No.17953/2012FURTHER EXAMINATION: NIL (Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M. ,BANGALORE CITY.
C.C.No: 25137/2012
DEPOSITION OF : Roopa Bhose
HUSBAND'S NAME : Sri.Jaideep Bhose
AGE : 48 years. PW-2
OCCUPATION : Scientific Officer
RESIDENCE : Nagarabhavi, Bangalore
DULY SWORN ON : 26/05/2014
EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
At present I am working as a Scientific Officer in Department of Atomic Energy at Nagarabhavi, Bangalore. I know the complainant and accused No.1 to 3. The witness has identified her signature in Ex.P17 and she further stated that she cannot remember the contents of said document. The said signature is marked as Ex.P17(a). I cannot remember regarding the fact finding committee constituted in our department pertaining to 20 C.C.No.17953/2012 complainant. Further, I cannot remember any statement given before such committee.
(At this stage the counsel for the complainant sought permission to treat this witness hostile. Looking into the chief evidence. Permission is granted).
CROSS EXAMINATION BY Sri.AJS, ADVOCATE:
Accused No.1 was my in-charge officer. I cannot remember whether accused No.1 has stated before me that the complainant be taken to Psychiatrist. I cannot remember whether I have stated before fact finding committee that accused No.1 called the complainant has stupid idiot lady. It is false to suggest that having given such statement said committee, no deliberately deposing false before the Court. Further, it is false to suggest that in order to help the accused persons I am deposing falsely. I cannot remember whether there was groupisim in our department. I cannot remember whether complainant was a victim to the said groupisim. I am not aware whether any report given by the fact finding committee to our higher authorities.
Q: Pursuant to the report of fact finding committee whether accused No.1 was removed from the post of in-charge and transferred to Hyderabad?
Ans: At present the accused No.1 is working in Hyderabad. But, I don't know in respect of other matter.
Q: Do you know whether accused No.2 has been transferred to Hyderabad after the report?
Ans: I don't know accused No.2 has transferred to Hyderabad. However, she is working in Hyderabad.
It is false to suggest that having knowledge of all the incident to help the accused, I am deposing falsely.21 C.C.No.17953/2012
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: Sri.PU, ADVOCATE:
I am aware that the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules is applicable to my department. I am not aware whether before giving evidence before any Court of law, I have obtain permission from my higher authorities. I have sought permission to give evidence in this case. My higher authorities have given permission orally. No written permission is given. I am not aware whether have to obtain in writing pertaining to any oral direction given by any superior officer.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. 22 C.C.No.17953/2012 23 C.C.No.17953/2012 AGAIN THE COMPLAINANT ENTERED WITNESS BOX DULY SWORN ON : 24/04/2014 FURTHER EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
The accused No.1 in the month of July-2009 took over the charge as the officer-in-charge of Chemistry Laboratory.
Now, I see four post acknowledgments for having served my complaint dated 20.01.2011 to my higher authorities, office copy of the said complaint, another office copy of complaint dated 06.01.2011 which is annexure to Ex.P5, another copy of complaint dated 05.02.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 05.02.2011, another copy of complaint dated 14.06.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 14.05.2011, the postal cover with acknowledgment for having sent legal notice to accused No.1 and it was returned as refused, copy of the legal notice dated 27.06.2011, the letter dated 05.08.2011 addressed by the Public Information of my department to me and it is already marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Under RTI Ex.P14 was issued and along with Ex.P14, annexure 1 to 3 are supplied to me which are part of Ex.P14. Annexure-3C is the statement of accused No.2 before the Preliminary Enquiry Committee. Now, I see the letter dated 10.05.2012 supplied by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with one enclosure the report of the fact finding committee along with the statement of all the witnesses before the said enquiry committee and it is marked as Ex.P15. The postal acknowledgment for having served legal notice to accused No.3 dated 27.06.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P16. Another copy of letter dated 23.08.2012 issued by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with copy of statement of Dr.Roopa Bose given 24 C.C.No.17953/2012 before fact finding committee on 16.09.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P17. Copy of the intimation given by me as required under rule 19(2) of Central Civil Service Conduct Rules dated 29.12.2011 along with enclosure and it is marked as Ex.P18. Postal acknowledgment for having served said intimation letter to my higher authorities and it is marked as Ex.P19.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. RN, ADVOCATE;-
Sri. RN, Advocate at request of counsel for accused of cross examination is deferred.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M.