Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka Represented vs Sriramareddy S/O S.Muniswamy on 25 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-24)
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2017
PRESENT
SHRI GOPAL, B.Com.LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
SPL.C.C. NO.148/2005
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka represented
by Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police Wing City
Division, Bengaluru.
(By Sri D. Ramesh Babu, Special
Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: Sriramareddy S/o S.Muniswamy
Reddy, aged about 51 years,
Revenue Inspector, Varthur
Circle, Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru Taluk, residing at
D.No.98, 3rd Stage, 7th Cross
Road, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra,
Advocate)
2 Spl.C.C.148/2005
JUDGMENT
1. The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Gadag has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the accused has accumulated asset worth Rs 36,26,213.32 paise disproportionate to his known source of income which is at 104.17% by misusing his official position during the check period 08.09.1972 to 03.01.2000 and committed the alleged offence.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused being a Government servant joined the services of Revenue Department as Village Accountant in the year 1972 and he was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 01.01.1994. At the time of registering the case, he was working as Revenue Inspector. Based on credible information that the accused has amassed wealth illegally, Lokayuktha Police have collected the information and documents and source of accumulation 3 Spl.C.C.148/2005 of property by the accused. Source report submitted by deceased CW 1 A.L.Desai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru. Pursuant to the order of Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, CW 1 A.L.Desai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Registered the case against the accused in Crime No.1/2000 for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 03.01.2000. That on 04.01.2000 CW 1 filed an application under section 93 Cr.P.C on the file of this Court for search warrant. Accordingly, search warrant was issued for search of the office of the accused situated at Varthur Circle, Bengaluru South, and Jigani Taluk, Anekal Taluk and residential house of accused situated at No.98, 3rd Stage, 7th Cross Road, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru and seized cash of Rs 1,03,210/- and documents from the house of the accused and also seized documents from the residential house of father of 4 Spl.C.C.148/2005 accused at Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. Pursuant to the order of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha order dated 04.02.2004, CW 26 R.C.Lokesh Kumar, Police Inspector took the charge from CW 1 and continued investigation. That on 31.03.2004, Inspector General of Lokayuktha, passed an order directing the CW 26 to hand over the charges of the case to CW 27 Gurudath, Police Inspector to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, CW 27 conducted frther investigation and called for explanation from the accused with regard to amassing wealth, for which the accused submitted schedule to the Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation and obtained sanction order to prosecute the accused laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offence.
3. The accused was secured and he appeared through his counsel. Copies of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C and the case was posted for hearing before the charge. After hearing, on 17.09.2009 my learned 5 Spl.C.C.148/2005 predecessor has framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it was read over and explained to the accused who pleads not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined in all ten witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 and got marked documents at Exs P1 to P77. After closure of the prosecution side, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against him as false and he has not chosen to examine any witnesses in support of his defence.
5. Both the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused addressed their arguments and counsel for the accused also submitted written arguments.
6. The following points arise for consideration are :
6 Spl.C.C.148/2005
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being public servant working as Government servant working as Revenue Inspector, Varthur Circle, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru Taluk and during his tenure as a public servant for the period from 08.09.1972 to 03.01.2000 the accused acquired properties and assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that on or about 03.01.2000 the 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 61,14,819.57 paise and the expenses of the accused and his family members during the check period was Rs 9,92,243.75 paise and the total income of the accused and his family members was Rs 71,07,063.32 paise and that during the said period the known source of income was Rs 34,80,850.00 and thus the accused was found in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs 36,26,213.32 paise for which the accused has not satisfactorily accounted and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What order?
7 Spl.C.C.148/2005
7. My findings on the above points are as:
Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following REASONS
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being a public servant holding the post of Revenue Inspector of Varthur Circle, Bengaluru City has accumulated asset worth of Rs 36,26,213.32 paise which is 104.17% disproportionate to the known source of income during the check period 08.09.1972 to 03.01.2000 and he has not satisfactory explained about the possession of the property illegally.
9. Before going to decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to decide the validity of the sanction order at Ex P5 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban.
10. Valid sanction is sine qua non in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In view of section 19 of the Act the Court cannot take cognizance 8 Spl.C.C.148/2005 of the offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 alleged to have been committed by the public servant except with the previous sanction by the competent authority. It is well settled law that the sanction order can be challenged on two grounds; one is the competency of the sanctioning authority and another is the non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
11. PW.4 M.S.Sadiq who was working as Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban has deposed that he has received the letter from the Assistant Director General of Police, Lokayuktha, Bengaluru along with the prosecution papers such as FIR, Mahazars, final report and other documents seeking sanction order to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences. After perusal of the prosecution papers he found that there was a prima facie case to issue sanction order to prosecute the accused. Accordingly, he issued Ex P5 9 Spl.C.C.148/2005 sanction order to prosecute the accused. In the course of cross examination, nothing has been elicited that he has not applied his mind while issuing sanction order and he is not the competent authority to accord sanction order at Ex P5. The only contention of the accused that the PW 4 has issued the sanction order mechanically though there were no disproportionate assets against the accused.
12. On careful perusal of the sanction order at Ex P5 and the evidence of PW 4 proves that PW 4 is the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute the accused and he has applied his mind for issuing sanction order. Thus, the prosecution has proved the sanction order issued by PW 4 for prosecuting the accused is valid.
13. Now the next point that arises for consideration is whether the accused has accumulated the asset disproportionate to the known source of income during the check period from 08.09.1972 to 10 Spl.C.C.148/2005 03.01.2000. According to the prosecution, during the check period, the total asset of the accused is Rs.61,14,819.57 paise and the expenditure of the accused is Rs.09,92,243.73 paise and the income of the accused is Rs.34,80,850.00 and disproportionate asset to the known source of income is Rs.36,26,213.32 paise which is 104.17%. 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.
14. On reading of the decision reported in 1991 (3) SCC page 6555 in K. Veeraswamy V/s Union of India wherein their Lordships have 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 11 Spl.C.C.148/2005 account satisfactorily for the disproportionate of the properties possessed by him."
15. In view of the said decision, the initial burden to is on the prosecution to prove that accused has amassed wealth in his name and in the name of his family member. 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.
16. The prosecution to bring home the guilt against the accused examined PW 1 Jayanna, PW 2 Smt.N.Nagaralakshmi, PW 3 N.Janardhan, PW 6 K.M.Vijayakumar who are the mahazar witnesses who accompanies the police officials to the house of the accused, house of the father of the accused and office of the accused and they speak about the conducting of the panchanama as per Ex P1 dated 4.1.2000, Ex P2 12 Spl.C.C.148/2005 mahazar dated 05.01.2000, Ex P3 mahazar dated 19.01.2000, Ex P4 mahazar dated 04.01.2000 and seized property documents and also cash of Rs 1,03,210/-, bank documents etc. The accused has not disputed the conduct of the mahazar by the Investigating Officer in his residential house and also in the office of the accused and so also in the house of the father of the accused and collected the documents in the course of his cross examination.
17. PW 5 Pranesh Kumar working as Assistant Executive Engineer, deposed about the inspection and valuation of the one of the building in the possession of the accused and given his report at Ex P6. According to Ex P6 the valuation of the building is Rs 7,94,000/- excluding the site value. The said fact is now not seriously disputed by the accused in the course of cross examination.
18. PW 7 Srirama Reddy working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Technical Wing of Lokayuktha, 13 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Bengaluru, has deposed that on 15.05.2000 he inspected five buildings and assessed the value of the buildings and given his report as per Ex P7. The said valuation report made by PW 7 is not in dispute.
19. PW 8 G.S.Gajendra Prasad who speaks about the conduct of the partial investigation from 04.11.2002 to 31.03.2004 and collected the documents at Exs P8 to P32. The accused has not chosen to cross examine the witness and admitted the collection of documents at Exs P8 to P32 by PW 8 during investigation.
20. PW 9 R.C.Lokesh Kumar speaks about the handing over of the charges to PW 10 Grudhath who was working as Police Inspector of Lokayuktha.
21. PW 10 G.Gurudath has deposed about the conduct of the further investigation and collected various documents from the various departments with respect to the accused and his family members and after completion of investigation, he prepared final report Ex P77 and thereafter called for explanation from the 14 Spl.C.C.148/2005 accused who submitted the schedule to Ex P77. After completion of investigation, he found that the accused has amassed asset disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period.
22. According to the prosecution, during the check period from 08.09.1972 to 03.01.2000 the total assets of the accused are as under:
Sl. Description of movable and Amount No. immovable properties ( in rupees) 1 Commercial complex No.950/40 situated at 27th 'A' Main Road, 9th Block, Jayanagara Bengaluru standing in the name of the accused 5,25,637/-2 House No.397 situated at 11th
Cross, 2nd stage, 20th Main, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru belonging to the accused 10,44,000/-
3 Land bearing Sy.No.79/4 measuring 28 guntas situated at Jigani village, Anekal Taluk, belonging to the accused 8,000/-
4 Property bearing No.1517/116/1 situated at Hongasandra village, Begru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk belonging to the accused 5,00,000/-
5 Land bearing Sy.No.33/1, 32/2, 32/3, 32/4 and 32/5 totally measuring 4 acres 16 guntas situated at Hale Sampigehalli village, Anekal Taluk belonging to the accused 2,34,000/-
15 Spl.C.C.148/2005 6 Site and the building constructed in the site situated at 7th cross, Sarakki, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru belonging to the accused 16,70,166/- 7 Site and building constructed in the site No.1158 situated at 28th 'A' Main Road, 9th block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 1,61,636/-
8 Land bearing Sy.No.48/2
measuring 0.08.77 guntas
situated at Thurahalli village, Bengaluru Uttarahalli Hobli 10,000/- 9 Site measuring 60 x 40 carved in Sy.No.11 and asbestows sheet building constructed to the extent of 13 x 19 situated at Tavarekere village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 3,69,966/-
10 Site No.59/1 measuring 86 x 39 inwhich there is Mangaluru Tile roof house to the extent of 1 sq feet situated at N.S.Palya village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 1,90,000/-
11 Land bearing 0.08.77 in Sy.No.48/2 situated at Thurahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 30,000/-
12 10 acres of land in Sy.No.156 and 156/3 situated at Mantapa village, Anekal Taluk 1,50,000/-
13 Amount in S.B.Account No.3998 of Karnataka Bank, Sarakki, Bengaluru 23,221.50 14 Amount in S.B.Account No.3999 of Karnataka Bank, Sarakki, Bengaluru 9,392.20 16 Spl.C.C.148/2005 15 Amount in S.B.Account No.4297 of Indian Overseas Bank, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru 19,082/-
16 Amount in S.B.Account No.46252 of Indian Overseas Bank, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru standing in the name of Lakshmidevi daughter of the accused 100/-
17 Fixed Deposit in The Bharat Co-
operative Bank, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru 3,000/-
18 Amount in S.B.Account No.19617 of The Bharat Co-operative Bank, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 3,758/-
19 Sirilakshmi Fixed Deposit and Vasantha Lakshmi Price Bond at Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1,000/- Chamarajapete, Bengaluru 1000/-
20 Amount in S.B.Khata No.3498 at The Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru 5,935/-
21 Amount in S.B.Khata No.9347 at ING Vysya Bank, 3rd Cross, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 639-87 22 Deposits at Karnataka Bengaluru, Sarakki, J.P.Nagara, Bengaluru 2,00,000/-
23 Deposit amount at Karnataka
State Finance Commission,
Jayanagara Branch, Bengaluru 13,000/-
24 Amount in S.B.Khata No.2701 at The Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru standing in the name of son of accused 20,644/-
25 Shares in Bharath Co-operative Bank by the accused 250/-
26 Amount in The Peerless General Finance Co. 8,195/-
17 Spl.C.C.148/2005 27 Deposit amount for obtaining the membership by the accused from Talakaveri Housine construction co-operative society 300/-
28 Membership obtained by the accused from Reddy Janasangha, No.73, Jayachamarajendra Road, Bengaluru 500/-
29 Indira Vikas Pathra standing in the
name of accused 500/-
30 Value of the Bajaj Chethak vehicle
bearing No.KA.05.X.9843 25,807/-
31 Value of Maruthi Zen Car bearing
No.KA.05.N.6085 1,35,000/-
32 Deposit in the Gas Agency by the
accused 950/-
33 Amount in LIC Policy
No.360203641 paid by the
accused in the name of his son
Madhusudhan 7,696/-
34 Amount paid to LIC Policy
standing in the name of daughter of the accused namely Lakshmidevi 7,868/-
35 Value of the household articles found at the time of search of the house of the accused 4,70,325/-
36 Value of the gold and silver
ornaments found at the time of
search of the house of the
accused 1,60,000/-
37 Cash found in the house of the
accused at the time of search 1,03,250/-
Total 61,14,819.57
23. Details of the income of the accused during the check period from 1.6.1992 to 3.11.2007 are as under:
18 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Sl. Particulars of income Amount No. ( in rupees) 1 Total salary obtained by the 7,77,487/-
accused
2 Income derived from the
agriculture
i. income derived from 28
guntas of land in -
Sy.No.79/4, Jigani village,
Anekal Taluk
ii. Agriculture income from
10 acres of land in
Sy.No.156 and 156/3 of 8,000/-
Mantapa village, Anekal
Taluk
iii. Agricultural income from
4 acres 16 guntas in
Sy.No.33/1, 32/2, 32/3,
32/4 and 32/5 of Hale 1,90,000/-
Sampige Halli village
3 Income derived from the LIC
Policies Nos 39146145, 48629898, 610301212 and 611906369 to the accused 26,204/-
4 Interest received from bank
accounts 41,769/-
5 Loan without interest obtained by
the accused from his sister
Smt.Narayanamma 2,00,000/-
6 Income from house rent received
by the accused
i) Rent received from 2,74,190/-
commercial complex
No.950/40 during check
period
19 Spl.C.C.148/2005
ii) Rent received from house 2,12,500/-
No.1517/116/1 during
check period
iii) Rent received from 1,20,700/-
House No.1158 during
check period
7 Amount received due to sale of 10
acres of land in Sy.No.156/3 of
Mantapa Village, Anekal Taluk 2,75,000/-
8 Amount received for the sale of
house No.397, 11th Cross,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru 13,55,000/-
Total 34,80,850/-
24. Details of the expenditure incurred by the accused for himself and for the members of his family during the check period from 08.09.1972 to 03.01.2000 are as under:
Sl. Particulars of expenditure Amount No. ( in rupees) 1 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of commercial complex No.950/40, 27th Main Road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru 25,225.00 2 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of House No.397, 11th Cross, 2nd Stage, 20th Main Road, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru 55,570/-
20 Spl.C.C.148/2005 3 Expenditure incurred for purchase of 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/4 of Jigani village, Anekal Taluk Not available 4 Expenditure incurred for executing the agreement for sale of Farm House No.1517/116/1 in Sy.No. 116 of Hongasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South 10/- 5 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of 4 acres 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/1, 32/2, 32/3, 32/4 and 32/5 of Hale Sampige Halli village 35,145/- 6 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of site No.98, 7th Cross, J.P.Nagar Bengaluru 53,220/- 7 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of site No.1158, 26th 'A' Main Road, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 3,906/- 8 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of 0.08.77 guntas in Sy.No.48/2 of Thurahalli village 4,690/-
9 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of site No.11, of Tavarekere village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South 57,625/-
10 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of House No.59/1, Khata No.139/4, N.S.Palya village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South 28,330/-
21 Spl.C.C.148/2005 11 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of 0.08.77 guntas in Sy.No.48/2 of Thurahalli village 4,690/-
12 Stamp fees, registration fees and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of purchase of 10 acres in Sy.No.156 and 156/3 of Mantapa village 22,600/-
13 Tax and other taxes paid in respect of Site No.11 16,249/- 14 Tax and other taxes paid in respect of House No.1158, 26th 'A' Main, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru 15,359.45 15 Electricity consumption charges in respect of R.R.No.SH 19780 of House No.1158, 26th 'A' Main, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 40,839/- 16 Tax paid in respect of House No.98, New No.506/98, 7th Cross, Sarakki, J.P.Nagara, Bengaluru 10,860/- 17 Tax paid in respect of House No.950/40, 27th 'A' Main Road, 9th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 56,150/- 18 Tax paid in respect of land Sy.No.33/1, 32/2, 32/3, 32/4 and 32/5 of Hale Sampige Halli village 20/- 19 Expenditure incurred for the Maruthi Car No.KA.05.N.6085 belonging to the accused 5,000/- 20 Expenditure incurred for 37,883/-
telephone by the accused 21 Expenditure incurred for the education of children of the accused 49,723/-
22 Expenditure incurred for cylinder for the use of house 29,984.30 22 Spl.C.C.148/2005 23 Expenditure incurred for the marriage of the daughter of the accused namely Lakshmidevi 25,815/-
24 Interest paid to the loan borrowed
from The Bharath Co-operative
Bank 55,284/-
25 Expenditure incurred for food etc
of the family 2,42,109/-
26 Deduction of LIC, KGID, GPF, PT
etc., from the salary of the
accused 1,15,957/-
Total 9,92,243.75
25. As per the prosecution the total assets and liabilities, income and expenditure of the accused is as under:
Sl. Heads Amount (Rs)
No.
1. Total value of the 61,14,819.57
movable and immovable
properties standing in
the name of the accused
and his family members
2. Expenditure incurred by 9,92,243.75
the accused and his
family members
3 Total asset and 71,07,063.32
expenditure
4 Income of the accused 34,80,850/-
and his family members
from all sources
5. Disproportionate assets 36,26,213.32
of the accused.
6. Percentage of DA 104.17%
23 Spl.C.C.148/2005
26. According to the prosecution the disproportionate assets of the accused is Rs 36,26,213.32 paise. The accused has disputed the disproportionate asset acquired by him during his tenure of his service. He stated while examining him under section 313 of Cr.P.C that the income is more than the asset and the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet due to malafide intention.
27. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has got a property in a partition decree. The said asset obtained by the accused has to be excluded in the asset of the accused, but the Investigating Officer erringly included the worth of the property acquired by the accused in the compromise decree of the partition in the asset of the accused.
28. Further, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the house bearing No.397 possessed by the accused has been sold in the year 1995 for a sale
24 Spl.C.C.148/2005 consideration amount of Rs 13,55,000/- prior to the registration of the present case. The said sale consideration amount has been declared by the accused in his income tax returns and it must be shown as income of the accused.
29. Further, the Investigating Officer has not considered the rental income and also the advance of rent received by the accused in his property and even though the same has been declared in the income tax returns by the accused and the said rental amount has to be included to the income of the accused.
30. Further the learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused sold totally 10 acres of land in Sy.No.56 and 56/3 and the accused received advance amount of Rs 2.75,000/- as on the date of the agreement and remaining amount of Rs 7,25,000/- through the cheque. The said amount has to be shown in the income of the accused, but the Investigating Officer has not included in the income of the accused 25 Spl.C.C.148/2005 but wrongly shown that the accused has accumulated the disproportionate property to his known source of income by suppressing the income of the accused which is more than asset value of the accused owned by him.
31. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused has not declared the ancestral property had by him neither in the asset and liabilities submitted to the revenue department nor in the income tax returns. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has not taken into consideration the said asset. The partition decree obtained by him immediately within a span of 2-3 months by instituting the suit. The accused created the documents to prove that he has not acquired the property disproportionate to his known source of income. Further, the accused has not placed any material to prove that he has received the advance and rent from the various tenants. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has not taken into consideration of the said rental amount. The calculation of amount of documentary evidence by the Investigating Officer 26 Spl.C.C.148/2005 clearly shows that the accused has accumulated the property disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period.
32. Let us discuss the disputed items of the property and income raised by the accused by one by one. According to the accused, the property obtained under the partition deed has to be excluded in the asset column calculated by the prosecution. On perusal of Ex P57 the certified copy of the order sheet, plaint in O.S.NO.7604/1994 filed on 23.12.1994 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru and compromise petition. Compromise decree dated 21.05.1995 discloses that in the year 1994 one P.Shivashankar Reddy instituted the suit in O.S.NO.7604/1994 against the first defendant Muniswamy Reddy, 2nd defendant Sri.Ramareddy (the accused herein) and 3rd defendant Madusudhan for partition and separate possession and the said suit was ended in compromise on 25.01.1995. As per the compromise decree 'B' schedule was allotted to the 27 Spl.C.C.148/2005 share of the accused. 'B' schedule is the site No.950/40 situated at 27th Main Road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru measuring 40 x 60 with R.C.C roof, Site No.397, 11th cross, 11th phase, 20th Main Road, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru with RCC roof building and Sy.No.79/4 measuring 28 guntas of Jigani village, Anekal Taluk. The said property acquired by the accused has not been disputed by PW 10 the Investigating Officer in the course of cross examination. According to the Investigating Officer, the accused has manipulated documents to show that he has not own disproportionate property. I need to note that the parititon suit filed on 23.12.1994. The said suit was ended in compromise on 25.01.1995. The criminal case for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in crime No.1/2000 was registered by CW 1 on 03.01.2000. So the accused has got the property through the partition decree five years prior to the institution of the suit. It cannot be said that the 28 Spl.C.C.148/2005 accused has anticipated of a possible raid by the Lokayuktha Police after 5 years and he has to create documents to show that he has acquired the property legally. Five years prior to the registration of the present criminal case, the accused has got property under compromise decree in the partition suit. After, he got the property under partition decree, the accused has declared the same in Ex P58 Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97.
33. In page 17 of his cross examination, the Investigating Officer has stated that the property got by the accused under partition decree worth of Rs 28 lakhs, but the accused has suggested that the said property acquired through partition decree is Rs20,77,637/-. On perusal of the assets calculated by the Investigating Officer in Ex P77 discloses that the Investigating Officer has taken into consideration of the property acquired by the accused under compromise partition decree related to commercial complex No.950/40, 27th Main Road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru at Rs 5,25,637/-, house 29 Spl.C.C.148/2005 No.397, 11th Cross, 2nd Stage, 20th Main Road, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru at Rs 10,44,000/- and 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/4 of Jigani village, Anekal Taluk at Rs 8,000/- and total of these three items comes to Rs 15,77,637/-. Though, the Investigating Officer has admitted that the property got by the accused under partition decree worth Rs 28,00,000/-, but he has not properly explained as to why he has not excluded the said value of the amount in the asset column. The said value of the property acquired by the accused under partition decree must be excluded in the asset column calculated by the Investigating Officer. As per the prosecution, the total asset of the accused during the check period is Rs 61,14,819.57. Item Nos 1 to 3 shown in the asset column of the accused are the properties acquired by the accused under the compromise partition decree. The said value of the property taken by the Investigating Officer at Rs 5,25,637.00, Rs 10,44,000/- and Rs 8,000/- and that value of the property has to be excluded from the asset 30 Spl.C.C.148/2005 of the accused. As per the prosecution, the total asset and expenditure of the accused was Rs 71,07,062/- (Rs 61,14,819.57 + 9,92,243-75). After the deducting the amount of Rs 15,77,637/- (Rs 5,25,637.00, Rs 10,44,000/- and Rs 8,000/-) the total asset and expenditure of the accused comes to Rs 55,29,427/-.
34. The accused has taken up the contention that in Ex P77 page No.29 shown the house No.397 situated at 11th Cross, 2nd Stage, 20th Main Road, J.P.Nagara, Bengaluru sold by the accused in the year 1995 for sale consideration of Rs 13,55,000/- and the same has been declared by the accused in Ex P58 Page 89 of Income Tax Returns. The said fact has been admitted by PW 10 in the course of cross examination.
35. On perusal of Ex P77 income calculated bh the Investigating Officer discloses that the said amount of Rs 13,55,000/- has been taken into account in income column of the accused. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that the said sale 31 Spl.C.C.148/2005 consideration amount has not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer in income column of the accused is not acceptable and does not holds water.
36. Now the next point raised by the accused that the rent received by the accused from tenants and advance rent has not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. On reading of evidence of PW 10 in para 31 of his cross examination, he admitted that the accused has produced two rental deeds along with the schedule and he has received the advance rent of Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs 75,000/- from two tenants. Further, PW 10 has stated that he has not taken into account the rents received by the accused from various other tenants as the accused has not produced documents before him. But PW 10 has admitted that the receipt of rents and advance amount has been declared by the accused in Ex P51 of Annual Property Returns (APR) to the department and in Ex P58 Income Tax returns for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99. The said rental income 32 Spl.C.C.148/2005 and the advance rent must be considered by the Investigating Officer in the income side of the ax. As per the prosecution, the total income of the accused during the check period is Rs 34,80,850/-. By including the rents, security deposit amount and advance amount (Rs 4,35,000/- + 4,00,000/- + Rs 1,75,000/- = Rs.10,10,000/-) it comes to Rs.10,10,000/- and therefore, the income of the accused during the check period comes to Rs 44,90,850/-.
37. The next item disputed by the accused is that the accused has sold the land bearing Sy.No.156 and 156/3 totally measuring 10 acres of land for sale consideration of Rs 10,00,000/-. The said fact has been admitted by PW 1 in para 30 of his cross examination. The accused sold the property and the said amount has to be considered as income of the accused. The Investigating Officer has considered only advance sale consideration of Rs 2,75,000/-, but he has not considered the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs 7,25,000/- in the income column of the accused. The 33 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Investigating Officer has committed an error by not taking into consideration the remaining sale consideration amount in the income column. The said amount of Rs 7,25,000/- must be included in the income column of the accused during the check period and after adding of the said amount, the income of the accused comes to (Rs 44,90,850/- + 7,25,000/-= 52,15,850/-) Rs.52,15,850/- during the check period and thus, the Investigating Officer has committed an error.
38. The land bearing Sy.No.56 and 56/3 sold by the accused and the same has been admitted by PW 1. When the said landed property was sold by the accused, the value of the said land of Rs 1,50,000/- cannot be taken into account in the asset value of the accused. Therefore, the said amount of Rs 1,50,000/- relating to value of sale of the land bearing Sy.No.56 and 56(3) must be excluded in the total asset and expenditure of the accused. The total asset of the accused was Rs 55,29,425/- and by excluding the value of the said land at Rs 1,50,000/-, it comes to (Rs 55,29,425 - Rs 34 Spl.C.C.148/2005 1,50,000/- = 53,79,425/-) Rs 53,79,425/- including the expenditure. Therefore, the total value of the immovable property standing in the name of the accused and his family members is Rs 53,79,425/- including the expenditure.
Sl. Heads Amount (Rs)
No.
1. Total asset and 53,79,425/-
expenditure of the
accused and his family
members
2. Income of the accused
and his family members
52,15,850/-
from all sources
3 Disproportionate assets 1,63,575/-
of the accused.
4 Percentage of DA Below 10%
39. So, the asset of the accused during the check period comes to less than 10% and there is no disproportionate to the known source of the income. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has amassed wealth during the check period disproportionate to the known source of income. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
35 Spl.C.C.148/2005
40. Point No 3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) Cr.P.C, the accused Sriramareddy is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is set at liberty. His bail bond stands cancelled.
The release of cash of Rs 1,03,250/- seized under P.F.No.1/2000 dated 05.01.2000 in favour of the accused is made absolute. It is hereby ordered to return all the documents relating to properties in favour of the accused after the expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, print out signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2017) Sd/-25/4 [GOPAL] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 36 Spl.C.C.148/2005 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Jayanna PW 2 : N.Nagalakshmi PW 3 : N.Janardhan PW 4 : M.A.Sadiq PW 5 : Pranesh Kumar PW 6 : K.M.Vijayakumar PW 7 : Sriramareddy PW 8 : G.S.Gajendra Prasad PW 9 : B.C.Lokesh Kumar PW 10 : G.Gurudath
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P 1 : Mahazar dated 4.1.2000 Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P1(b) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P2 : Mahazar dated 05.01.2000 Ex P2(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P2(b) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P2 : Mahazar dated 19.01.2000 Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3(b) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P4 : Mahazar dated 04.01.2000 Ex P4(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P4(b) : Signature of PW 6 37 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Ex P5 : Sanction order Ex P5 (a) : Signature of PW 4.
Ex P6 : Valuation Report dated 15.10.2004 Ex P6 (a) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P7 : PWD Valuation report dtd 22.6.2000 Ex P7 (a) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P8 : Pay details of accused Ex P9 : Pay details of accused Ex P10 : KEB House revenue particulars Ex P11 : Revenue particulars in respect of Sy.No.32/2, 32/4, 32/5, 33/1.
Ex P12 : Family expenditure particulars Ex P13 : Revenue documents BBMP Ex P14 : Particulars of the salary of the accused received from the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District.
Ex P 15 : Pahani of Sy.No.116 Ex P 16 : Bank statement in respect of the accused received from Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd Ex P 17 : Revenue Particulars received from Town Municipality, Bommanahalli Ex P 18 : Copy of Encumbrance Certificate Ex P 19 : Telephone Expenditure Ex P 20 : Details of revenue expenditure dtd 15.9.2003 Ex P 21 : Particulars Tax paid in respect of property No.11 of KEB Lay Out Ex P 22 : Bank statement issued by Overseas Bank 38 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Ex P 23 : Details of revenue expenditure in respect of House No.950-40 Jayanagar Ex P 24 : Particulars of revenue in respect of Sy.No.48/2 of Thurahalli village Ex P 25 : Letter dated 17.11.2003 showing the particulars of land revenue in respect of Sy.No.79/4 of Jigani village Ex P 26 : Particulars of mobile No.9845018146 issued by Bharathi Mobile Ltd.
Ex P 27 : Senior Sub-Registrar, Anekal letter dtd 25.11.2003 with copy of documents Ex P 28 : Particulars of property dtd 20.11.2003 issued by the Grama Panchayath, Jigani Ex P 29 : Letter dtd 8.12.2003 showing the details of income tax paid Ex P 30 : Income tax details Ex P 31 : Letter dated 09.01.2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. Ex P 32 : Letter dtd 8.1.2004 showing the particulars of salary of the accused Ex P 33 : Proceedings dated 31.03.2004 Ex P 34 : Source report/ complaint Ex P 35 : Permission order issued by Superintendent of Police Exs P 36 to 38 : Three search warrants Ex P 39 : Pahani's other documents Ex P 40 : Entire volume No.5 39 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Ex P 41 : Entire volume No.6 Ex P 42 : Letter dated 7.1.2000 issued by Cauvery House Building Co-op.Society Ex P 43 : Report/bill dtd 05.12.1999 issued by Kalyani Kala Mandir Ex P 44 : Letter dated 08.01.2000 issued by Bengaluru City Co.op Bank Ltd Ex P 45 : Tax Paid receipts in respect of House No.98 Ex P 46 : 'B' register extract (RTO - South) Ex P 47 : Details of account No.429704652 issued by Indian Overseas Bank Ex P 48 : Letter dated 17.02.2000 issued by M.N.K.R.V. Women college Ex P 49 : Letter dated 19.02.2000 Fixed deposit details issued by Karnataka Bank Ex P 50 : letter dated 24.02.2000 showing the details of Telephone expenses Ex P 51 : Letter dated 26.02.2016 of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District Ex P 52 : Details of payment of tax paid issued by ARO Madivala Ex P 53 : Details of Electricity charges issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L., Jayanagara Ex P 54 : Expenditure in respect of ZEN car issued by RTO South 40 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Ex P 55 : Agriculture report dated 7.9.2000 issued by the Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk Ex P 56 : S.B. Account extract issued by Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank, Jayanagara Ex P 57 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.NO.7604/1994 dated 13.08.2004 Ex P 58 : Letter dated 13.08.2004 showing the details of income tax Ex P 59 : Letter dated 18.08.2004 issued by the Canara Bank Ex P 60 : Details of I.V.P issued by Jayanagara Post Office Ex P 61 : Details in respect of LIC Policy No.360203641 Ex P 62 : Tahasildar Bengaluru South Taluk, Pay details of accused Ex P 63 : Details of bank account No.8341 issued by Syndicate Bank.
Ex P 64 : Details of deposits and bonds in respect of account No.4417 and LF 6/59 issued by Sowharda Co-operative Society.
Ex P 65 : Details of account No.9347 issued by Vysya Bank.
Ex P 66 : Property documents in respect of Sy.No.397 issued by Sub-Registrar, Kengeri. Ex P 67 : Payments in respect of Policy of Peerless Finance and Investment Ltd 41 Spl.C.C.148/2005 Ex P 68 : Details of Shares, FDR's and loan issued by Bharath Co-operative Bank Limited. Ex P 69 : Letter dated 28.08.2004 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District. Ex P 70 : Pass book copies in respect of account No.3498 of Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex P 71 : Letter dated 14.09.2004 in respect of account No.5406 issued by Karnataka Bank.
Exs P 72 & 73 : Income Tax returns documents Ex P 74 : Report dtd 23.9.2004 in respect of Agriculture income and expenditure issued by Special Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk Ex P 75 : Salary details report dtd 11.10.2004 of accused.
Ex P 76 : Salary details of accused dtd 19.10.2004 issued by Local Chartered Accountant Range, Shivamoga.
Ex P 77 : Final report of Investigating Officer List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
NIL
42 Spl.C.C.148/2005 List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
NIL Sd/- 25/4 [GOPAL] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.