Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

The State Of Karnataka vs M.Shivaramegowda on 17 April, 2023

KABC010197442012




IN THE COURT OF LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
    JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act), BENGALURU
                   (C.C.H.No.79)

    Present: Smt. Vineetha P. Shetty,
             B.Sc., M.A. (Sanskrit, English), LL.M.,
             LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge &
             Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru.

               Dated: 17th April 2023
               Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

Complainant:      The State of Karnataka
                  Represented by Lokayukta Police,
                  City Division, Bengaluru.

                  (Represented by Public Prosecutor)

                        vs.

Accused:          M.Shivaramegowda
                  S/o Late Mollegowda,
                  50 years, Junior Engineer,
                  Town Planning Division,
                  BBMP, Bengaluru.
                  (On OOD from Public Works
                  Ports & Inland Water Transport
                  Department) R/o No.G­1,
                  KSRTC Layout, Chikkalasandra,
                  Uttarahalli Main road, Bengaluru­70.

                  (Represented by Sri. Parameshwara N.
                  Hegde, Advocate)
                               2      Spl. C.C. No.196/2012


Date of commission of offence        : 25.02.2009
Date of report of occurrence         : 25.02.2009
Date of arrest of accused            : Not arrested
Date of release of accused on bail   : 17.11.2012
Date of commencement of evidence : 26.03.2018
Date of closure of evidence          : 08.02.2023
Name of the complainant              : V. Shekar, Dy.S.P. ­
                                       II, Karnataka
                                       Lokayukta, City
                                       Division, Bengaluru
Offence complained of                : Section 13(1)(e) r/w.
                                       Sec.13(2) of the
                                       Prevention of
                                       Corruption Act.
Opinion of the Judge                 : Accused is acquitted


                    JUDGMENT

The Dy.S.P, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, has submitted this Charge Sheet, against the accused, for the offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is that­ Accused M. Shivaramegowda hails from a poor agricultural family, of Chennapatna Taluk, and he joined 3 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 the Government service on 12.02.1986, as a Junior Engineer at Public Works Department of Ports and Inland Water Transport, Government of Karnataka, and as on the date of raid i.e., on 26.02.2009, he was working as Junior Engineer at Town Planning Division, BBMP, Bengaluru City.

3. That, the then Dy.S.P. of Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru received a credible information, about accused amassing of assets and pecuniary resources, disproportionate to his known source of income, and accordingly, placed a Source Report, before the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. As per the said Source Report, the known source of income of the accused, during the check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009, was Rs.75,00,000/­, and his approximate expenditure was Rs.10,00,000/­. Further, the accused possessed assets worth Rs.1,95,00,000/­, and therefore, there was possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/­, amounting to 173%, over and above his known source of income. 4 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

4. Based on the Source Report, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, vide his order in Lok/City SP/2/2008 dated 25.02.2009, directed the then Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru to register a case against the accused, and to investigate the matter. Accordingly, a case was registered in Cr.No.17/2009, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The Investigating Officer, thereafter secured search warrants, and on 26.02.2009, conducted search at the house No.G­1, 'Chaitra Nilaya', 3rd Cross, 6th Main, KSRTC Layout, Uttarahalli Main Road, Chikkalsandra, Bengaluru. Upon search of the said house, the search team found, several house hold articles, gold ornaments, silver articles and cash of Rs.14,500/­, and the property documents. They were reported to the Court under PF No.22/2009. The Investigating Officer CW101 Dy.S.P., Lokayukta Bengaluru City Division, after completion of 5 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 investigation, arrived at a conclusion that, the known source of income of the accused was Rs.4,46,23,372.18/­, his approximate expenditure was Rs.2,45,10,780.31/­, and the accused possessed assets worth Rs.3,32,37,239.63/­, and thereby the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known source of income, to the tune of Rs.1,31,24,647.76/­, which is 29.41%, over and above his known source of income.

6. CW100 ­ Dy.S.P., Lokayukta Bengaluru City Division, thereafter sent the Final Report to BBMP, seeking Prosecution Sanction Order. After obtaining Sanction Order on 10.09.2012, CW101 ­ Dy.S.P., Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, filed the Charge Sheet against the accused, for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.

7. On receipt of the Charge Sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken. After receipt of summons, the 6 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 accused entered appearance through his counsel. The copy of the Charge Sheet and its enclosures, were supplied to him. After hearing both sides, charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses as PW1 to PW18, marked 135 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.135 and closed its side.

9. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence which appeared against him, and lead evidence on defence side.

10. The accused examined 4 witnesses as DW1 to DW4, marked one document as Ex.D.1, and closed his side.

11. Heard the arguments of the learned PP and Sri.Parameshwara N. Hegde, Advocate, the learned Counsel for accused. The learned counsel, has also filed written arguments.

7 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

12. The learned counsel for accused relied on the following citations - (1981) 3 SCC 199 in State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, (1992) 4 SCC 45 in M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, (2017) 14 SCC 442 in Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1974) 1 SCC 3 in Jaydayal Poddar (deceased) through LRs and another vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra and others, (1997) 6 SCC 185 in Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of MP and another, and (1997) 6 SCC 171 in Vijender vs. State of Delhi.

13. Now, the following points would arise for my consideration:

1. Does the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused being a public servant as on 26.02.2009, working as Junior Engineer, Town Planning Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, on OOD from Public Works Ports and Inland Water Transport Department, during the check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 was found to be in possession of assets in his name, and also in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.3,32,37,239.63/­, and incurred 8 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 expenses to the extent of Rs.2,45,10,780.31/­, whereas, his income during the said period was Rs.4,46,23,372.18/­, as per the search conducted at his house on 26.06.2009, and on the basis of other documents collected in the course of investigation, and therefore, found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.1,31,24,647.76/­, in excess of his known source of income, for which he could not satisfactorily account, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

2. What order ?

14. My findings to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order below for the following REASONS

15. Point No.1: According to the Prosecution, during the check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009, the accused acquired assets in his name, and also in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.3,32,37,239.63/­ and incurred expenditure of 9 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Rs.2,45,10,780.31/­, that his known source of income during the check period was Rs.4,46,23,372.18/­, and his total assets and expenditure stood at Rs.5,77,48,019.94/­, but he could not satisfactorily account for the pecuniary sources and properties, to the tune of Rs.1,31,24,647.76/­, which is 29.41% in excess of his known source of income.

16. It is well settled that, mere possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, does not lead to the presumption that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and it is only if the accused fails to offer satisfactory explanation, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, then it amounts to an offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

17. Further, it is also a settled proposition of law, that to substantiate a charge under section 13(1)(e) of the 10 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 P.C. Act, the prosecution must prove that ­ i) the accused is a public servant, ii) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or properties found in his possession, iii) known source of income of the accused i.e., source known to the prosecution and iv) that such resources or properties found in possession of the accused, were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct is complete, unless, the accused is able to account for such resources. In other words, only after the prosecution proves the required ingredients, the onus to satisfactorily account for the possession of such resources or properties, shifts on to the accused. Keeping these principles in mind, let me appreciate the material legal evidence produced on both sides.

18. PW1 ­ G.L. Vimala, the Stenographer of the Forest Department, Bengaluru, is a panch witness. She has deposed that, on the instructions of her higher 11 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 officer, she along with her colleague CW2 - Shivaprakash, went to Lokayuktha Office on 25.02.2009, and both of them were asked to come on the next day i.e., on 26.02.2009, to assist as panchas, and accordingly, they came to Lokayukta Office on 26.02.2009. They were taken to the house of the accused, situated at Uttarahalli, Chikkalasandra, 1st Main road, Bengaluru. Thereafter, search was conducted in the said house. During search, 142 grams of gold ornaments, 800 grams of silver articles, Rs.14,500/­ in cash, were found, and the value of many of the articles, were assessed approximately, and the accused has also produced the receipts in respect of some of the articles.

19. PW1 further deposed that, the property documents found in the house were seized by the Investigation Officer. Three vehicles i.e, TVS Scooty Pep, a Honda Activa two wheeler, and a Maruthi Alto car were found in the portico of the house. A mahazar was prepared in the house of the accused. Thereafter, all of 12 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 them went to State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, and CW1 got the bank locker of the accused opened, with the assistance of the Bank Manager. In the locker, one gold ring, one gold locket and Rs.500/­ were found, and were noted in the mahazar. Ex.P.1 is the House search mahazar, Ex.P.2 is the Locker search Mahazar, and Ex.P.3 is the Search Warrant, referred to by PW1.

20. During cross examination, it is elicited from PW1 on behalf of the accused that, no carpenter was called for assessing the value of the wooden articles. PW1 was not aware, if the goldsmith secured was a licensed appraiser, and if the pearl, coral etc., were separated from the gold ornaments, while calculating the weight of the gold. PW1 deposed that, the mahazar in respect of the Bank locker of the accused was typed, in the house of the accused, but admitted that, Ex.P.2 is a handwritten document.

21. PW2 ­ K.S. Janardhan, is the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Ramanagar, at the relevant time, and he deposed that, in 2012, he was in­charge of Assistant 13 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Director of Agriculture, Chennapatna, for about three months, and during the said period, he received a requisition on 30.05.2011, from Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, city division, Bengaluru, seeking information about Agricultural Income of the accused and his father­in­law ­ Venkategowda. It is found in his evidence that, the earlier Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chennapatna, had submitted a report on 12.01.2012 to the Tahsildar, Chennapatna, instead of Dy.S.P, Karnataka Lokayuktha, and hence, after noticing the said mistake, he submitted a fresh Report to the Dy.SP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, with regard to the income and expenses and the crop details, as per his Report at Ex.P.4. He has referred to the attested copy of letter and the Report of the earlier Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chennapatna, as per Ex.P.5.

22. During cross­examination on behalf of accused, it is elicited that, PW2 had not personally visited 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.190/3 of Bananthahalli village, and 2 acres of land in Sy.No.68 of Bachahalli Village, 14 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 before submitting his Report. PW2 admitted that, the names of crops mentioned in his Report are based on the RTCs, and since from 1997­98 to 2008­09, there was no mention of field crop in the RTC extracts, pertaining to 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.190/3 of Bananthahalli Village. It is elicited that, the net income from the field crops in 2 acres of land in Sy.No.68 of Bachahalli Village, pertaining to the year 2005­06, has not been mentioned in his Report, since there was no such field crop, in the said year. Further, it is also elicited that, the property in respect of which, the earlier Report was given, was standing in the name of Venkategowda and his son Chikkaputtegowda.

23. PW3 - Gunavantha, the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, Chennapatna, has deposed that, he was working as such from 2010 to July 2013, and he had received a requisition from the Lokayuktha Police, seeking valuation of the income received by accused and Venkategowda, from the Horticultural crops, for the period from 1990­91 to 2008­09. 15 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 According to PW3, the property of Venkategowda was in Virupakshapura in Chennapatna Taluk, and the property of accused was in Anchipura Village, and he had visited the property of accused in Anchipura village, to verify the coconut and mango trees standing in the said property, and to make an assessment of the Horticultural Income. His Report is as per Ex.P.6. Further, he had also visited the property of Venkategowda @ Kundappa situated in Virupakshapura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, and verified the coconut trees standing in the said property and made an assessment of the Horticultural income, as per his Report at Ex.P.7.

24. During cross­examination on behalf of the accused, PW3 admitted that, before visiting the lands in Anchipura and Virupakshapura, he had not given any notice to the owners of the land, and in his Reports, he has not mentioned the date on which he had visited the lands. Further, in Sy.No.68, Sericultural crop was also found at the time of his visit, but only coconut crop has 16 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 been shown in RTC, pertaining to Sy.No.68 for the year 2005­06. It is elicited that, the yield depends on the soil and availability of water, and that, PW3 had not enquired about the fertility of the soil. PW3 admitted that, he has not submitted the copy of the guidelines, on the basis of which he had made the calculation.

25. PW3 further admitted that, he had not enquired the owners of the land, with regard to expenses incurred for the maintenance of the property and coconut trees. It is elicited that, there would be difference in the yield, depending on the variety of mango, and that, Ex.P.7 ­ Report is in respect of land of Venkategowda and his son Chikkaputtegowda.

26. PW4 ­ B.G. Kalavathi, the Assistant Director of Agriculture in Chennapatna Taluk, has deposed that, on 18.11.2010, she received a letter from Tahsildar, Chennapatna along with RTCs, seeking information about income and expenditure from some of the agricultural lands. According to PW4, the lands as per 17 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 the RTCs, were standing in the name of Venkategowda and his son. By following the guidelines issued by Farm Management Division of Directorate of Agriculture and by considering the rates maintained by APMC, she assessed the income and expenditure, and submitted a Report to Tahsildar, Chennapatna, as per Ex.P.5.

27. PW5 ­ Pranesh Kumar, the Assistant Engineer in Technical Division of Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, has deposed that, he inspected the property situated at 1) Sy.No.68 of Bachalli, Virupakshipura, Chennapatna Taluk, 2) Sy.No.299 to 303 and 306 to 313 of Benanthahalli, Virupakshipura hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, and 3) 2nd and 3rd floor of building No.G1, Chaitra Nilaya, Uttarahalli Main Road, KRSTC layout, Chikkalasandra, Bengaluru, on 18.05.2010 and 13.08.2010, in the presence of accused, as the said work of preparing a Valuation Report, in respect of buildings, shed, water tank and fencing, which existed in the property of the accused, was entrusted to him, by the 18 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Chief Engineer, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, and accordingly, by considering the year of construction, the nature of materials used, and also by following schedule rates of PWD, he gave Valuation Report, as per Ex.P.8.

28. During Cross­ examination on behalf of the accused, PW5 deposed that he had not ascertained the ownership of property in Sy.No.299 to 303 and 306 to 313 of Benanthahalli, and he had not given any notice to accused prior to his visit, and that, he had not collected the details regarding year of construction, from the persons concerned with the buildings. He did not have any document at the time of his visit to 'Chaitra Nilaya', and he had not enquired the owner or occupier of the said building.

29. PW6 - V. Shekar, Police Inspector attached to Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru, who had worked as such from 20.10.2005 to 02.07.2007, has deposed that, he had received some credible information, about accused accumulating huge assets 19 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 disproportionate to his known sources of income, and hence, he collected further information, and found that, the accused was prima facie having disproportionate assets. Accordingly, he prepared a Source Report as per Ex.P9, and submitted the same to the SP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru, on 11.02.2009, who in turn, on 25.02.2009 directed him to register the case and to take up investigation. Accordingly, he registered the case in crime no.17/2009 and submitted FIR as per Ex.P10, on the basis of authorization at Ex.P11.

30. PW6 further deposed that, he obtained search warrant as per Ex.P.3 on 25.02.2009, secured CW2 ­ Shivaprakash and CW3 ­ Vimala as panch witnesses, and that, on 26.02.2009, at about 5.30 a.m., went to the house of the accused, situated at Chikkakallasandra, Bengaluru. It was a three storied building, the accused was residing in the first floor, the second floor was rented out, and in the ground floor, a two wheeler Activa 20 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Honda bearing KA­01­EA­8853 and a Scooty bearing No.KA­41­K­5429 were found.

31. During search, accused was found with gold ornaments weighing about 95.730 grams, and his wife about 47 grams. Further, 888 grams of silver articles were found in the house, and hence, appraiser Ramlal was secured to weigh and value gold and silver articles. Cash of Rs.14,500/­ found in the house, and gold ornaments excluding the ones found being worn by the accused and his wife, were also seized, along with several documents found in the house, and a detailed mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P1.

32. PW6 has referred to Ex.P.3 Search Warrant and deposed that, after search of the house, he went to State Bank of Mysore, Chikkakalasadra branch, got the bank locker of the accused opened in his presence, and found one gold ring and a gold thaitha and cash of Rs.500/­, which were seized by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P2. On the basis of the materials collected during search, PW6 21 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 gave requisition to different offices, and banks to collect the details of assets, expenditure and income of accused, and secured details of loan availed by Saraswarthi/ wife of accused as per Ex.P12.

33. PW6 secured the details of vehicle insurance policy of Honda activa KA­01­EA­8853 as per Ex.P13, details of SB A/c no.15451 of wife of accused as per Ex.P14, details of housing loan obtained by wife of accused as per Ex.P15, details of expenditures incurred on Maruthi Alto car bearing no.KA­05­MD­9834 as per Ex.P16, details of vehicle loan availed by wife of accused for purchase of Maruthi car as per Ex.P17, details of scooty vehicle no.KA­41­K­5429 as per Ex.P18, details of educational expenditures of two children of accused as per Ex.P19, details of educational expenses of Mohith, son of accused as per Ex.P20, details of expenditure of Honda Activa bearing no.KA­01­EA­8853 as per Ex.P21, details of premium of four LIC policies of accused and his family members as per Ex.P22, details of service 22 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 particulars of accused as per Ex.P23, and salary details of accused as per Ex.P24, Ex.P25, Ex.P26 and Ex.P27.

34. During cross­examination on behalf of accused, PW6 admitted that, signature of appraiser was not taken either to Ex.P.1 or to Ex.P2. It is elicited that, PW6 had not ascertained as to if the articles found in the house at the time of search, were received by him, by way of gift or inheritance or self acquired. While mentioning the value of the wooden furnitures, and electrical goods, he had not availed the help of any carpenter or company. That, he had not verified as to if the appraiser ­ Ramlal was a licensed appraiser, and also not ascertained the age of gold and silver ornaments. The gold and silver ornaments were weighed as it is, without separating pearl, coral and wax.

35. PW7 - Ramalal/appraiser, has deposed that, on 26.02.2009, he was secured by the police, for weighing gold and silver articles, and accordingly, he weighed them and assessed the approximate value of 140 grams 23 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 of gold and 880 grams of silver articles. According to PW7, the silver rate was Rs.16/­ per gram, and gold rate was Rs.1,400/­ per gram, at that time. He was also taken to State Bank of Mysore, and one gold kapali ring and a thaitha, were weighed and assessed by him. During cross­ examination on behalf of the accused, PW7 deposed that, in 2009, he did not have any certificate to show that he was working as a goldsmith and that, he was an expert to assess the jewels.

36. PW8 - Shivalingaiah is the owner of the house in which accused was residing. He deposed that, his house in Shastrinagar, consisted of a ground floor and a first floor, and that, accused was his tenant in ground floor from 1997 to 2001. According to PW8, accused had given a deposit of Rs.1,50,000/­ and interest on this amount was considered as monthly rent. Further, accused was required to pay water charge at the rate of Rs.50/­ per month, and regular electricity bill. In 2001, accused vacated the premises, and at that time, he had 24 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 returned the deposit amount of Rs.1,50,000/­. Ex.P.28 is the document referred to by him. During cross­ examination, PW8 admitted that accused was a tenant from May 1998 to 2001.

37. PW9 ­ H.A. Upendra, the Professor in Veterinary College, Hebbal, Bengaluru, has deposed that, the approximate maintenance cost of the Cocker Spaniel dog for three years was Rs.35,280/­, and the said information as per Ex.P.29 was given by him to Dy.S.P, Karnataka Lokayuktha. During Cross­ examination, PW9 denied the suggestion that Ex.P.29 was given by him as instructed by the police.

38. PW10 ­ Jayadeva Prakash, the Joint Director of Statistics Department, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, has deposed that, he sent the Expenditure Report as per Ex.P.31 to SP Lokayuktha, with regard to invisible expenditure of the accused and his family members, for the check period from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009, which is Rs.6,11,886/­. During cross­ 25 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 examination, PW10 admitted that, the expenditure shown by him is not 100% accurate, but, it is only an estimation, and that, the expenditure of the family would vary depending on food habits and standard of living and status of the family.

39. PW11 ­ A.S. Hanumantharayappa, is the Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru, who had worked as such from 18.11.2009 to 22.02.2010. He received the case file for further investigation from PW6, as per Ex.P32/ the order of the Superintendent of Police. He collected several documents and particulars of three NSC certificates for Rs.700/­ as per Ex.P33, details of purchase of Scooty Pep+ vehicle by accused as per Ex.P34, details regarding telephone connection to the address of wife of accused obtained as per Ex.P.35, treatment records of accused as per Ex.P36, details of purchase of site no.G1 in the name of accused including Encumbrance Certificate and Sale Deed as per Ex.P37. As PW11 is reported dead, his further evidence is not available.

26 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

40. PW12 - Hombegowda is the relative of the accused. He deposed that, the accused owned ancestral property of 2 acres, and other properties belonging to his father­in­law - Venkategowda, and stated that, accused had never purchased any property, in the name of his father­in­law. As PW12 has not supported the case of the prosecution, prosecution treated him hostile. During cross­ examination on behalf of the prosecution, nothing favourable to its case could be elicited, and PW12 even resiled from his original statement, alleged to be made before the police as per Ex.P38.

41. PW13 - Shivanna has deposed that, his mother had sold the land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas, in Sy.No.263/2 of Bananthahalli Village, to Venkategowda for Rs.1,00,000/­, and that one Munimanchegowda was the middleman, for the said transaction. According to PW13, Munimanchegowda had paid the purchase amount. He pleaded inability to state if the accused had purchased the said property in the name of his father­in­ 27 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 law - Venkategowda. PW13 was also treated hostile, and cross examined by the prosecution, but however, nothing favourable to its case could be elicited. PW13 even resiled from his statement alleged to be made before the police as per Ex.P.39.

42. PW14 ­ Venkategowda @ Gundappa is the father­ in­law of the accused. He deposed that, his father was having more than 40 acres of land, and on partition, about 15 acres of land was devolved in his favour. That, he himself had acquired another 10 acres of land. He gave his site in Uttarahalli, Bengaluru, to his daughter - Saraswathi/ wife of accused, and also purchased one site in Chikkalsandra, in the name of said daughter. He also gave Rs.4,00,000/­ to his daughter, for construction of third floor, since the construction was stopped after construction of the second floor, due to her financial constraints.

43. During cross examination, PW14 deposed that, apart from ancestral property, he had purchased 28 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 property in Veerupakshipura, Banantahalli, and Konanakunte also. It is found in his evidence that, he had gifted the lands to his elder daughter Lakshmamma also. According to PW14, his daughter/ the wife of accused had requested him to construct the 3rd floor, due to her financial difficulties, and therefore, it was him who had constructed the 3rd floor, in the building at Uttarahalli, and rented it to tenants. It is also found in his evidence that, at the time of marriage, he had given 1 kg of gold ornaments and 2 kgs of silver articles to Saraswathi/ wife of accused. He has produced documents along with Ex.D.1 - Letter, with regard to all these aspects, and deposed that, he also gave a statement before the IO in this regard.

44. PW15 - Doddahaidaiah is the seller of land in Bananthahalli village of Chennapatna village to PW14. He deposed that, the Sale Deed was registered in Chennapatna in the name of PW14, and at the time of registration, accused was not at all present. He was 29 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 treated hostile by the prosecution. During cross­ examination on behalf of the prosecution, nothing favourable to its case could be elicited and PW15 even resiled from his statement alleged to be made before the police as per Ex.P.40.

45. PW16 - Kempurugaiah is the seller of land in Virukshipura to PW14. He deposed that, the Sale Deed was registered in Chennapatna, and PW14 had paid the Sale Consideration at that time. As PW16 also has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated hostile. During cross­examination on behalf of the prosecution, nothing favourable to its case could be elicited by the prosecution. PW16 even resiled from his statement alleged to be made before the police as per Ex.P41.

46. PW17 - H.S. Manjunath, the Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayutka, City Division, Bengaluru, has deposed that, as per Ex.P.42/ order of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayutka, he received the case file on 30 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 20.02.2010, for further investigation, secured details of Rs.10,000/­ found in joint FD of accused and his wife as per Ex.P43, details of fee paid by accused for renewal of weapon as per Ex.P.44, details of medical expenses of accused as per Ex.P.45, details of exchange of US Dollars into Indian Rupees and travel expenditures of accused as per Ex.P.46, and details of Bank account of accused and also his wife as per Ex.P47.

47. PW17 also secured salary details of accused as per Ex.P48 and Ex.P49, details of purchase of two wheeler bearing no.KA 41 K5 429 along with Insurance policy details as per Ex.P50, details of Insurance premium paid by Saraswati/ wife of accused for Alto car No.KA05 MD9834 as per Ex.P51, details of amount refunded in respect of telephone provided to accused as per Ex.P52, details of education expenses of daughter of accused as per Ex.P53, and details of Domestic Credit Card ­ CAN Card of accused as per Ex.P54. During cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW17 admitted 31 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 that, he had only collected the documents, but neither verified nor assessed the said documents.

48. PW18 - Girish S., Deputy Superintendent of Police at Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, has spoken about receiving of the case file from PW17 for further investigation, collection of documents as per Ex.P.55 to Ex.P.135, and preparing of the Final Report, concluding that the accused was found in possession of properties, disproportionate to his known source of income, to the tune of Rs.1,31,24,647.76/­ which is 29.41% over and above his known source of income.

49. PW18 received Ex.P.55 letter of rental details, Ex.P.56 letter with regard to Sanction Plan, Ex.P.57 letter of Gas connection particulars, Ex.P.58 letter of bank account particulars, Ex.P59 and Ex.P.60 letters of Drip Irrigation, Ex.P.8 ­ Valuation Report, Ex.P61 rent payment particulars, Ex.P62 bank letter, Ex.P63 Salary particulars, Ex.P64 letter from Vokkaligara Sangha, and Ex.P65 agricultural income particulars. 32 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

50. PW18 recorded the statements of PW14, Hombegowda, Chikkanna, Basavaraju, Shivanna, Nanjaiah, Doddahaidaiah, Shivakumar, S.V. Papanna and Kemparangaiah, the statement of Shivaprasad as per Ex.P66, received schedules 1 to 23 from accused, and a letter at Ex.P.67 along with Ex.P68/Volume 3 to 7, received Ex.P.69, Ex.P.70 and Ex.P.71 bank letters, NSC particulars at Ex.P.72 and Ex.P.73, Ex.P74 particulars of investments in Rajalakshmi Scheme, Ex.P75 letter of agriculture particulars, Ex.P76 particulars of registration of documents, Ex.P77 and Ex.P.78 NSC bonds particulars, Ex.P79 KGID account particulars, and Ex.P80 DD particulars.

51. According to PW18, the amount spent for the improvement of land in Survey No.68 was Rs.5,92,739/­, the value of the house no.G1, Chaitra Nilaya, was Rs.36,17,000/­, Commercial Complex at Mylasandra was Rs.2,22,65,000/­, Bhimanakuppe property was Rs.12,40,000/­, Devanuru property was 33 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Rs.18,45,000/­, Site No.70 of Bagaluru was Rs.80,000/­, Sy.No.263/2 of Banantahalli was at Rs.1,60,000/­, and Rs.1,35,000/­, Sy.no.263/1 was Rs.60,000/­, Sy.No.263/2 was Rs.1,00,000/­, Sy.No.263/2 was Rs.30,000/­, Sy.No.263/1 was Rs.30,000/­, Sy.No.263/2 was Rs.30,000/­, Sy.No.203/1 was Rs.90,000/­, and Sy.No.263/2 was Rs.18,000/­ and Rs.1,50,000/­, Sy.No.263/3 was Rs.80,000/­, Sy.No.263/1 was Rs.1,30,000/­, Sy.No.263/2 was Rs.1,79,000/­, and the investment made for the development, construction of shed and barbed wire fencing was Rs.9,35,000/­. It is in the evidence of PW18 that, the father­in­law of the accused did not have any independent source of income.

52. PW18 has also referred to Ex.P81, Ex.P.82 and Ex.P.83, bank account particulars, Ex.P.84 UTI particulars, Ex.P85 Hero Honda purchase particulars, Ex.P86 - PF submitted under No.22/9, Ex.P87 Auto Starter purchase particulars, Ex.P.88 NSC particulars, 34 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Ex.P89 and Ex.P.90 electricity connection particulars, Ex.P91 and Ex.P.92 water and LPG connection particulars, and stated that, the total value of the assets of the accused was Rs.3,32,37,239.63/­.

53. PW18 has further referred to Ex.P.93, Ex.P.94, Ex.P.95, Ex.P.96, Ex.P.97, Ex.P.98, Ex.P.99, Ex.P.100, Ex.P.101, Ex.P.102, Ex.P.103, Ex.P.104, and Ex.P.105 stamp duty and registration fee particulars of immovable properties, Ex.P106 loan particulars, Sanction Plan particulars as per Ex.P107, building Tax particulars as per Ex.P108 and Ex.P,109, sale price particulars as per Ex.P110, water connection particulars as per Ex.P111, particulars of T.V.S. Scooty Pep as per Ex.P112, Honda Activa as per Ex.P113, and Maruti Alto car as per Ex.P114, loan particulars as per Ex.P115, locker particulars as per Ex.P116, LIC particulars as per Ex.P117 and Ex.P118, family expenses particulars as per Ex.P119, cable connection particulars as per Ex.P120, membership of Club and Hopcoms particulars 35 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 as per Ex.P121 and Ex.P122, passport particulars as per Ex.P123, and refrigerator repair particulars as per Ex.P124, medical check­up particulars as per Ex.P125, arms license particulars as per Ex.P126, and stated that, the total value of the expenditure of the accused was Rs.2,45,10,780.31.

54. PW18 referred to Ex.P.127 salary particulars, Ex.P.128 Valuation Report and a Sale Deed which is also marked as Ex.P.128, Ex.P.129 - sewage line connection particulars and a Sale Deed which is also marked as Ex.P.129, Ex.P.130 Valuation Report and a Sale Deed which is also marked as Ex.P.130, Ex.P.131 Encumbrance Certificate and a Gift Deed which is also marked as Ex.P.131, Ex.P.132 Insurance premium particulars, Ex.P.133 and Ex.P.134 authorisations issued to the IOs, and Ex.P.135 the Notice of ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta.

55. PW18 deposed that, during the check period i.e., from 18.02.1986 to 26.02.2009, the accused purchased 36 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 properties worth Rs.3,32,37,239.63/­, incurred expenditure of Rs.2,45,10,780.31/­, and the known sources of the income of accused was Rs.4,46,23,372.18/­, and according to PW18, total disproportionate assets of the accused was Rs.1,31,24,647.76/­ which amounts to 29.41%. PW18 has deposed that, some of the documents were created and produced along with the Schedules submitted on behalf of the accused, but, which is the document created is not particularly spelt out in his evidence.

56. Cross examination of PW18 on behalf of accused, has been mainly focused on the disputed items of assets, income and expenditure shown by the Investigation Officer, in the Final Report. Financial capacity of parents­in­law of accused, to buy the landed properties on their own, has been brought out. It is elicited that, some of the sources of income of accused and his wife were left out. Admission is also found during cross examination of PW18, touching additional salary income of accused. 37 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

57. The shortcomings of the investigation in not securing independent valuation reports in the matter of construction of the buildings, and in not examining the vendors and the witnesses mentioned in various Sale Deeds pertaining to the landed properties involved in the case, have also been brought out during cross examination of PW18. It is admitted by PW18/IO that, he has not taken any action against the accused, in respect of his allegation that, accused has created and produced certain false documents, and that in his Final Report also, he has not stated which are all the documents created and which are all the false documents produced, by the accused. The admissions of IO regarding the disputed items would be discussed in the coming paras, during appreciation of respective disputed item.

58. As could be gathered from cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, and the 313 statement of the accused, it is the contention on defence side that, the income of the accused is more than his assets and 38 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 expenditure, and therefore, he has not committed any offence. It is contended that, over valuation is shown in respect of the articles found in his house, during raid. Further, IO has considered certain properties of father­ in­law of the accused, as his assets, on the ground of benami transaction. Income of wife of accused has also not been considered by the IO.

59. In the decision reported in LAWS (MAD) 2007­12­ 547 R.Kannappan & K. Chandrashekaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, it is held that, after finding out that there is any disproportionate wealth in the hands of the public servant beyond his known source of income, the accused must be given an opportunity to explain the same, and the Investigating Officer has called upon the accused to furnish his explanation, and the accused has duly furnished the same, as per Schedule 1 to 23 in Volumes 3 to 7, which are marked as Ex.P.68.

60. DW1 to DW4 have been examined on defence side. DW1 - M. Shivaramegowda is the accused himself, 39 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 and he has spoken about his assets, expenditure and income, during the check period. It is in his evidence that, his father­in­law/ PW14 - Venkategowda had succeeded to ancestral agricultural lands measuring 27 acres in total, situated both at Virupakshipura and Bananthahalli Village, and that PW14 had also purchased about 25 acres of land on his own. Further, PW14 owned a site at Chennapatna, and three sites at Mylasandra Village. PW14 bequeathed the site at Chennapatna to his elder daughter Lakshmamma and Mylasandra sites to his younger daughter - Saraswathi/ wife of accused, through Gift Deeds. Further, Lakshmamma was also given 27 guntas of land in Akkuru Hosahalli and 25 guntas land in Mangadahalli. DW1 deposed that, at the time of marriage his parents­ in­law had gifted them about 500 grams gold, and 2 kgs of silver.

61. It is in his evidence that, there was a building with a ground floor and two floors, at the time of grant of 40 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 sites, and after receiving the property under the Gift Deed, Saraswathi continued to construct two more floors. He has deposed that, the house namely 'Chaitra Nilaya' situated at Chikkalasandra, consists of a ground floor and two floors. He had availed a loan of Rs.7,00,000/­ from Bharath Co­operative Bank, utilised Rs.3,00,000/­ from his salary savings, and Rs.5,00,000/­ from his wife's salary savings, to construct the said house.

62. According to DW1, the second floor and a room above the said floor were constructed and rented out by PW14. DW1 deposed that, said portion was leased to PW14 by his wife for Rs.4,00,000/­, under an Agreement. As per DW1, the sale price for the site in which house was constructed had been paid by PW14, and the ground and first floor were constructed from 1999 to 2001. He got the valuation of said portion done by a retired Chief Engineer namely, K.N. Krishnamurthy, for the purpose of giving intimation to his department. DW1 deposed that, higher valuation was shown as 41 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Rs.19,29,000/­, only for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank, but the actual amount spent for construction of ground floor and first floor was Rs.15,00,000/­.

63. It is in the evidence of DW1 that, he does not own any site in Bagalur and the said site belongs to his mother­in­law - Yashodamma. Further, the lands in Sy.No.263/2, 263/1 and 203/1 belong to his father­in­ law/ PW14 - Venkategowda. DW1 deposed that, at the time of raid, police valued the gold and household articles on their own, and they had not separated the stones and wax from the gold ornaments, and estimated the value as on the date of raid. According to DW1, IO has not considered his dearness allowance and other allowances, while calculating his salary income, the salary of his wife - Saraswathi, his income from agriculture and horticulture, amount given by Chikkaputtegowda i.e., brother of his wife, income earned by his wife from tuitions and saree business despite declaration of the said income in her ITRs. 42 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

64. DW1 deposed that, B.K. Padmapriya and Chandrashekhar were their tenants and both of them had given advance amount of Rs.50,000/­ each. According to DW1, being the owner of motor cycle KA 05 X 646, he sold the same to one Enasappa in the year 2005 for Rs.20,000/­. DW1 deposed that, Papanna/ the maternal uncle of Saraswathi, had given her Rs.2,00,000/­ through a cheque.

65. During cross­examination, DW1 admitted that, as per Ex.P.85, the RC of the two wheeler KA 05 X 646 stood in his name, in the year 2012. Suggestion that, he had purchased properties in the name of his parents­in­ law and thereafter got the properties gifted in favour of his wife, has been categorically denied by DW1.

66. DW2 - Rudresh K., is the Deputy Director of Horticulture, and he has spoken about furnishing of a report at Ex.P.68(b), with regard to horticultural income derived by PW14/Venkategowda, along with Ex.P.68(a) letter. DW3 - Dr. H.V.Rajashekar Reddy, the Assistant 43 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Director, Veterinary Hospital, Kodamballi of Channapatna Taluk, has spoken about the income derived by PW14 - Venkategowda out of animal husbandary, as per his letter at Ex.P.68(d). DW4 - Mohammed Sadiq, the Sericultural Extension Officer at Technical Extension Centre, Honganur of Chennapatna Taluk, has spoken about the sericultural income derived by PW14 - Venkategowda, as per his letter at Ex.P.68(f).

67. The learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in M. Krishna Reddy vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 45, (2017) 14 SCC 442 in the case Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and submitted that, a person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution, either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory, and on the evidence that is conjectural or hypothetical, with regard to an offence under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

44 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

68. The learned counsel for the accused has further placed reliance on the decision reported in (1981) 3 SCC 199 in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, and submitted that, the initial burden is on the prosecution, to substantiate the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and only when the burden is so discharged, onus shifts on to accused, to account for. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the accused public servant, is that the accused is not bound to prove his innocence, beyond all reasonable doubt, and all that he needs to do, is to bring out a preponderance of probabilities. I am also guided by these decisions while appreciating the evidence.

69. On appreciation of entire material evidence placed on record, the fact that, as on 26.02.2009, i.e., on the date of raid, the accused was working as Junior Engineer at Town Planning Division, BBMP, Bengaluru City, is not in dispute. Further, the fact that, till 26.02.2009 i.e., till the date of registration of FIR, from 45 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 the date of his joining the service on 12.02.1986, and during the check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009, the accused was working as a public servant, in various places, is also not in dispute. Hence, it is clear that, the accused was a public servant, within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

70. The criminal prosecution has been initiated against the accused, by the Police at Karnataka Lokayukta, for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and therefore, it is for the prosecution to show that, it has obtained a valid sanction as required under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

71. The prosecution, in order to establish that, a valid sanction was secured to prosecute the accused, has produced Ex.P.30 - Prosecution Sanction Order. Ex.P.30 would indicate that, the office of BBMP had received a letter from ADGP Lokayukta along with 46 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 investigation materials, relating to assets, expenditure and income of accused - Shivaramegowda, and the Competent Authority after perusing all the documents and applying it's mind in the matter of Sanction, and on being satisfied that there were prima­facie materials with regard to allegations made against the accused, for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the PC Act, had issued Ex.P.30 ­ Prosecution Sanction Order on 10.09.2012.

72. Ex.P.30 is not at all disputed by the accused, instead it is a document marked by consent. In the circumstances, it has to be held that, a valid sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the PC Act, has been duly obtained. It is also seen that, the accused retired from service, on 30.06.2022, and the Charge Sheet was filed on 18.09.2012 much prior to that.

73. The Investigating Officer PW18 - Girish, Dy.S.P., Bengaluru City Division, Lokayukta, in his Final Report, 47 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 has observed that, the accused was born on 01.07.1962, along with six brothers and two sisters, as a son of Late. Mollegowda, and Late Shivanamma, at Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District. It is also stated in the Final Report, that Late Mollegowda died in the year 1981 and Late Shivanamma in the year 1992. Said father of accused, was owning 20 acres of land. Accused married V. Saraswathi, who is the daughter of Venkategowda @ Kundappa and Yashodamma, on 24.05.1991. They begot two children namely A.S. Chaitra born on 22.05.1992, and Mohith born on 10.05.1995, and both of them are in 1 st PUC and 8th Standard respectively. The date of joining of the service by the accused is 12.02.1986 and raid was conducted on 26.02.2009, and therefore, he has considered period from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 as check period.

74. It is seen that, PW6 - V. Shekhar, PW11 - A.S. Hanumantharayappa, PW17 - H.S. Manjunath, and 48 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 PW18 - S. Girish, being the Dy.S.P.s and Investigating Officers, have reiterated the investigation procedure. PW6 has submitted Ex.P.9 ­ Source Report to SP Karnataka Lokayukta, and after obtaining Ex.P.11 ­ order of the SP, to register a case against the accused, as provided under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, PW6 registered the case in Cr.No.17/2009, and transmitted Ex.P.10 ­ FIR to the Court. On the same day, he filed a requisition and obtained Search Warrant as per Ex.P.3, and conducted raid in the house of accused, which is situated at No.G­ 1, 'Chaitra Nilaya', 3rd cross, 6th Main, KSRTC Layout, Uttarahalli Main Road, Chikkalasandra, Ward No.55, Bengaluru, and drawn Ex.P.1 - Mahazar.

75. PW11 - A.S. Hanumantharayappa, Dy.S.P., is the IO, who has received the case file from PW6 on 18.011.2009, as per Ex.P.32 ­ order of the SP, and conducted the investigation in part. PW17 - H.S. Manjunath, Dy.S.P., is the Investigating Officer, who has 49 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 received the case file from PW11, on 20.02.2010, as per Ex.P.42 ­ order of the SP, and conducted the further investigation.

76. PW18 - S. Girish, Dy.S.P., is the Investigating Officer, who has received the case file from PW17, on 17.09.2010, as per Ex.P.133 ­ order of the SP, conducted further investigation, and forwarded the Final Report to Competent Authority, seeking Prosecution Sanction against the accused. CW101 - V.P.M. Swamy is the Investigating Officer who has submitted the Charge Sheet, as per Ex.P.134 ­ order dated 09.09.2012 of the SP, and Ex.P.135 - memo dated 18.09.2012 of ADGP of Karnataka Lokayukta.

77. Nothing has been suggested to PW6, PW17 and PW18 that, only to falsely implicate the accused, this case has been registered. The oral evidence of PW6, PW17 and PW18 coupled with documentary evidence placed on record, would indicate that, during the course of investigation, the IOs could gather that, the accused 50 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

78. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in (1997) 6 SCC 185 in the case Kaptan Singh and Others vs. State of MP and another and submitted that, the result of investigation is only a conclusion drawn by the Investigation Officer, on the basis of materials collected by him, and such conclusions can only form the basis for a competent Court, to take cognizance thereupon, and to proceed with the case for trial, and only when the materials so collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, are translated into legal evidence during the trial, the Court can base its conclusion on such legal evidence, but it cannot solely rely upon the investigation or the result thereon, in the absence of any legal evidence. I am also guided by the said decision while appreciating the evidence.

51 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

79. Before examining the assets and expenditure of the accused, it is proper to consider the Income of the accused as put forth by the prosecution and the dispute raised by the accused, with regard to non consideration of some of the income by the IO. As per the prosecution, the accused was having income of Rs.4,46,23,372.18/­ from various sources, during the check period. The tabulation made by the IO reads as follows ­ Sl. Income Amount No. (in Rs.) 125 Net salary income of accused from the 14,44,973.05 date of joining the service till the date of raid 126 Salary received by wife of accused - 36,000.00 Saraswathi from a private company 127 Rent received from house No.G­1, KSRTC 15,72,000.00 Layout, Chikkalsandra, Bengaluru, which is in the name of wife of accused 128 Rent received from a commercial building 1,09,94,550.00 in Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli in the name of wife of accused 129 Agricultural income from the land 9,84,381.00 inherited by the accused and the benami land purchased by accused in the name of his father­in­law 130 Horticultural income received from the 4,69,752.00 land inherited by the accused 131 Loan obtained by the wife of accused from 2,80,000.00 SBM, Uttarahalli Branch for the purchase of car 52 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 132 Loan obtained by the wife of accused from 7,00,000.00 The Bharath Co­operative Bank Ltd., 133 Loan obtained by the wife of accused from 4,95,000.00 State Bank of India, JC Road Branch 134 Loan obtained by the wife of accused from 1,25,00,000.00 Canara Bank, Lavelle Road Branch 135 Loan obtained by the wife of accused from 50,000.00 Kaveri Kalpatharu Rural Bank, Kumbalagod Branch 136 Loan obtained by the accused from 20,086.00 Karnataka Government Life Insurance Department 137 Loan obtained by the wife of accused from 97,65,000.00 private persons for the commercial building at Kengeri Hobli, Mylasandra Village 138 Gift / donation received by the wife of 3,50,000.00 accused from her brother Chikkaputtegowda 139 Interest credited to the accused on the SB 730.67 Account No.0887101019943 at Canara Bank, Levelle Road, Bengaluru Branch 140 Interest credited to the wife of accused on 3,842.00 the SB Account No.0887101019023 at Canara Bank, Levelle Road, Bengaluru Branch 141 Interest credited to the wife of accused on 2,061.00 the SB Account No.15451 at Canara Bank, Kodamballi Branch, Chennapatna Taluk 142 Interest credited to the accused on the SB 1,630.09 Account No.54005729742 at State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 143 Interest credited to the wife of accused on 1,904.43 the SB Account No.54005727972 at State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 144 Interest credited to the daughter of 958.68 53 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 accused - A.S. Chaithra on the SB Account No.54005714384 at State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 145 Interest credited to the son of accused - 934.71 A.S. Mohith on the SB Account No.5400571573 at State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 146 Interest credited to the wife of accused on ­­­­­ the SB Account No.10454 at Kaveri Kalpatharu Rural Bank, Kumbalgod Branch, Bengaluru 147 Interest credited to the accused on the 727.99 accounts maintained at SBI, Rajarajeshwari Branch 148 Interest credited to the wife of accused on 2,910.00 the Fixed Deposit No.54005746917 at State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch 149 Interest received on the amount invested 5,879.56 in the name of son of accused at UTI Children Growth Gift Fund 150 Income received by the accused and his 3,74,810.00 wife on maturity of NSC and KVP Certificates 151 Income received details on maturity of 1,241.00 NSC issued by the Department 152 Interest / Survival Benefit received by the 80,000.00 accused on LIC Policy No.360437758 153 Interest / Survival Benefit received by the wife of accused on LIC Policy 50,000.00 No.360726835 154 Income received on sale of 32 ¾ gunta of 44,22,000.00 land in Sy.No.43 and 45 of Hosakerehalli Village, Bengaluru, purchased in the name of accused 155 Income received on sale of two wheeler ­ 12,000.00 Kinetic Honda No.KA­05, EB­7644 of wife of accused Total 4,46,23,372.18 54 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

80. By admitting the income considered by the Prosecution at Sl. No.127, 128, 131, 137, 139 to 155 i.e., Rs.4,13,38,266.13/­, the accused has disputed the income mentioned in Sl. No.125, 126, 129, 130, and

138. The Item in Sl. No.125, 126, 129, 130, and 138 of the Investigating Officer are:

 Sl.                                                     Amount
                        Income
 No.                                                     (in Rs.)
125 Net salary income of accused from the               14,44,973.05

date of joining the service till the date of raid 126 Salary received by wife of accused - 36,000.00 Saraswathi from a private company 129 Agricultural income from the land 9,84,381.00 inherited by the accused and the benami land purchased by accused in the name of his father­in­law 130 Horticultural income received from the 4,69,752.00 land inherited by the accused 138 Gift / donation received by the wife of 3,50,000.00 accused from her brother Chikkaputtegowda 32,85,106.05

81. In respect of item No.125 i.e., salary income, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out the salary income of Rs.3,42,446/­. It is argued that, if the above 55 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 salary income of Rs.3,42,446/­ is added to admitted salary income of Rs.14,44,973.05/­, the same comes to Rs.17,87,419.05/­.

82. Apart from admission of the accused, the Prosecution has independently proved the salary income of the accused, by producing relevant documents along with Charge Sheet. It is also relevant to note that, in view of admitted facts, touching the salary income, the initial burden of the prosecution, in proving the admitted salary income of the accused, stands discharged. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss about the admitted salary income of Rs.14,44,973.05/­, and it is sufficient if the disputed salary income of Rs.3,42,446/­ is discussed.

83. It is also a settled law that, once the prosecution is able to prove the income, and its source, there is benefit of presumption in favour of the prosecution, as provided under section 20 of the P.C. Act. Moreover, the term known source of income referred under Section 56 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, is the income known to the prosecution.

84. In the decision reported in 2010 SCC Online Del 4053 in the case Virender Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, it has been observed that, the expression "known sources of income" refers to the sources known to the prosecution, and the expression "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" refers to the onus or the burden on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets, found to be possessed by the public servant, and that the assets can be those which have been disclosed and also other assets which have not been disclosed by the public servant, but there is evidence that the asset belongs to or held by the accused public servant. Hence, onus would shift to the accused to prove that, apart from above referred salary income, he had an additional salary income to the tune of Rs.3,42,446/­. It is therefore just and necessary to 57 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 appreciate the stand taken by the accused, with regard to his additional salary income.

85. Regarding, the degree of proof required to accept the explanation of the accused and the evidence led in by him, this Court is guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 AIR SCW 5411, State of Maharashtra v/s Dyaneshwar Lakshman Rao Wankhade. By interpreting Section 20 of the P.C. Act, it has been held that, in a case registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis­a­vis prosecution would differ and that the Court is required to consider explanation offered by the accused, if any, on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. So, from the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is very clear that, in so far as the prosecution is concerned, it has to prove the allegations levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, the explanation offered by the accused has to be considered 58 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, which is normally applied in civil cases. Keeping these principles in mind, it is just and necessary to consider the explanation offered by the accused and the evidence produced by him, regarding additional salary income.

86. As per the evidence of PW18/IO, the salary details of the accused were secured from his department, and the salary details are marked as per Ex.P.23, P.24, P.27, P.49, and P.63. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has taken only a sum of Rs.14,44,973.05/­ as his salary income, though the authors of said documents are not examined.

87. During the course of cross­examination of PW18/IO, it is elicited that, the salary particulars reflecting the receipt of salary arrears, leave encashment, and arrears of salary by way of revised pay scale, as shown in page no.119, 157 158, 159, 160, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, and 173 of Ex.P.68 - Schedule furnished by the accused, have not been considered by 59 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 the IO. PW18 admitted that, in his Schedule Statement, accused has stated that he had received salary income of Rs.17,55,274/­ excluding deductions, but, in the Final Report, PW18 has shown that the salary income of accused was Rs.14,44,973.05. It is elicited that, in Ex.P.23, 24, 27, 49 and 63, there is no mention with regard to arrears of salary, amount received by the accused by surrendering his EL, and arrears of salary received by the accused by way of revised pay scale, during the check period.

88. PW18 categorically admitted that, if he had considered arrears of salary, amount received by way of surrender of EL, and arrears received by way of revised pay scale, the total salary income of the accused would be Rs.17,55,274/­. It is elicited that, as per the explanation given by the accused, as per Ex.P.68, he had received a sum of Rs.11,004/­ by way of EL encashment, from 26.06.1995 to 13.09.1995, received a sum of Rs.86,139/­ by way of EL encashment, for 120 days, 60 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 received a sum of Rs.20,341/­ by way of EL encashment, for 40 days, received a sum of Rs. 1,887/­ by way of EL encashment for 25 days, received a sum of Rs. 12,206/­ by way of EL encashment for 30 days, received a sum of Rs. 23,228/­ as arrears of salary by way of stagnation of increment, received a sum of Rs. 4,250/­ as arrears of DA, received a sum of Rs. 13,173/­ by way encashment of EL, received a sum of Rs. 86,139/­ towards salary, received a sum of Rs.51,927/­ towards his salary, received a sum of Rs.22,431/­ by way of arrears of stagnation increment, and these have been left out by the IO. In view of the above admission found in the evidence of PW18 coupled with the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.68, it has to be held that, IO has left out additional salary income of Rs.3,42,446/­.

89. In respect of item No.126 i.e., salary income of wife of the accused ­ It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has intentionally left out the salary income of Rs.12,000/­ of wife of accused. It is argued 61 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 that, if the above salary income of Rs.12,000/­ is added to admitted salary income of Rs.36,000/­, the same comes to Rs.48,000/­. It is relevant to note here itself, that apart from admission of the accused, the Prosecution has independently proved the salary income of Rs.36,000/­ of wife of accused, by producing relevant documents. Hence, it is sufficient if the disputed salary amount of Rs.12,000/­ is discussed.

90. As per the evidence of PW18, the salary details of the wife of the accused were secured as per two certificates at page 248 and 249 of Ex.P.68. It is seen that, the IO has taken only a sum of Rs.36,000/­ as salary income of the wife of the accused, though the two certificates issued by Raghavendra Agencies would indicate that, she had received a sum of Rs.48,000/­ as salary. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, though the authors of said documents are not examined, IO has taken only Rs.36,000/­ as salary income without any basis. PW18 also admitted that, wife of accused had 62 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 declared income of Rs.24,000/­ each in her ITR for the year 1998­99, and 1999­2000, and he has taken Income Tax paid amount as expenditure of the accused. In the circumstances, the difference salary of Rs.12,000/­ needs to be taken as income of the accused.

91. In respect of item No.129 i.e., Agricultural income from the land inherited by the accused, and also from the benami land purchased by the accused in the name of his father­in­law ­ It is contended on behalf of the accused that, to inflate the assets and expenditure of the accused, assets and expenditure of PW14 ­ Venkategowda/father­in­law of accused, has been wrongly included, on the ground that, the property held by PW14 is benami property of the accused.

92. PW18/IO has deposed that the property held by PW14 is benami property of the accused. On the other hand, DW1/ accused has deposed that, his father­in­ law/PW14 had sufficient income to purchase the properties, from his agricultural income and that, PW14 63 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 had also succeeded to ancestral lands. PW18 admitted that, he had secured a report from the Dept. of Agriculture, with regard to income received by PW14 from his agricultural lands, and also recorded his statement. PW18 also admitted that, in his statement PW14 had given particulars with regard to his ancestral properties and properties acquired by him independently. PW18 further admitted that, as per the Report of Department of Agriculture, pertaining to the year from 2001 - 02 to 2007 - 08, PW14 had received agricultural income of Rs.3,18,486/­ from his self acquired property, but, as he has considered that property as benami property of the accused, considered the said amount as income of the accused.

93. PW14 ­ Venkategowda though was examined by the prosecution, nothing is elicited from him, in support of the case of the prosecution that, the property held by him, is benami property of the accused. On the other hand, he has deposed that, during investigation he had 64 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 submitted Ex.D.1 - Letter with documents, to show as to how he had acquired the lands as his own. PW18/IO has also admitted that, Ex.D.1 was received in his office on 13.04.2011, but strangely there is no reference about Ex.D.1 in his Final Report. PW18 has not explained as to why the documents furnished by PW14 vide Ex.D.1 - Letter were withheld by him.

94. PW18 also admitted that, PW14 had given a statement before the police, and on verification, it was found that, the statement given by PW14 was correct with regard to the documents furnished by him. In the circumstances, withholding of the vital documents, and64 non examination of the vendors and the attesting witnesses found in the copies of Sale Deeds produced vide Ex.D.1 - Letter, by the IO, is fatal to the case of prosecution. No other concrete evidence is placed by the prosecution to prove that, property held by Venkategowda is the benami property of the accused. Hence, as contended on defence side the agricultural 65 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 income of PW14 i.e., Rs.9,84,381/­, needs to be deducted from the income of the accused.

95. In respect of item No.130 i.e., Horticultural income from the land inherited by the accused ­ It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has taken the Horticultural Income of the accused, from the land in Sy.No.68, 190/3 and 93 of Bachahalli Village at Rs.4,69,752/­, and produced Ex.P.6 Report of Senior Horticultural Director, Chennapatna. It is elicited during cross­examination of PW18/IO that, in the said Report, only the income received by way of cultivation of coconut in Sy. No.68 and 190/3 and mango in Sy. No. 68, have been shown, and there is no mention about income from banana plantation and income from sericulture. PW18 also admitted that, he has not considered the details furnished by the Department of Horticulture in Ex.P.6 Report and the details furnished by the accused in respect of his horticultural income.

96. PW3 who had issued Ex.P.6 - Report, indicated that the income of the accused from coconut and mango 66 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 plantation is Rs.23,91,417/­, and PW3 has clearly admitted that, he had also noticed sericultural activities in the land. PW3 has also admitted that, the income derived in the year 2008­09 has not been included, since the last date of the check period was 26.02.2009. It is contended that, to complete the Financial Year 2008­09 only 33 days were left, and therefore, exclusion of the income for the entire year, is not proper. It is also contended that, the said excluded income from Coconut was Rs.62,205/­, Mango was Rs.2,41,785/­, and hence, the total would be Rs.23,91,417 + Rs.62,205/­ + Rs.2,41,785/­ = 26,95,407/­. When the Report of PW3 itself has indicated the income of the accused as Rs.23,91,417/­, there is absolutely no basis for the IO to consider only Rs.4,69,752/­.

97. PW18 has not explained during his evidence as to why he has not considered the amount shown in the Report of PW3. In the circumstances therefore, I am of the considered view that, horticultural income of 67 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Rs.22,25,655/­ (Rs.26,95,407/­ ­ 4,69,752/­), needs to be added as contended.

98. In respect of item No.138 i.e., Gift/ donation received by the wife of accused, from her brother Chikkaputtegowda ­ It is contended that, the accused claimed an income of Rs.7,50,000/­ on the ground that, his wife had received the same as a gift from her brother. According to the PW18/IO, the said income is at Rs.3,50,000/­. PW18 admitted that, the accused had produced an affidavit sworn by his wife - Saraswathi, and in her affidavit, she has sworn to the factum of receipt of a sum of Rs.7,50,000/­ from her elder brother Chikkaputtegowda.

99. PW18 admitted that, the accused has produced unregistered Gift Deeds, executed by Chikkaputtegowda in favour of V.Saraswathi, and as per the Gift Deed dated 22.07.2001, payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ on 18.07.2001 through Cheque No.834644, and Rs.1,00,000/­ on 21.07.2001 through Cheque 68 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 No.834645 were made to Saraswathi. Further, as per the Gift Deed dated 30.12.2000, payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ on 12.08.2000 through Cheque No.834628, Rs.50,000/­ on 20.10.2000 through cheque No.834629, and Rs.1,00,000/­ on 24.12.2000 through Cheque No.834 were made to Saraswathi.

100. PW18 admitted that, the wife of the accused has received Rs.5,50,000/­ from her brother Chikkaputtegowda, as per the Gift Deed, but, he had considered only a sum of Rs.3,50,000/­ as the income of the accused, and stated that, as per ITR of Saraswathi for the financial year 2001­02, she has declared that she had received a gift of Rs.3,50,000/­, but in subsequent years such gifts were not declared and hence, the said amount was taken as the income of the accused. However, PW18 has admitted that, he had not conducted investigation in respect of amount credited to the account of Saraswathi through cheques referred in the Gift deeds dated 30.12.2000 and 22.07.2001. 69 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

101. PW18/IO has admitted that, during investigation wife of accused had disclosed about the amount received by her from her brother, but however, he had not enquired the said brother during investigation. No reasons are found in the evidence of PW18/ IO for not collecting even the bank statements of wife of the accused. In the circumstances therefore, the difference amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ needs to be added as income of the accused.

102. The accused has thus recalculated the value of income as below:

Sl. Description of the As per IO Amount to be Recalculated No. Income added/delete amount d 125 Net salary income of 14,44,973.05 3,42,446.00 17,87,419.05 accused from the date of joining to the service till the date of raid 126 Salary received by 36,000.00 12,000.00 48,000.00 wife of accused -

Saraswathi from a private company 129 Agricultural income 9,84,381.00 ­9,84,381.00 0 from the land inherited by the accused and the benami land purchased by 70 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 accused in the name of his father­in­law 130 Horticultural income 4,69,752.00 22,25,655.00 26,95,407.00 received from the land inherited by the accused 138 Gift / donation 3,50,000.00 2,00,000.00 5,50,000.00 received by the wife of accused from her brother Chikkaputtegowda 32,85,106.05 17,95,720.00 50,80,826.05

103. In view of the above discussion, the value of the disputed income of the accused is Rs.27,80,101/­. If value of Rs.9,84,381 is deducted, the disputed income would be Rs.17,95,720/­. If the value shown by Investigating Officer ie. Rs.32,85,106.05 is added, the total would be Rs.50,80,826/­. If the value of the admitted income of the accused i.e., Rs.4,13,38,266/­ is added, total of the income of the accused would be Rs.4,64,19,092/­

104. According to the accused, the IO has also intentionally left out the following income of the accused and his family members:

71 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

Sl.

Description of the Income Income No. 1 Agricultural income of wife of accused 2,44,250.00 2 Income of the wife of accused from other 9,19,803.00 sources 3 Income of the wife of accused from business 1,07,560.00 4 Rental advance from B.K. Padmapriya 50,000.00 5 Rental advance from Chandrashekar 50,000.00 6 Sale price of Two wheeler No.KA 05 X 646 20,000.00 7 Usage of credit card 32,845.00 8 Gift from S.V. Papanna 2,00,000.00 Total 16,24,458.00

105. Regarding item No.1 to 3 i.e., Income of wife of accused from agriculture, other sources, and from business ­ It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the wife of accused had declared these income in her ITRs from 1998­99 to 2009­10, and the IO has secured those Income Tax Returns. The accused in his schedule at Ex.P.68 has also claimed the income of his wife, under the aforesaid heads.

106. During cross­examination, PW18 admitted that, as per ITR in year 1998­99 itself, Saraswathi had declared income received from business and other 72 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 sources, and as per ITR's in the year 2000­2001, 2001­ 02, Saraswathi had declared agricultural income received by her. PW18/IO also admitted that, in her affidavit Saraswathi has sworn that, her father owned vast agricultural lands and that she was working as Assistant Accountant in M/s. Raghavendra Enterprises. Further, she was doing tailoring during 1997­98 and she was giving tuitions during 2002­03.

107. PW18/IO admitted that, he has not considered income received by Saraswathi from agriculture, business and other sources. He has also admitted that, she has declared the income from these sources in her ITRs and that the Income Tax paid by her has been considered as the expenditure. PW18 admitted that, in her ITRs from 1998­99 to 2009­10, Saraswathi had declared income received from business at Rs.1,07,560/­, from agriculture at Rs.2,44,250/­ and from other sources at Rs.9,19,803/­. However, the IO has assigned no reasons for rejecting the income, 73 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 shown in the ITRs. In the circumstances, the aforesaid income of Rs.2,44,250/­ + 9,19,803/­ + Rs.1,07,560/­, in total Rs.12,71,613/­, needs to be taken as left out income of the accused.

108. In respect of income No.4 i.e., Rental advance from A.R.Padmapriya ­ It is contended that, the IO has discussed in his Report, about the letting of property by the wife of the accused to one Padmapriya, and also considered the rental income as income of the accused, but not considered the rental advance of Rs.50,000/­ received by the wife of the accused as income. PW18 admitted that, he has considered a sum of Rs.4,10,000/­ received by Saraswathi, from B.K.Padmapriya towards rent, as the income of the accused, based on the Rent Agreement dated 14.02.2004, that was entered into between Saraswathi and Padmapriya, which was produced by the accused. It is seen that, the accused has also produced the Rental Agreement along with his schedule. PW18/ IO has admitted the Rent Agreement, 74 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 found in page No.185 to 187 of Ex.P.68. On perusal of the said document, it is seen that, the Rent Agreement was subsisting till the date of raid, and the tenant has paid Rs.50,000/­ as refundable advance amount. Hence, Rs.50,000/­ needs to be added to the income of the accused.

109. In respect of income No.5 i.e., Rental advance from Chandrashekar ­ It is contended that, the IO though has discussed about the letting of property by the wife of the accused, to one Chandrashekar Gupta at page No.120­121 of his Report, and considered the rental income as income of the accused, not considered the rental advance of Rs.50.000/­. The accused has produced the Rent Agreement along with the schedule. PW18/IO has admitted that, he has considered a sum of Rs.2,80,000/­ received by Saraswathi, from Chandrashekar Gutpa towards rent, as the income of the accused, based on the Rent Agreement dated 05.01.2006, that was entered into between Saraswathi 75 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 and Chandrashekar Gutpa. PW18/ IO has produced the Rent Agreement as per page No.181 to 184 of Ex.P.68. On perusal of the said document, it is seen that, the Rent Agreement was subsisting till the date of raid, and the tenant had paid Rs.50,000/­ as refundable advance amount. Hence, Rs.50,000/­ needs to be added to the income of the accused.

110. In respect of income No.6 i.e., Sale price of Two wheeler No.KA 05 X 646 ­ It is contended that, IO has considered the purchase value of two wheeler No.KA 05 X 646 as asset of the accused. The accused has produced the delivery note dated 10/04/2005 and connected documents, to show that, the said vehicle was sold to one S.Enasappa, for Rs.20,000/­. The delivery note is at page No.551 of Ex.P.68.

111. PW18 admitted that, he has considered purchase value of said vehicle to the tune of Rs.30,000/­ as the asset of the accused, but, as per the statement of the accused coupled with a copy of delivery note dated 76 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 10.04.2005 and connected documents, the accused has sold two wheeler bearing Reg.No. KA 05 X 646 to S.Enasappa for a sum of Rs. 20,000/­, but, he has not considered the said amount as income of the accused, nor examined purchaser S. Enasappa. In view of the delivery note, the sale price of Rs.20,000/­ needs to be added to the income of the accused.

112. In respect of income No.7 i.e., Usage of credit card ­ It is contended that, the IO has considered Rs.32,845/­ as expenditure of the accused, on the ground that, the said amount has been spent, by using the credit card. Usage of credit card is in the nature of obtaining loan from the concerned bank, and hence, the corresponding amount of Rs.32,845/­ have to be taken as income. Since, credit card is only a temporary loan arrangement and the dues of credit card are repaid by the accused, the payment of Rs.32,845/­ cannot be taken as income of the accused.

113. In respect of income No.8 i.e., Gift from S.V.Papanna ­ It is contended that, accused while 77 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 submitting his schedule has produced an unregistered Gift Deed dated 25/07/2001, executed by one S.V.Papanna. for having gifted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the wife of the accused. PW18/IO has admitted that, the wife of the accused has sworn to an affidavit reflecting the factum of Gift, but he has not interrogated S.V. Papanna in this regard. The Gift Deed is at page No.250 of Ex.P.68. On perusal of the said Gift Deed, it is seen that, Rs.1,00,000/­ each has been paid to the wife of the accused, on 16.07.2001 through Cheque No.721165 and on 23.07.2001 through Cheque No.721166. In the circumstances, Rs.2,00,000/­ received by the wife of accused under the Gift Deed needs to be taken as income of the accused.

114. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the additional source claimed has to be recalculated as below:

Sl. Description of the As per As per AGO Amount to be No. Income IO added 1 Agricultural income of 0 2,44,250.00 2,44,250.00 wife of accused 78 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 2 Income of the wife of 0 9,19,803.00 9,19,803.00 accused from other sources 3 Income of the wife of 0 1,07,560.00 1,07,560.00 accused from business 4 Rental advance from 0 50,000.00 50,000.00 B.K. Padmapriya 5 Rental advance from 0 50,000.00 50,000.00 Chandrashekar 6 Sale of Two wheeler 0 20,000.00 20,000.00 No.KA 05 X 646 7 Usage of credit card 0 32,845.00 0 8 Gift from S.V. 0 2,00,000.00 2,00,000.00 Papanna Total 16,24,458.00 15,91,613.00

115. Hence, the total left out income of the accused, during the check period was Rs.15,91,613/­. If the left out income of Rs.15,91,613/­ is added to aforesaid recalculated income of Rs.4,64,19,092/­, the total income would be Rs.4,80,10,705/­.

116. Now, let me discuss the dispute regarding assets of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused owned assets worth Rs.3,32,37,239.63/­. Hence, it is just and necessary to describe the list of assets considered by the Investigating Officer, as 79 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 described in Final Report. The list of Assets considered by the IO is as follows:

Sl.                                            Amount
                     Assets
No.                                            (in Rs.)
 1 2 acres of land in Sy.No.68,               5,92,739.00

Bachahalli Village, Chennapatna Taluk, inherited from the father of accused 2 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.190/3, 0.00 Bananthahalli Village, Chennapatna Taluk, inherited from the father of accused 3 Vacant site at House List No.55, 0.00 Hanchipura Village, Chennapatna Taluk, inherited from the father of accused 4 The value of the plot in the name of 36,17,000.00 wife of accused at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout, Chikalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru, and the 3 storied house built on it.

5 The value of the commercial building 2,22,65,000.00 in the name of wife of accused i.e., 6 storied building built by combining 3 difference plots of Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli 6 36 guntas of land purchased in the 12,40,000.00 name of accused at Bheemappanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 7 1 acre 1 gunta of land purchased in 18,45,000.00 the name of wife of accused at Sy.No.52/1, Devanuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore 80 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 District 8 Site No.70 in the name of wife of accused at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, 80,000.00 Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 9 4 acres of land purchased in the 1,60,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 10 3 acres 15 guntas of land purchased 1,35,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 11 1 acre 20 guntas of land purchased 60,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 12 2 acres 20 guntas of land purchased 1,00,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 13 30 guntas of land purchased in the 30,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 14 30 guntas of land purchased in the 30,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 81 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 15 30 guntas of land purchased in the 30,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 16 2 acre 10 guntas of land purchased 90,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 17 18 guntas of land purchased in the 18,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 18 3 acres 30 guntas of land purchased 1,50,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 19 2 acres of land purchased in the 80,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 20 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased 1,30,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 21 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased 1,79,000.00 in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 82 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 22 The valuation of expenditure incurred 9,35,000.00 for development, sheds and fences built in the benami properties on different survey numbers, in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 23 The balance amount in the SB 182.67 Account No.0887101019943 of accused in Canara Bank, Levelle Road, Bengaluru 24 The balance amount in the SB 63,525.00 Account No.0887101019023 of wife of accused in Canara Bank, Levelle Road, Bengaluru 25 The balance amount in the SB 21,561.00 Account No.15451 of wife accused in Canara Bank, Kodamballi Branch, Chennapatna Taluk.

26 The balance amount in the SB 3,483.14 Account No.54005729742 of accused in State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 27 The balance amount in the SB 46.43 Account No.54005727972 of wife accused in State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 28 The balance amount in the SB 3,196.68 Account No.54005714384 of daughter of accused in State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 29 The balance amount in the SB 2,128.71 83 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Account No.54005721572 of son of accused in State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 30 The balance amount in the SB 3,000.00 Account No.10454 of wife of accused in Kaveri Kalpatharu Rural Bank, Kumbalgodu Branch, Bengaluru 31 Investment made in Fixed Deposit No.64000252995 in the joint name of 10,000.00 accused and his wife in State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 32 Investment made in Fixed Deposit 10,000.00 No.54005746917 in the name of wife of accused in State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru 33 Investment made in UTI Children 8,000.00 Growth Gift Fund in the name of son of accused.

34 Investment made in UTI Rajalakshmi 5,000.00 Scheme plan in the name of daughter of accused.

35 Value of TVS Scooty Pep No. KA 41 K 32,820.00 5429 - two wheeler which was in the name of accused 36 Value of Honda Activa No.KA 01 EA 40,744.00 8853 - two wheeler which was in the name of wife of accused

37. Value of Maruthi Alto Car No.KA 05 3,02,173.00 MD 9834 which was in the name of wife of accused

38. Value of Hero Honda No. KA 05 X 32,625.00 646 - two wheeler which was in the name of accused

39. Cash found in the house of accused 15,000.00 during raid 84 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

40. Value of the gold ornaments found in 2,15,796.00 the house of accused and locker on the day of raid

41. Value of the silver items found in the 14,208.00 house of accused on the day of raid

42. Value of the household items found 5,42,274.00 in the house of accused on the day of raid

43. Receipt found in the house of 5,408.00 accused on the day of raid in respect of Auto Starter

44. National Savings Certificates found in 1,300.00 the house of accused on the day of raid

45. Deposit made towards Electricity 20,442.00 connection to the house No.G­1, KSRTC Layout

46. Deposit made towards Electricity 1,13,322.00 connection to the commercial building at Mylasandra Village

47. Deposit made towards the telephone 3,000.00 connection with the No.26390356 in the name of wife of accused

48. Deposit towards water connection to 315.00 the house of accused at No.G­1, KSRTC Layout

49. Deposit towards gas connection No.15632 by the accused 950.00 Total 3,32,37,239.63

117. Out of the said 49 heads, the accused has disputed the value in respect of the Assets mentioned in 85 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sl. No.4, 5, 8 to 22, 40, and 42. The accused has not disputed the assets mentioned in Sl. No.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 23 to 39, 41, 43 to 49. Hence, it is sufficient to discuss only the disputed assets. The Items in Sl. No.4, 5, 8 to 22, 40, and 42 of the Investigating Officer are:

Sl.

Description of the assets As per IO No. 4 The value of the plot in the name of wife of accused at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC 36,17,000.00 Layout, Chikalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru, and the 3 storied house built on it. 5 The value of the commercial building in the name of wife of accused i.e., 6 storied building built 2,22,65,000.00 by combining 3 difference plots of Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli 8 Site No.70 in the name of wife of accused at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru 80,000.00 South Taluk 9 4 acres of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 1,60,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 10 3 acres 15 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­ 1,35,000.00 law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 86 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 11 1 acre 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 60,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 12 2 acres 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,00,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 13 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 30,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 14 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli 30,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 15 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 30,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 16 2 acre 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.203/1, 90,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 17 18 guntas of land purchased in the 18,000.00 name of father­in­law of accused, at 87 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 18 3 acres 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,50,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 19 2 acres of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli 80,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 20 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 1,30,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 21 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,79,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 22 The valuation of expenditure incurred for development, sheds and fences built in the benami properties on different survey 9,35,000.00 numbers, in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk

40. Value of the gold ornaments found in the house of accused and locker 2,15,796.00 on the day of raid 88 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

42. Value of the household items found in the house of accused on the day 5,42,274.00 of raid Total 2,88,47,070.00

118. In respect of item No.4 i.e., the value of the plot in the name of wife of accused at No.G­1, 'Chaitra Nilaya', 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout, Chikalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru, and the 3 storied house built on it ­ It is contended that, though the Investigating Officer has shown the value at Rs.36,17,000/­, he has not secured any independent Valuation Report. It is contended that, he has not given deduction of the site value of Rs.4,20,000/­, and building value of Rs.11,53,000/­.

119. It is seen that during search of the house of the accused, a Valuation Report issued by a retired Chief Engineer was found, and according to the said Report, the valuation of ground and first floor is Rs.19,29,000/­. Further, IO had secured the Report from PW5 - Assistant Engineer of Technical Wing of Lokayukta, for 89 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 the valuation of the second and third floor, and as per the said Report at Ex.P.8, valuation of the second floor is Rs.11,53,000/­, and value of the interiors done in the first floor is at Rs.1,15,000/­. Thus, the total value is Rs.4,20,000/­ + Rs.11,53,000/­ + Rs.19,29,000/­ + Rs.1,15,000/­ = Rs.36,17,000/­.

120. The accused relied on the Registered Sale Deed at Ex.P.37 to contend that, the value of the site i.e., Rs.4,20,000/­ was paid by father of Saraswathi/ wife of accused. In page No.4 of Ex.P.37 Sale Deed, it is clearly mentioned that, the site value was paid by the purchaser's father and the purchaser being Saraswathi, it is clear that, the site value of Rs.4,20,000/­ was paid by PW14 - Venkategowda. PW18/IO has also admitted that, he had interrogated PW14 - Venkategowda, who in turn had given a statement, with regard to payment of the said amount, at the time of purchase by his daughter. The financial capacity of PW14 has been brought out during his evidence and PW14 admitted 90 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 that, site at Uttarahalli was purchased by him and gifted to his daughter. Hence, the site value of Rs.4,20,000/­ needs to be deducted.

121. Regarding construction value, the cost of construction of ground and first floor i.e., Rs.19,29,000/­ shown in Ex.P.128 ­ Certificate seized by the IO during raid of house of the accused, is not disputed on defence side. But the cost of construction of second and third floor i.e., Rs.11,53,000/­ considered by the IO is seriously disputed. It is contended that, due to financial crisis, wife of accused could not proceed with the construction of the second and third floor, and hence, on 15.12.2000 she had entered into a Lease Agreement with her father/ PW14. According to the said Agreement, the second and third floors were constructed and rented out by her father.

122. PW18/ IO has admitted that it was PW14 - Venkategowda, who had collected the rents in respect of second and third floors. A tenant namely Krishnakumar 91 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 was interrogated by PW18/ IO, and furthermore, these aspects are also admitted by PW18/ IO during his cross­ examination as per para 57(c), (d) and (e) of his evidence.

123. PW5 - Assistant Engineer has deposed that, he issued Valuation Report as per Ex.P.8, in respect of second and third floors, but, he has not mentioned the year of construction, details of occupiers of second and third floor of the building, though he has stated that, he has visited the property on 18.05.2010 and 13.08.2010.

124. On the other hand, it is seen that, the wife of the accused has declared under Income Tax Returns and accused has declared in his Annual Property Returns, in respect of second and third floors as per Ex.P.68. In the circumstances, it has to be held that, the valuation arrived by PW5, in respect of second and third floors i.e., Rs.11,53,000/­, is wrongly taken as asset of the accused. Hence, the site value of Rs.4,20,000/­ and the value of construction of second and third floors i.e., 92 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Rs.11,53,000/­, in total Rs.15,73,000/­ needs to be deducted from the assets of the accused.

125. In respect of Asset No.5, i.e., the 5 storied commercial building in Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli ­ The IO has shown the value at Rs.2,22,65,000/­, but, he has not secured any independent Valuation Report in this regard. It is contended that, the IO has not given deduction of purchase value of the site i.e., Rs.4,96,000/­ and construction cost of the building upto first floor including the basement and the ground floor i.e, Rs.77,52,495/­, in total Rs.82,48,495/­ which was paid and spent by Yashodamma/mother­in­law of accused.

126. According to PW18/ IO, it was Yashodamma who had purchased three sites at Mylasandra on 14.06.2004, for sum of Rs.3,60,000/­, Rs.65,000/­ and Rs.71,000/­, and the Sale Deeds pertaining to said purchases are collectively at Ex.P.93. It is the defence of the accused that, Yashodamma was sufficiently sound to 93 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 purchase the sites out of her agricultural income, as per the Certificates issued by Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sericulture Officer, and also Assistant Horticulture Director.

127. In the Sale Deeds at Ex.P.93, it is mentioned that, the site value was paid by Yashodamma. Apart from this there is admission of the PW18/ IO in para 61 of his evidence that, the said amount was paid by Yashodamma. Evidence of PW14, who is the husband of Yashodamma also indicate that, the purchase value of Rs.4,96,000/­ was paid by Yashodamma.

128. It is also contended that, Yashodamma had availed a total sum of Rs.37,65,000/­ from various persons, to construct the building in the said three sites. She got the building plan approved in her name as per Ex.P.56. It is also contended that, Yashodamma had bequeathed the property to her daughter/ wife of accused, as per the Gift Deed dated 14.11.2005, and the wife of accused had undertaken to repay the loan of 94 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Rs.37,65,000/­ availed by Yashodamma, and also declared the same in her ITRs. Further, the same was declared by the accused also in his APRs.

129. Regarding the construction value, the total cost of the building is Rs.1,75,84,000/­, as per Ex.P.128 ­ Valuation Report seized by the IO during raid of house of the accused. In the said Report the valuation of basement floor is shown as Rs.25,42,425/­, ground floor as Rs.22,67,030/­, first floor as Rs.29,43,040/­, second floor as 30,89,920/­, and third floor as Rs.32,42,240/­. It is contended that, the construction value upto first floor including the basement and the ground floor, is Rs.77,52,495/­, and the said amount was spent by Yashodamma.

130. In the Gift Deed there is a mention that, the construction of the building in the schedule property is going on, but, there is no such mention that, the building was gifted after construction of first floor by Yashodamma. In Ex.P.128 - Report also there is no such 95 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 mention that, the construction upto first floor was carried out by Yashodamma, instead there is a mention that, the construction was carried out by Yashodamma in the year 2004, and completed by Saraswathi in the year 2006. DW1 has deposed that, at the time of execution of Gift Deed there was a building in the site with the basement, ground floor and first floor.

131. PW18/IO during his cross­examination has admitted the construction of the building by Yashodamma, and also admitted in para 70 of his evidence that, he has not collected any independent report in respect of the building constructed over sites in Mylasandra Village, but, considered Ex.P.128 ­ Valuation Report which was seized at the time of raid. It is elicited that, the value of entire building was Rs.1,75,84,000/­. In the circumstances, it has to be held that, the valuation arrived by PW18/IO, in respect of purchase price of Rs.4,96,000/­ and the construction cost upto first floor i.e., Rs.77,52,495/­, in total Rs.82,48,495/­, is wrongly taken as asset of the 96 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 accused. Hence, the site value of Rs.4,96,000/­ and the construction cost i.e., Rs.77,52,495/­, in total Rs.82,48,495/­ cannot be treated as asset of the accused, and the same needs to be excluded.

132. It is also contended vide statement - 6 of Ex.P.68 - Schedule of the accused that, the wife of accused had availed Rs.60,00,000/­ from one Papanna, and a loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/­ from Canara Bank, and hence, the total amount invested by wife of accused was Rs.37,65,000/­, + Rs.60,00,000/­ + Rs.1,25,00,000/­ = 2,22,65,000/­. But, it is worthy to mention that, the accused as well as IO has not treated the loan of Rs.60,00,000/­ borrowed from Mr. Papanna as source of income, and in the absence of material to show that the loan was outstanding as on the date of raid, the loan of Rs.60,00,000/­ is not considered as income of the accused.

133. In respect of Asset No.8 i.e., site No.70 in the name of wife of accused at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, 97 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk - It is contended that, IO has wrongly taken this item as asset of the accused, and considered the purchase price as Rs.80,000/­, but, Ex.P.96 - Sale Deed produced by the IO would indicate that, the site was purchased by mother­in­law of accused. It is further contended that, she bequeathed the said property, in favour of her daughter vide Gift Deed dated 14.10.2005, but, as her daughter was described as daughter­in­law, a second Gift Deed at Ex.P.131 was executed on 15.11.2005, however, asset No.8 has not been gifted vide Ex.P.131.

134. On perusal of Ex.P.96 - Sale Deed, it is seen that, Yashodamma had purchased the site No.70 in her name, and in Ex.P.131 - Gift Deed, it is seen that, site No.70 has not been gifted in favour of wife of accused. Further, it is not even the contention of the prosecution that, it is a benami property of accused. In the circumstances therefore, asset No.8 cannot be the asset 98 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 of accused or his wife. Hence, Rs.80,000/­ needs to be deducted.

135. In respect of item No.9 to 21 ­ asset No.9 is 4 acres of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset No.10 is 3 acres 15 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset no.11 is 1 acre 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk.

136. Further, asset No.12 is 2 acres 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset No.13 is 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura 99 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset no.14 is 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk.

137. Further, asset No.15 is 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset no.16 is 2 acre 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset No.17 is 18 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset No.18 is 3 acres 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk,

138. Further, asset no.19 is 2 acres of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at 100 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset No.20 is 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, asset No.21 is 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk.

139. The IO has considered all these properties as the assets of the accused on the ground that, these properties are benami properties of the accused. The learned counsel for accused, relied on the decision reported in 1993 AIR SC 313 in M. Krishna Reddy vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad and submitted that, the burden of showing that a particular transaction is a benami transaction and the owner therein is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so, but, in the present case, the Prosecution though alleged that the accused has 101 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 acquired properties and amassed wealth disproportionate to his income by way of benami transactions executed through his family members, failed to prove these claims with any credible evidence.

140. It is contended on defence side that all these properties belonged to father­in­law of the accused as per the Sale Deeds at Ex.P.76, P.97, P.98, P.99, P.100, P.101, P.102, P.103, P.104, and P.105, under which he had purchased the properties in his own name. The Sale Deeds would indicate that these properties still remain in the name of Venkategowda, and the total worth of these properties is Rs.12,72,000/­.

141. PW18/ IO has admitted that, he has not examined either the vendors or the attesting witnesses to the Sale Deeds in respect of these properties. The accused has also claimed that, his father­in­law had sufficient income, to purchase the property from agricultural activities. PW14 - Venkategowda has given a statement before the IO that, he had purchased the 102 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 properties in his individual capacity. PW18/IO also admitted that, he has not collected any document to show that, the flow of amount for the purchase of these properties are either from the account of the accused or from his wife. It is also worthy to note that, these Sale Deeds were not the documents found in the house of the accused during raid. In the circumstances therefore, it cannot be concluded that these properties are the benami properties of the accused. Hence, the total worth of assets No.9 to 21 i.e., Rs.12,72,000/­ needs to be excluded.

142. In respect of item No.22 i.e., the valuation of expenditure incurred for development, sheds and fences built in the benami properties on different survey numbers, in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk ­ It is seen that, PW18/IO has considered the development cost of Rs.9,35,000/­, as the assets of the accused. It is contended on defence side 103 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 that, the said consideration is without any basis, and the said cost has been incurred by the father­in­law of the accused, towards his own properties.

143. PW5 - the Executive Engineer, has indicated in his Report at Ex.P.8 that, the valuation of the shed and fencing is arrived at Rs.9,35,000/­, but his Report does not indicate that, the sheds and fencing belonged to the accused. In his evidence at para 78, IO has admitted that, he has considered a sum of Rs.9,35,000/­ spent by Venkategowda to improve land in Sy.No.263/1, 263/2, 263/3, and Sy.No.203/1, and to put up barbed wire fence, a shed and a water tank, as the asset value of the accused. PW18/IO has also admitted that, he has not examined the adjacent owners of the said property, and there are no documents to show that, a sum of Rs.9,35,000/­ was spent by the accused or his wife. In the circumstances, the consideration of the amount spent by Venkategowda to improve his lands, as the 104 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 assets of the accused, is not proper. Hence, the said amount of Rs.9,35,000/­ needs to be excluded.

144. In respect of item No.40 ­ Value of the gold ornaments found in the house and also in the locker of the accused on the day of raid ­ IO has considered the said value at Rs.2,15,796/­. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the inflated value has been shown by the Investigating Officer. According to IO, at the time of search in the residence of the accused and in the locker of the accused, gold worth Rs.2,15,796/­ was found as per Ex.P.1 and P.2 Search Mahazars.

145. PW18/IO has admitted that, the rates prevailing as on the date of raid has been applied at the time of drawing the Mahazar. The appraiser who had weighed the gold ornaments and fixed the rates, in the residence of the accused has been examined by the prosecution as PW7, and the said witness during his evidence, has deposed that, he had applied the rate prevailing as on the date of raid. PW6/IO and the panch 105 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 witness PW1 have admitted that, while weighing the ornaments, the wastages were not separated.

146. PW18/IO has also admitted that, there is no mention in the mahazar about the age and the purity of the gold. The evidence of PW1, PW6, PW7, and PW18 coupled with the Mahazar at Ex.P.1 and P.2, would clearly indicate that, the non­gold materials such as stones, beads, wax etc., were not separated, while weighing and if the weight of the said items are to be separated, the weight of the gold will be reduced, and further, the rate has been applied without verifying the purity of the gold, and the rate of gold as on the date of raid was taken into consideration. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that, all the gold ornaments were purchased, immediately prior to the date of raid, and the gold articles were purchased over a period of time.

147. It is seen that, the IO has not even applied the average rate of the gold between from 12.02.1986 to 106 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 26.02.2009, and in view of the same, the weight and value of the gold ornaments needs to be reconsidered. According to the accused, if the weight and value of gold is reconsidered by reducing the value by 25% the same would be Rs.2,15,796 x 25/100 = Rs.53,949/­. In the circumstances therefore, I am of the considered view that, this calculation made by the accused seems to be proper and needs to be accepted accordingly. Hence, the value of the gold needs to be reduced by Rs.53,949/­. If the said value is reduced, the worth of gold would come to Rs.1,61,847/­ (Rs.2,15,796/­ ­ Rs.53,949/­).

148. In respect of item No.42 i.e., Value of the household items found in the house of accused on the day of raid ­ The IO has arrived at Rs.5,42,274/­ as the value of household articles. The panch witness PW1 and PW6/IO have admitted during cross­examination that, they were not accompanied by any expert to ascertain the value of wooden articles, clothes and electronic items. PW6 has also admitted that, they have not ascertained as to if the articles were inherited or received 107 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 as gifts during marriage or other family functions. No documents have been collected by the IO to show that, all the articles were purchased immediately prior to the raid. Admittedly, the value has not been fixed based on the receipts. In the circumstances, the claim of the accused to reduce the price by 25% cannot be said to be on a higher side. Hence, 25% needs to be deducted which comes to Rs.1,35,569/­ (Rs.5,42,274/­ x 25 /

100). If the said value is reduced the worth of household items would come to Rs.4,06,705/­ (Rs.5,42,274/­ ­ Rs.1,35,569/­).

149. The accused has re­calculated the value of the disputed assets as under:

Amount to be Sl.

Description of the assets As per IO deducted as per No. AGO 4 The value of the plot in the name of wife of accused at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC 4,20,000.00 36,17,000.00 Layout, Chikalsandra, 11,53,000.00 Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru, and the 3 storied house built on it.

108 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

5 The value of the commercial building in the name of wife of accused 4,96,000.00 i.e., 6 storied building built 2,22,65,000.00 77,52,496.00 by combining 3 difference plots of Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli 8 Site No.70 in the name of wife of accused at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, 80,000.00 80,000.00 Bengaluru South Taluk 9 4 acres of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,60,000.00 1,60,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 10 3 acres 15 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,35,000.00 1,35,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 11 1 acre 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 60,000.00 60,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 12 2 acres 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 13 30 guntas of land 30,000.00 109 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 30,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 14 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 30,000.00 30,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 15 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 30,000.00 30,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 16 2 acre 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.203/1, 90,000.00 90,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 17 18 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 18,000.00 18,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 18 3 acres 30 guntas of land 1,50,000.00 1,50,000.00 purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, 110 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Chennapatna Taluk 19 2 acres of land purchased in the name of father­in­ law of accused, at Sy.No.263/3, 80,000.00 80,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 20 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 1,30,000.00 1,30,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 21 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,79,000.00 1,79,000.00 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 22 The valuation of expenditure incurred for development, sheds and fences built in the benami properties on different 9,35,000.00 9,35,000.00 survey numbers, in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk

40. Value of the gold ornaments found in the 2,15,796.00 53,949.00 house of accused and locker on the day of raid

42. Value of the household items found in the house of 5,42,274.00 1,35,569.00 accused on the day of raid 111 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Total 2,88,47,070.00 1,22,18,014.00

150. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that, the Assets have to be recalculated as below:

Amount Sl. Description of Recalculated As per IO deducted as No. the assets amount per AGO 4 The value of the plot in the name of wife of accused at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout, 36,17,000.00 4,20,000.00 Chikalsandra, 20,44,000.00 11,53,000.00 Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru, and the 3 storied house built on it.

5 The value of the commercial building in the name of wife of accused i.e., 6 storied building 4,96,000.00 2,22,65,000.00 1,40,16,504.00 built by 77,52,496.00 combining 3 difference plots of Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli 8 Site No.70 in the name of wife of 80,000.00 80,000.00 0 accused at 112 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sector 2, Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk 9 4 acres of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,60,000.00 1,60,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 10 3 acres 15 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,35,000.00 1,35,000.00 Bananthahalli 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 11 1 acre 20 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 60,000.00 60,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 12 2 acres 20 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 0 113 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 13 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 30,000.00 30,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 14 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 30,000.00 30,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 15 30 guntas of 30,000.00 30,000.00 0 land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 114 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 16 2 acre 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.203/1, 90,000.00 90,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 17 18 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 18,000.00 18,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 18 3 acres 30 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,50,000.00 1,50,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 19 2 acres of land 80,000.00 80,000.00 0 purchased in the 115 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 20 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/1, 1,30,000.00 1,30,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 21 3 acres 10 guntas of land purchased in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Sy.No.263/2, 1,79,000.00 1,79,000.00 0 Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk 22 The valuation of 9,35,000.00 9,35,000.00 expenditure 0 incurred for development, sheds and fences built in the benami properties on 116 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 different survey numbers, in the name of father­ in­law of accused, at Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk

40. Value of the gold ornaments found in the house of 2,15,796.00 53,949.00 1,61,847.00 accused and locker on the day of raid

42. Value of the household items found in the 5,42,274.00 1,35,569.00 4,06,705.00 house of accused on the day of raid Total 2,88,47,070.00 1,22,18,014.00 1,66,29,056.00

151. In view of the above discussion, the value of the disputed assets of the accused is Rs.1,66,29,056/­. If the value of the admitted assets of the accused i.e., Rs.43,90,169.63 is added, total of the assets of the accused would be Rs.2,10,19,225.63.

152. Now let me consider the expenditure of the accused incurred by him, during the check period. 117 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 According to the Investigating Officer the following are the expenditures incurred by the accused and his family members during the check period.

Sl.                                               Amount
                    Expenditure
No.                                                (in Rs.)

50 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout, 65,130.00 Chikkalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 51 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of three sites for the purpose of constructing commercial building at 65,950.00 Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 52 Expenses towards the Registration and Stamp duty towards the purchase of 36 gunta of land at Bheemanakuppe Village, 3,44,295.00 Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in the name of accused.

53 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 1 acre and 1 gunta of land at Sy.No.52/1, Devanur Village, Kasaba 1,75,680.00 Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, in the name of wife of accused 54 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site No.70, at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru 12,600.00 South Taluk, in the name of wife of accused 55 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 4 acres of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 31,110.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 118 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 56 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 15 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 23,560.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 57 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 1 acre 20 guntas of land at 11,735.00 Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 58 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 19,485.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 59 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 6,000.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 60 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, 6,000.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 61 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 1,380.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 62 Registration and stamp duty towards the 17,780.00 purchase of 2 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna 119 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 63 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 18 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 3,660.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 64 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 29,213.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 65 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres of land at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, 15,640.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 66 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, 16,120.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 67 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 18,295.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 68 Registration and stamp duty towards the mortgage while obtaining the loan by the 10,520.00 wife of accused 69 Fee paid towards the approval of the sketch of Commercial building at 69,714.00 Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 120 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 70 Fee paid towards the approval of the sketch of the house at G­1, KSRTC Layout, 26,618.00 Chikkalsandra, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 71 Property tax paid towards the commercial building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri 4,19,741.00 Hobli, Bengaluru, in the name of wife of accused 72 Property tax paid towards the residential house at G­1, KSRTC Layout, 57,646.00 Chikkalsandra, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 73 Purchase price of 32 ¾ guntas of land at Sy.No.43 and 45, Hosakerehalli Village, 4,79,845.00 Bengaluru, in the name of accused 74 Expenses towards adopting Drip Irrigation System in the ancestral properties of 49,017.00 accused 75 Expenses towards adopting Drip Irrigation System in the benami properties of father­ 3,97,365.00 in­law of the accused at Bananthahalli Village 76 Expenses towards the water charges to the residential house No.G­1, KSRTC Layout 93,805.00 by the accused 77 Expenses towards the water charges to the rented house at No.253/A, Malleshwaram, 2,400.00 Bengaluru 78 Expenses towards the water charges to the rented house at No.3375, Shastrinagar, 2,100.00 Bengaluru 79 Other expenses towards the electricity connection to the commercial building at 50,054.60 Mylasandra Village by the accused 80 Expenses towards the electricity connection to the residential house at 1,93,964.00 No.G­1, KSRTC Layout, by the accused 81 Fee paid for the drainage connection to the 20,000.00 121 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Commercial building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 82 Registration, Tax, Petrol and other expenses incurred for TVS Scooty Pep 6,723.00 No.KA 41 K 5429 - Two wheeler, in the name of accused 83 Registration, Tax, Petrol and other expenses incurred for Honda Activa No.KA 11,789.00 01 EA 8853 - Two wheeler, in the name of wife of accused 84 Registration, Tax, Petrol and other expenses incurred for Maruti Alto Car 99,501.00 No.KA 05 MD 9834, in the name of wife of accused 85 Registration and Insurance expenses incurred for Hero Honda No.KA 05 X 646 - 2,655.00 Two Wheeler in the name of accused 86 Purchase price of Kinetic Honda No.KA 05 EB 7644 - Two wheeler in the name of wife 40,000.00 of accused 87 Telephone charges of No.26390356 in the 1,66,077.00 name of wife of accused 88 Telephone charges of No.26390777 in the 43,962.00 name of accused 89 Repayment of Loan obtained from SBM, Uttarahalli Branch, for the purchase of car 1,56,060.00 by the wife of accused 90 Repayment of Loan obtained from The Bharath Co­operative Bank, Ltd., by the 10,33,479.00 wife of accused 91 Repayment of Loan obtained from State Bank of India, JC Road Branch, by the 6,22,400.00 wife of accused 92 Repayment of Loan obtained from Canara Bank, Levelle Road Branch by the wife of 1,07,96,008.00 accused 93 Repayment of Loan obtained from Kaveri 650.00 122 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Kalpatharu Rural Bank, Kumbalgod Branch by the wife of accused 94 Repayment of loan obtained from private persons for the construction of commercial 46,75,000.00 building at Mylasandra Village by the wife of accused 95 Loss incurred from the business of Sanje Nudi Newspaper, in the name of wife of 2,00,000.00 accused.

96 Expenses towards the usage of Canara 32,845.00 Bank Credit card by the accused 97 Rent paid for the locker No.248 at State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli Branch by the 5,700.00 wife of accused 98 Premium paid towards LIC Policy 1,82,010.00 No.360437758 in the name of accused 99 Premium paid towards LIC Policy No.360726835 in the name of wife of 1,43,496.00 accused 100 Premium paid towards LIC Policy No.360805960 in the name of wife of 2,59,672.00 accused 101 Premium paid towards LIC Policy 3,57,231.00 No.360793633 in the name of accused 102 Premium paid towards LIC Policy No.360084401 in the name of wife of 35,378.50 accused 103 Premium paid towards LIC Policy ­­­­ No.362000979 in the name of accused 104 Premium paid towards LIC Policy ­­­­ No.610335555 in the name of accused 105 Premium paid towards LIC Policy No.364037904 in the name of daughter of 81,510.00 accused 106 Purchase of NSC Certificates by the 2,00,000.00 accused and his wife 107 Total tax paid by the accused and his wife 15,42,085.00 123 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 108 Family expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period i.e., from 6,11,886.00 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 109 Expenses towards cable connection 2,400.00 110 Expenses towards dog maintenance 35,280.00 111 Expenses towards gas connection 20,106.21 112 Education expenses of daughter of accused 1,27,130.00 113 Education expenses of son of accused 2,56,450.00 114 Expenses towards naming ceremony of 6,300.00 daughter of accused 115 Expenses incurred by the accused for the 15,100.00 Best Club membership 116 Expenses incurred by the accused for the 260.00 Hopcoms membership 117 Expenses towards the foreign trip of the 2,18,916.00 family through Kesari Tours 118 Fee paid towards the passport of accused 3,200.00 and his family members 119 Rent paid to house No.3375, Shastrinagar, 73,800.00 Bengaluru 120 Expenses towards the service/ repair of 1,435.00 the refrigerator 121 Expenses towards the medical examination at Diabetes Education and Treatment 2,700.00 Centre 122 Fees paid to DG Hospital towards medical examination and treatment of accused and 9,729.00 his wife 123 Fees paid to Raghav Diagnostics and Research Centre Pvt Ltd., towards medical 5,525.00 examination 124 Fees paid for renewal of weapon license 350.00 Total 2,48,21,221.31

153. Out of the said 75 heads, the accused has 124 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 disputed the value in respect of the expenditure mentioned in Sl. No.50, 51, 54 to 67, 69, 75, 81, 92, 108, and 119. The accused has not disputed the expenditure mentioned in Sl.No.52, 53, 68, 70 to 74, 76 to 80, 82 to 107, 109 to 118, 120 to 124. Hence, the discussion is confined only to the disputed expenditure. The Items in Sl. No.50, 51, 54 to 67, 69, 75, 81, 92, 108, and 119. of the Investigating Officer are:

Sl.

Description of the assets As per IO No. 50 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout, 65,130.00 Chikkalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 51 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of three sites for the purpose of constructing commercial building at 65,950.00 Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 54 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site No.70, at Sector 2, Bagalur 12,600.00 Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in the name of wife of accused 55 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 4 acres of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura 31,110.00 Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 56 Registration and stamp duty towards the 23,560.00 purchase of 3 acres 15 guntas of land at 125 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 57 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 1 acre 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, 11,735.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 58 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 19,485.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 59 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 6,000.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 60 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, 6,000.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 61 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 1,380.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 62 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, 17,780.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 63 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 18 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 3,660.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 64 Registration and stamp duty towards the 29,213.00 126 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 purchase of 3 acres 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 65 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres of land at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura 15,640.00 Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 66 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, 16,120.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 67 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 18,295.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 69 Fee paid towards the approval of the sketch of Commercial building at Mylasandra 69,714.00 Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 75 Expenses towards adopting Drip Irrigation System in the benami properties of father­ 3,97,365.00 in­law of the accused at Bananthahalli Village 81 Fee paid for the drainage connection to the Commercial building at Mylasandra Village, 20,000.00 Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 92 Repayment of Loan obtained from Canara Bank, Levelle Road Branch by the wife of 1,07,96,008.00 accused 108 Family expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period i.e., from 6,11,886.00 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 119 Rent paid to house No.3375, Shastrinagar, 73,800.00 Bengaluru 127 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Total 1,23,12,431.00

154. In respect of item No.50, 51, 54 to 67 i.e., Item No.50 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout, Chikkalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused, item No. 51 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of three sites for the purpose of constructing commercial building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused, item No.54 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site No.70, at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in the name of wife of accused, item No.55 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 4 acres of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused.

155. Further, item No.56 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 15 guntas of land 128 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.57 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 1 acre 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.58 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused.

156. Further, item No.59 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.60 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law 129 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 of accused, item No.61 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.62 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.63 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 18 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.64 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused.

157. Further, item no.65 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres of land at 130 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, item No.66 is Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused, and item No.67 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused.

158. It is contended that, the Stamp duty and registration charges i.e., the total expenses of Rs.3,43,658/­, in respect of these items were paid by PW14, and therefore, the same needs to be deducted. It is seen that, the property documents in respect of these items, were not found in the residence of the accused. Evidence of PW18/IO coupled with Sale Deeds at Ex.P.76, P.97, P.98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 131 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 would clearly indicate that, the properties were purchased by PW14 and his wife. Neither the Vendors nor the attesting witnesses of these Sale Deeds were examined to show that, funds for the purchase of these properties was flown from accused. Further, no documents have been secured by the IO to show that, amount has been flown from the account of accused or his wife. Hence, the total expenditure of Rs.3,43,658/­ needs to be deducted from the expenditure of accused.

159. In respect of item No.69 ­ Fee paid towards the approval of the sketch of Commercial building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru - It is seen that, Mylasandra property was purchased by mother­in­ law of accused, and to secure the building plan, she had paid Rs.69,714/­. As the said amount is shown as expenditure of the accused, it is to be deducted.

160. In respect of item No.75 ­ Cost incurred by the Venkategowda towards the drip irrigation for his properties at Bananthahalli - PW18/IO admitted that, 132 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 PW14 had obtained subsidy from Government in respect of drip irrigation, and he has collected Ex.P.60 in this regard from the concerned department. On perusal of Ex.P.60 it is seen that, installation of drip irrigation arrangement was made by PW14 in his lands. Hence, Rs.3,97,365/­ shown by IO cannot be treated as expenditure of the accused, and needs to be deducted.

161. In respect of item No.81 ­ Cost incurred towards laying the sewage line to the commercial building at Mylasandra - It is contended on behalf of the accused that, it was Yashodamma who had spent Rs.20,000/­ for laying the said sewage line. In Ex.P.129, it is seen that, the said amount was remitted by Yashodamma, and PW18/IO has also admitted that, as per Ex.P.129, Yashodamma had remitted a sum of Rs.20,000/­ to BWSSB. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be treated as expenditure of accused, and Rs.20,000/­ needs to be deducted.

162. In respect of item No.92 ­ Repayment of Loan obtained from Canara Bank, Levelle Road Branch by the 133 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 wife of accused ­ IO has considered Rs.1,07,96,008/­ in this head, and the contention of the accused is that, Rs.37,30,824/­ is included in excess. It is contended that, wife of accused had availed Rs.1,00,00,000/­ loan for the first time, repaid Rs.58,09,543/­, and to clear the balance availed another loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/­, and Rs.62,69,176/­ was paid towards earlier loan. Thus, total amount repaid in respect of earlier loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/­ is Rs.1,20,78,719/­ and the said earlier loan was closed. Loan amount of 1,00,00,000/­ was not considered as income, therefore Investigating Officer should take only Rs.20,78,719/­ as expenditure.

163. Regarding the second loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/­, an amount of Rs.49,86,465/­ was repaid, and hence, the said amount of Rs.49,86,465/­, needs to be taken as expenditure. If earlier expenditure of Rs.20,78,719/­ is added, the same comes to Rs.70,65,184/­ (Rs.49,86,465/­ + Rs.20,78,719/­), and the said amount needs to be taken as total expenditure. 134 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

164. PW18 admitted that, to construct the commercial building at Mylasandra, Saraswathi had obtained loan from Canara Bank. According to PW18, she had availed the first loan for Rs.1,00,00,000/­ on 18.04.2006, and the second loan for Rs.1,25,00,000/­ on 25.07.2007. PW18 admitted that, the loan amount would be considered as income, and the repayment amount would be considered as expenditure. PW18 also admitted that, in respect of the first loan Rs.58,09,543/­ has been repaid as on 25.07.2007, and Rs.62,69,176/­ was paid after obtaining the second loan. PW18 further admitted that, in respect of second loan Rs.49,00,695/­ has been repaid as on 26.02.2009, along with processing fee of Rs.85,770/­.

165. PW18 has deposed that, Saraswathi had obtained a total amount of loan at Rs.2,25,00,000/­, but, he has considered only Rs.1,25,00,000/­ towards income of the accused. It is seen that, the IO has taken the total expenditure as Rs.1,07,96,008/­, and there is 135 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 no reason for the IO for showing this excess amount of Rs.37,30,824/­ (Rs.1,07,96,008/­ ­ Rs.70,65,184/­) as expenditure of the accused. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.37,30,824/­ needs to be excluded.

166. In respect of item No.108 - Family expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 ­ PW18/IO has taken Rs.6,11,886/­ as per capita monthly expenditure of the accused and his family members, based on Ex.P.31 ­ Report of PW10. During evidence, PW10 has admitted that, his Report is not 100% correct. On perusal of Ex.P.31 - Report, it indicates that, general and standard rates were applied in respect of adults as well as minors. It is admitted by PW10 that, if agricultural produces are grown personally and used for consumption, the expenditure of such person would be reduced. Admittedly, the accused is an agriculturist, as the IO has considered his agricultural income. In the circumstances therefore, the per capita monthly 136 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 expenditure needs to be reduced. If 25% is deducted same would work out to Rs.1,52,972/­ (Rs.6,11,886/­ x 25 / 100). Hence, Rs.1,52,972/­ needs to be deducted.

167. In respect of item No.119 ­ Rent paid to house No.3375, Shastrinagar, Bengaluru - PW18/IO has considered Rs.73,800/­ as expenditure of the accused on the ground that, the accused paid the same to one Shivalingaiah as rent. It is the specific defence of the accused that, he was residing on the basis of lease. PW8 ­ Shivalingaiah has categorically stated that, the accused was staying as a tenant on lease basis and he had not paid any rent. Hence, the entire amount of Rs.73,800/­ needs to be deducted.

168. The re­calculation of the value of the Expenditure as per accused are as under:

Amount to be Sl.

Description of the assets As per IO deducted as No. per AGO 50 Registration and stamp duty 65,130.00 towards the purchase of site 65,130.00 at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC 137 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Layout, Chikkalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 51 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of three sites for the purpose of constructing commercial 65,950.00 65,950.00 building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 54 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site No.70, at Sector 2, Bagalur 12,600.00 12,600.00 Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in the name of wife of accused 55 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 4 acres of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, 31,110.00 31,110.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 56 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 15 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 23,560.00 23,560.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 57 Registration and stamp duty 11,735.00 towards the purchase of 1 acre 20 guntas of land at 11,735.00 Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law 138 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 of accused 58 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 19,485.00 19,485.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 59 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 6,000.00 6,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 60 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli 6,000.00 6,000.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 61 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 1,380.00 1,380.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 62 Registration and stamp duty 17,780.00 17,780.00 towards the purchase of 2 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law 139 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 of accused 63 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 18 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 3,660.00 3,660.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 64 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 29,213.00 29,213.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 65 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres of land at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli Village, 15,640.00 15,640.00 Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 66 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli 16,120.00 16,120.00 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 67 Registration and stamp duty 18,295.00 18,295.00 towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law 140 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 of accused 69 Fee paid towards the approval of the sketch of Commercial building at 69,714.00 69,714.00 Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 75 Expenses towards adopting Drip Irrigation System in the benami properties of father­ 3,97,365.00 3,97,365.00 in­law of the accused at Bananthahalli Village 81 Fee paid for the drainage connection to the Commercial building at 20,000.00 20,000.00 Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 92 Repayment of Loan obtained from Canara Bank, Levelle Road Branch by the wife of 1,07,96,008.00 37,30,824.00 accused 108 Family expenditure incurred by the accused during the 6,11,886.00 1,52,972.00 check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 119 Rent paid to house No.3375, 73,800.00 73,800.00 Shastrinagar, Bengaluru Total 1,23,12,431.00 47,88,333.00

169. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that, the Expenditure has to be recalculated as below:

141 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

Amount to be Sl. Description of the Recalculated As per IO deducted as No. assets amount per AGO 1 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site at No.G­1, Chaitra Nilaya, 6th Main, 3rd Cross, KSRTC 65,130.00 65,130.00 0 Layout, Chikkalsandra, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 2 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of three sites for the purpose of constructing 65,950.00 65,950.00 0 commercial building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 5 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of site No.70, at Sector 2, Bagalur Village, Jala 12,600.00 12,600.00 0 Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in the name of wife of accused 6 Registration and 31,110.00 31,110.00 0 stamp duty towards the purchase of 4 acres of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna 142 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 7 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 15 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 23,560.00 23,560.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 8 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 1 acre 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli 11,735.00 11,735.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 9 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 20 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 19,485.00 19,485.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 10 Registration and 6,000.00 6,000.00 0 stamp duty towards 143 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 11 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli 6,000.00 6,000.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 12 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 1,380.00 1,380.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 13 Registration and 17,780.00 17,780.00 0 stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.203/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna 144 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 14 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 18 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 3,660.00 3,660.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 15 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 29,213.00 29,213.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 16 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 2 acres of land at Sy.No.263/3, Bananthahalli 15,640.00 15,640.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 17 Registration and 16,120.00 16,120.00 0 stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of 145 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 land at Sy.No.263/1, Bananthahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 18 Registration and stamp duty towards the purchase of 3 acres 10 guntas of land at Sy.No.263/2, Bananthahalli 18,295.00 18,295.00 0 Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Chennapatna Taluk, in the name of father­in­law of accused 20 Fee paid towards the approval of the sketch of Commercial building at 69,714.00 69,714.00 0 Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru in the name of wife of accused 26 Expenses towards adopting Drip Irrigation System in the benami properties of father­ 3,97,365.00 3,97,365.00 0 in­law of the accused at Bananthahalli Village 32 Fee paid for the 20,000.00 20,000.00 0 drainage connection to the Commercial 146 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 building at Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of wife of accused 43 Repayment of Loan obtained from Canara Bank, 1,07,96,008.00 37,30,824.00 70,65,184.00 Levelle Road Branch by the wife of accused 59 Family expenditure incurred by the accused during the 6,11,886.00 1,52,972.00 4,58,914.00 check period i.e., from 12.02.1986 to 26.02.2009 70 Rent paid to house No.3375, 73,800.00 73,800.00 0 Shastrinagar, Bengaluru Total 1,23,12,431.00 47,88,333.00 75,24,098.00

170. In view of the above discussion, the total of disputed expenditure as shown by the IO i.e., Rs.1,23,12,431/­ + the total of admitted expenditure of accused i.e., Rs.1,25,08,790/­, the value of the total expenditure would be Rs.2,48,21,221/­. If deduction of disputed expenditure of Rs.47,88,333/­ is given, the total expenditure would be Rs.2,00,32,888/­. Hence, the total expenditure of the accused needs to be considered as Rs.2,00,32,888/­.

147 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

171. In view of the above discussion, the findings of this Court, regarding the Income, Assets, Expenditure and value of disproportionate assets, are as follows:

         Heads            As per IO     Reduction           Net
Assets                   3,32,37,240 1,22,18,014         2,10,19,226
Expenditure              2,48,21,221     47,88,333       2,00,32,888
Assets + Expenditure     5,80,58,461 1,70,06,347         4,10,52,114


         Heads            As per IO     Addition            Net
Income                   4,46,23,372     17,95,720       4,64,19,092
Left out income              0           15,91,613         15,91,613
Total (Income + Left     4,46,23,372     33,87,333       4,80,10,705
out income)
Disproportionate                              Nil
Assets

172. Thus, i) The total income of the accused during the check period is Rs.4,80,10,705, ii) Assets of the accused during the check period is Rs.2,10,19,226, iii) Expenses of the accused is Rs.2,00,32,888, iv) Total of the assets and expenditure is Rs.4,10,52,114, and hence,

v) Value of disproportionate assets found with the accused is - Nil.

173. In view of these findings therefore, it is to be held that, the accused was not in possession of 148 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 disproportionate assets and properties, during the check period, as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, the accused could establish that his income was more than his assets and expenditure, as contended. Therefore, I hold that, the guilt of the accused regarding criminal misconduct, under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has not been established by the prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Negative.

174. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

His bail bond and the surety bonds, are cancelled.

Accused is directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/­, as per 149 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C., for his due appearance before the Appellate Court, in case, if any Appeal is preferred against this Judgment.

(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 17th day of April 2023).

Sd/­ 17.04.2023 Vineetha P. Shetty, LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH 79).

ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1        G.L. Vimala
P.W.2        K.S. Janardhan
P.W.3        Gunavantha
P.W.4        B.G. Kalavathi
P.W.5        Pranesh Kumar
P.W.6        V. Shekar
P.W.7        Ramalal
P.W.8        Shivalingaiah
P.W.9        H.A. Upendra
P.W.10       Jayadeva Prakash
P.W.11       A.S. Hanumantharayappa
P.W.12       Hombegowda
                         150         Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

P.W.13      Shivanna
P.W.14      Venkategowda @ Gundappa
P.W.15      Doddahaidaiah
P.W.16      Kempurugaiah
P.W.17      H.S. Manjunath
P.W.18      Girish S.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1         Search Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a)      Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1(b)      Signature of PW6
Ex.P.2         Search Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a)      Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2(b)      Signature of PW6
Ex.P.3         Search Warrant
Ex.P.3(a)      Signature of PW1
Ex.P.3(b)      Signature of PW6
Ex.P.4         Report of Assistant Director of
               Agriculture, Chennapatna
Ex.P.4(a)      Signature of PW2
Ex.P.5         Letter and report of Assistant Director
               of Agriculture, Chennapatna
Ex.P.5(a)      Signature of PW2
Ex.P.6         Report of Senior Assistant Director of
               Horticulture, Chennapatna
Ex.P.6(a)      Signature of PW3
Ex.P.7         Report of Senior Assistant Director of
               Horticulture, Chennapatna
Ex.P.7(a)      Signature of PW3
                        151        Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

Ex.P.8       Valuation Report of Technical Wing of
             Karnataka Lokayukta.
Ex.P.8(a)    Signature of PW5
Ex.P.9       Source Report
Ex.P.9(a)    Signature of PW6
Ex.P.10      FIR
Ex.P.10(a)   Signature of PW6
Ex.P.11      Authorisation letter of SP, Karnataka
             Lokayukta
Ex.P.11(a)   Signature of PW6
Ex.P.12      Letter of Manager, Cauvery Kalpatharu
             Gramina Bank, Kumbalagodu
Ex.P.13      Letter of Assistant Manager, National
             Insurance Company
Ex.P.14      Letter of Branch Manager, Canara
             Bank, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru
Ex.P.15      Letter of Assistant General Manager,

Canara Bank, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru Ex.P.16 Letter of ARTO, Jayanagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.17 Letter of Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru Ex.P.18 Letter of RTO, Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru Ex.P.19 Letter of Principal, Srikumaran School, Bengaluru Ex.P.20 Letter of Chairman, Jain International School, Jakkasandra, Bengaluru Ex.P.21 Letter of RTO, Bengaluru Central, Koramangala, Bengaluru Ex.P.22 Letter of Administrative Officer, LIC, Chennapatna Ex.P.23 Letter of Executive Engineer, PWD, Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru 152 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Ex.P.24 Letter of Assistant Executive Engineer, Cauvery Niravari Nigama, Nagamangala Ex.P.25 Letter of Deputy Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru Ex.P.26 Letter of Addl. Commissioner, BBMP, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.27 Letter of Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru Ex.P.28 Letter of PW8 Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.29 Letter of PW9 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.30 Prosecution Sanction order Ex.P.31 Report of Joint Director of Statistics, Karnataka Lokayukta Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.32 Authorisation Order Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.33 Letter of Rajarajeshwarinagar Post Office, Bengaluru Ex.P.34 Letter of Ashwa Motors, Bengaluru Ex.P.35 Letter of Public Relation Officer, BSNL.

Ex.P.36      Letter of Madhumeha Treatment
             Centre, Bengaluru
Ex.P.37      Letter of Sub­Registrar, Kengeri
Ex.P.38      Statement of PW12
Ex.P.39      Statement of PW13
Ex.P.40      Statement of PW15
Ex.P.41      Statement of PW16
Ex.P.42      Authorisation Order
                        153         Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

Ex.P.43      Letter of State Bank of Mysore
Ex.P.44      Letter of Office of Police Commissioner
Ex.P.45      Letter of Hospital
Ex.P.46      Letter of Kesari Tours and Travels
Ex.P.47      Letter of Canara Bank
Ex.P.48      Letter of Kanakapura Taluk Panchayat
Ex.P.49      Letter of , Banashankari Taluk
             Panchayat
Ex.P.50      Letter of Ashwa TVS
Ex.P.51      Letter of Royal Sundaram Alliance
             Insurance
Ex.P.52      Letter of BSNL
Ex.P.53      Letter of Principal, Cluny Convent High
             School
Ex.P.54      Letter of Canara Bank
Ex.P.55      Letter of Principal, Indian Institute of
             Nursing

Ex.P.55(a) Rental details of Indian Institute of Nursing Ex.P.56 Letter of Assistant Director, Town Planning Ex.P.57 Letter of Gas Distributors Ex.P.57(a) Details of Gas Connection Ex.P.58 Letter of State Bank of Mysore Ex.P.59 Letter of Senior Assistant Horticulture Director, Chennapatna Ex.P.60 Letter of the Senior Director of Horticulture, Chennapatna Ex.P.61 Letter of rent details of Krishna Kumar Ex.P.62 Letter of Canara Bank Ex.P.63 Letter of BBMP 154 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Ex.P.64 Letter of Vokkaligara Sangha Ex.P.65 Letter of Director of Horticulture, Ramanagar.

Ex.P.66         Statement of Shivaprasad
Ex.P.67         Letter of Chief Engineer
Ex.P.68         Schedules 1 to 23 of accused
Ex.P.68(a) & (b) Letters of DW2
Ex.P.68(c)      Signature of DW2
Ex.P.68(d)      Letter of DW3
Ex.P.68(e)      Signature of DW3
Ex.P.68(f)      Letter of DW4
Ex.P.68(g)      Signature of DW4
Ex.P.69         Letter of State Bank of Mysore
Ex.P.70         Letter of Canara Bank
Ex.P.71         Letter of State Bank of India.
Ex.P.72 & 73    Letters of Department of Posts
Ex.P.74         Letter of UTI Ltd.,
Ex.P.75         Letter of Assistant Agriculture Director,
                Chennapatna Taluk
Ex.P.76         Letter of Office of Sub­Registrar,
                Chennapatna
Ex.P.77 & 78    Letter of Department of Posts
Ex.P.79         Letter of KGID
Ex.P.80         Letter of Canara Bank

Ex.P.81 to 83 Letters of State Bank of Mysore Ex.P.84 Letter of UTI Children Growth Gift Fund.

Ex.P.85         Letter of Transport Department
Ex.P.86         P.F. No.22/9
Ex.P.87         Letter of Motor Starters
                         155           Spl. C.C. No.196/2012

Ex.P.88        NSC Certificates
Ex.P.89 & 90   Letters of BESCOM
Ex.P.91        Letter of BWSSB
Ex.P.92        Letter of Gas Agency
Ex.P.93        Stamp Duty and Registration Fee

particulars in Page 79 to 131 of volume ­1 Ex.P.94 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 136 to 149 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.95 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 150 to 169 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.96 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 173 to 193 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.97 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 210 to 215 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.98 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 216 to 225 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.99 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 226 to 232 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.100 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 233 to 237 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.101 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 238 to 242 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.102 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 243 to 247 of volume ­ 1 156 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Ex.P.103 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 248 to 255 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.104 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 256 to 259 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.105 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 260 to 267 of volume ­ 1 Ex.P.106 Stamp Duty and Registration Fee particulars in Page 73 to 86 of volume ­ II Ex.P.107 Sanction Plan Fee particulars in page 2 to 4 of volume ­ II Ex.P.108 Building Tax particulars in page 5 to 13 of volume ­ II Ex.P.109 House Tax particulars in page 14 to 24 of volume ­ II Ex.P.110 Land purchase particulars in page 25 to 50 of volume ­ II Ex.P.111 Drip Irrigation particulars in page 51 to 53 of volume ­ II Ex.P.112 Details of registration, tax, fuel and other expenses of T.V.S. Scooty Pep in page 346 to 349 of volume ­ I Ex.P.113 Details of registration, tax, fuel and other expenses of Honda Activa in page 359 to 360 of volume ­ I Ex.P.114 Details of registration, tax, fuel and other expenses of Honda Activa in page 365 to 366 of volume ­ I Ex.P.115 Details of loan from State Bank of India in page 87 to 98 of volume ­ II Ex.P.116 Details of locker rent in page 143 of volume ­ II 157 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Ex.P.117 Details of LIC premium in page 152 to 155 of volume ­ II Ex.P.118 Details of LIC premium in page 160 to 163 of volume ­ II Ex.P.119 Details of family expenses in page 170 to 175 of volume ­ II Ex.P.120 Details of cable connection in page 176 of volume ­ II Ex.P.121 Details of club membership particulars in page 183 to 185 of volume ­ II Ex.P.122 Details of Hopcoms membership in page 186 of volume ­ II Ex.P.123 Details of passports in page 189 to 191 of volume ­ II Ex.P.124 Details of refrigerator service in page 192 of volume ­ II Ex.P.125 Details of Medical Checkup in page 215 to 218 of volume ­ II Ex.P.126 Details arms license in page 438 to 440 of volume ­ II Ex.P.127 Details of salary income in page 332 of volume ­ II Ex.P.128 Valuation Report and Sale Deed (Double marked) Ex.P.129 Details of sewage line connection in page 61 of volume - II and Sale Deed (Double marked) Ex.P.130 Valuation Report and Sale Deed (Double marked) Ex.P.131 C/c. of Encumbrance Certificate and a Gift Deed (Double marked) Ex.P.132 Letter of LIC Ex.P.132(a) LIC policy particulars 158 Spl. C.C. No.196/2012 Ex.P.133 Authorisation Order Ex.P.134 Authorisation Order Ex.P.134(a) Signature of CW101 Ex.P.135 Notice of ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta Ex.P.135(a) Signature of CW101 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

D.W.1         M. Shivaramegowda
D.W.2         Rudresh K.
D.W.3         Dr. H.V. Rajashekar Reddy
D.W.4         Mohammed Sadiq

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

Ex.D.1        Letter of PW14


                            Sd/­ 17.04.2023
                          Vineetha P. Shetty,

LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH 79).