Bangalore District Court
Tukarama Kalyanakara vs N.Shekar Alias Lawyer Shekar on 24 March, 2025
KABC030154022019
Presented on : 01.03.2019
Registered on : 01.03.2019
Decided on : 24.03.2025
Duration : 06y/00m/23day
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY: TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 24th day of March 2025
C.C.No.5153/2019
COMPLAINANT : The State by
Vidhana Soudha Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : N.Shekar @ Lawyer Shekar
S/o. Late Nanjundappa,
Aged 34 years, R/at.No.36,
1st Main, 11th Cross,
Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of offence 24.08.2018
Date of report 24.08.2018
Date of arrest 26.08.2018
Name of the complainant Tukaram Kalyankar
Date of commencement of 03.04.2019
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 22.11.2024
2 C.C.No.5153/2019
Offences complained of U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 201 of
IPC.
State Represented by Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri. Krishna Kumar K.K.
Advocate.
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 24.03.2025] The PI of Vidhana Soudha PS has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 201 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 24.08.2018 in between 3.15p.m to 4.45p.m., in order to make unlawful gain, the accused created false letter head of CW.2 and fabricated false note[n¥ÀàtÂ] envisaging the Principal Secretary of Revenue department regarding merger of service of CW.3 to Revenue department from Pre-University education department as equivalent scale under Rule 16[A][ii] of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, forged the signature of CW.2 thereon and forwarded the same to CW.3 through whatsapp, gave its copy to CW.1 in the office of Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, 3 C.C.No.5153/2019 Room No.320, 3rd Floor, Vidhana Soudha. He did so with an intention to cheat CW.1 to 3, used the forged document as genuine document, cheated the Government as well as CW.1 to 3, torn the original note[n¥ÀàtÂ] and thereby caused disappearance of evidence committed by him. On the basis of computerized typed information given by CW.1, the Vidhana Soudha police have registered this case against the accused in Cr.No.44/2018.
3. On 26.08.2018, the accused was arrested and produced before the Court. As per the order dated: 29.08.2018, he was enlarged on bail.
4. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. The Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 201 of IPC. The Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
5. The Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, the Court framed charges for the 4 C.C.No.5153/2019 offences punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 201 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. He claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 31 documents. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating evidence led against him. He did not choose to lead his defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. KKK Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused with dishonest intention of making money created false letter head of CW.2, fabricated false note[n¥ÀàtÂ] envisaging the Principal Secretary of Revenue department regarding merger of service of CW.3 to Revenue department from 5 C.C.No.5153/2019 Pre-University education department as equivalent scale under Rule 16[A][ii] of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, forged the signature of CW.2 thereon and forwarded the same to CW.3 through whatsapp on 24.08.2018 in between 3.15p.m to 4.45p.m and its copy was given to CW.1 in the office of Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Room No.320, 3rd Floor, Vidhana Soudha and thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.465 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused created false document by forging the signature of CW.2 for the purpose of cheating and making money and thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused used forged document as genuine document, which is known to be forged and thereby he has 6 C.C.No.5153/2019 committed the offence punishable U/Sec.471 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused cheated CW.1 to 3 as well as the Government by creating false document and thereby the accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused torn the original note[n¥ÀàtÂ] and thereby caused disappearance of evidence and thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.201 of IPC?
6. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : In Negative
7 C.C.No.5153/2019
Point No.5 : In Negative
Point No.6 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 to 5: As all these points are interrelated, I take all the five points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused with dishonest intention of making money created false letter head of CW.2, fabricated false note[n¥ÀàtÂ] envisaging the Principal Secretary of Revenue department regarding merger of service of CW.3 to Revenue department from Pre-University education department as equivalent scale under Rule 16[A][ii] of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, forged the signature of CW.2 thereon, forwarded the same to CW.3 through whatsapp on 24.08.2018 in between 3.15p.m to 4.45p.m and its copy was given to CW.1 in the office of Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Room No.320, 3rd Floor, Vidhana Soudha, he did so for the purpose of cheating and making money, used forged document as genuine document, which is known to be forged, 8 C.C.No.5153/2019 cheated CW.1 to 3 as well as the Government, torn the original note[n¥ÀàtÂ] and thereby caused disappearance of evidence.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant CW.1 as PW.3, affected persons/CW.2 as PW.10, CW.3 as PW.1, mahazar witness/CW.5 as PW.2, CW.11 as PW.9, seizure mahazar witness/CW.8 as PW.4, CW.9 as PW.5, CW.6 as PW.6, CW.10 as PW.7, the police who arrested the accused/CW.15 as PW.8 and Investigating officer/CW.18 as PW.11 and got marked copy of forged note as Ex.P.1, complaint as Ex.P.2, spot mahazar as Ex.P.3, covering letters given by CW.1 as Ex.P.4, 5, specimen signature of CW.2 made in Kannada language as Ex.P.6 to 8, original letter heads of CW.2 as Ex.P.9 to 11, copy of forged office note as Ex.P.12, original office notes of CW.2 as Ex.P.13 and 14, specimen signatures of CW.2 made in English language as Ex.P.15 to 17, seizure mahazar as Ex.P.18, portion of statement of PW.4 as Ex.P.19, seizure mahazar as Ex.P.20, 21, portion of the statement of PW.7 as Ex.P.22, report 9 C.C.No.5153/2019 given by PW.8 as Ex.P.23, FIR as Ex.P.24, spot mahazar as Ex.P.25, police notice given to the pancha witnesses as Ex.P.26, expert's report as Ex.P.27, requisition of the IO as Ex.P.28, report of truth lab as Ex.P.29, requisition of the SHO as Ex.P.30 and report of truth lab as Ex.P.31.
12. CW.1/PW.3 - Tukaram Kalyanakar in his evidence has stated that, when he was working as personal secretary to Chief Secretary of Government of Karnataka on 24.08.2018 in between 3.15 p.m., to 4 p.m., the CW.3 produced a letter and asked about the action taken by him. The said note was with respect to the merger of the service from Pre-University department to Revenue department. That note was written as though it was issued by chief secretary. On verification of the records, he found that the signature of Chief secretary has been forged thereon. Hence, he brought the notice of the same to CW.2. As per his instructions, he gave Ex.P.2/complaint to Vidhana Soudha Police. He furnished Ex.P.1/note given by CW.3 along with the complaint. Thereafter the Vidhana Soudha police came to their 10 C.C.No.5153/2019 office and drawn Ex.P.3 mahazar, for which he along with CW.11 and 12 have affixed their signatures. The IO called him to Vidhana Soudha police station, wherein he showed CW.3 and the accused herein and told that the accused sent the forged note to CW.3 through Whatsapp and in turn the CW.3 got its print out and produced the same before him. Subsequently, the Vidhana Soudha police requested him to furnish specimen signatures of Chief Secretary, documents bearing his original signatures and original letter heads of Chief Secretary. That letter is marked as Ex.P.4. In the month of February 2019, the IO sent a requisition and asked him to furnish documents bearing the signature of CW.2 made in English language. Accordingly, on 13.02.2019, he furnished specimen signatures of CW.2 made in English language along with Ex.P.5 letter. The CW.2 made specimen signatures in his presence. He handed over the same to the IO. The CW.2 made his signatures on 3 sheets in Kannada language, which are marked as Ex.P.6 to 8. The original notes made on letter heads of CW.2 are marked as Ex.P.12 to 14. The CW.2 has also made the 11 C.C.No.5153/2019 signatures on 3 sheets in English language, which are marked as Ex.P.15 to 17. Generally, the CW.2 makes signatures in Kannada languages to the notes make in Kannada language.
13. CW.3/PW.1 - Erappa Onimani, in his evidence has stated that, he is a lecturer and he is acquainted with the accused. In the month of July-2018, the CW.5 introduced him to the accused. At that time, the accused introduced himself as an Advocate and told his wife is an IAS Officer. On 30.07.2018, the accused sent note[n¥ÀàtÂ] of Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to his 9448212388 whatsapp number stating that, his services are recommended for the merger with revenue department by the Prl. Secretary of revenue department. On 24.08.2018, he took the print out of the note, which he received through Whatsapp and gave it to CW.4 to verification at the office of Chief Secretary. On the same day, he along with CW.4 visited the office of Chief Secretary and on enquiry, the officials of Chief Secretary told that no such note[n¥ÀàtÂ] was issued from their office. So, he told that 12 C.C.No.5153/2019 he has received the office note through Whatsapp from the accused. The officials of Chief Secretary told that, the said note[n¥ÀàtÂ] is fake. On 25.08.2018, the Vidhana Soudha police called him to the station. He told the police that, he received the note through Whatsapp from the accused. On the same day, the Vidhana Soudha police seized his HTC mobile by drawing mahazar. The copy of the note received through Whatsapp is marked as Ex.P.1. He has identified the accused and he can identify his mobile.
14. CW.5/PW.2 - Mallikarjun in his evidence has stated that, in the month of June-2018, he was the personal secretary to Belur MLA. On 24.08.2018 at 3 p.m., he had been to the Secretariat of Public welfare department. At that time, the CW.3 showed Ex.P.1 and requested him to verify the same. Accordingly, he took him to the office of Chief Secretary and on enquiry with the personal secretary, he told that Ex.P.1 is a fake document. On enquiry, the CW.3 told that, the accused sent the same to his 13 C.C.No.5153/2019 Whatsapp number. He has identified Ex.P.1 as well as the accused.
15. CW.2/PW.10 - T.M. Vijay Bhaskar in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka, his personal secretary/CW.1 approached him on 24.08.2018 in between 3.30 p.m., to 4.30 p.m., and showed a note[n¥ÀàtÂ] having his forged signature. By seeing the document, he found that, his signature as well as the letter head are forged and hence he orally instructed CW.1 to lodge complaint before the police. Ex.P.1 is the forged note[n¥ÀàtÂ], which was showed by CW.1. In Ex.P.1 letter head, his name is mentioned as T.M.Vijaya Bhaskar, but in the original letter head his name is written as T.M.Vijay Bhaskar. The signature found on Ex.P.1 is not his signature. Ex.P.6 to 8 and 15 to 17 are his specimen signatures made in Kannada and English languages. Ex.P.9 to 11 are the original letter heads. Ex.P.12 and 13 note[n¥ÀàtÂ] bears his original signatures.
14 C.C.No.5153/2019
16. CW.8/PW.4 - K.Sridhar in his evidence has stated that Ex.P.18 bears his signature. As per the sayings of the police, he has signed that document. But, he is not aware of the contents of the same. The police have not seized any articles in his presence. The police had brought the accused before him. But, he has not given any statement to the police.
17. CW.9/PW.5 - Eshwar in his evidence has stated that, a year ago, the Vidhana Soudha police brought the accused to the shop of CW.10. The police seized CPU from the shop of CW.10 as the accused told that, he typed a document in the shop of CW.10. Accordingly, he signed Ex.P.18 at the spot. He has not seen the hard disks, which are available in the court.
18. CW.6/PW.6- S.B.Kutni in his evidence has stated that, the Vidhana Soudha police had called him to the station on 25.08.2018. They got checked their bodies and confirmed that, no articles were available with them. The PI checked the body of the accused and found a MI mobile in his right pocket of the pant. Through that mobile, the accused sent a fake letter to CW.3, which 15 C.C.No.5153/2019 was created on the letter head of Chief Secretary. Hence, the police seized that mobile by drawing Ex.P.20 mahazar. At the same time, the CW.3 produced his mobile, to which the accused sent whatsapp message. Hence, the police seized that mobile by drawing Ex.P.21 mahazar. He has identified MO.1 and 2 mobile phones.
19. CW.10/PW.7 - D.Yuvaraj in his evidence has stated that, he has seen the accused earlier. From the last 45 years, he is running computer typing centre at the cross of Avenue road. On 25.08.2018, the police brought the accused to his computer typing centre and told that, the accused typed the document in his shop and took its print out. By verifying the computer, the police took 2 hard disks/MO.3 & 4 from his shop, by drawing Ex.P.18 mahazar. He has not given any statement to the police.
20. CW.11/PW.9- Manjunath in his evidence admits his signature found on Ex.P.3. On 25.08.2018, the police came to the 3rd floor of Vidhana Soudha, Room No.320 in connection with the forgery of the signature of Chief Secretary, Government of 16 C.C.No.5153/2019 Karnataka, verified the spot and drawn Ex.P.3 mahazar in between 9.30 a.m., to 10.30 a.m.
21. CW.15/PW.8 - B.R.Ramesh in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as Head constable at Vidhana Soudha police station, on 25.08.2018 their PI deputed him and CW.17 to trace out the accused. Accordingly, they visited his residence, which is situated at S.R.Nagar, where they found the accused by name N.Shekar @ Lawyer Shekar. They took him to their custody at 12.30 p.m., and produced him before the IO at 1 p.m. Accordingly, he gave Ex.P.23 report. He has identified the accused.
22. CW.18/PW.11 - B.Shankarachar in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as Police Inspector at Vidhana Soudha police station on 24.08.2018 at 8.50 p.m., the CW.1 came to the station and gave Ex.P.2 complaint. On the basis of which, he registered Ex.P.24/FIR. Along with Ex.P.2 complaint, the CW.1 gave Ex.P.1 note. On 28.08.2018, he recorded further statement of CW.1 and the statement of CW.4. On the same day, he visited the 17 C.C.No.5153/2019 spot which was showed by CW.1 and drawn Ex.P.3 mahazar in between 9.30 a.m., to 10 a.m., in the presence of CW.11 and 12. On the same day, he enquired the CW.3 at the station. The CW.3 produced his MO.2/HTC mobile. Hence, he seized the same by drawing Ex.P.21 mahazar in the presence of CW.6 and 7. On the same day, he deputed CW.14 and 15 to trace out the accused. They produced the accused at 1 p.m. The CW.14 gave Ex.P.23 report in this regard. By checking the body of the accused, they found a gold and white colored MI mobile. Hence, he seized the said mobile i.e., MO.1 by drawing Ex.P.20 mahazar in the presence of CW.6 and 7. He followed arrest procedure, recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. On the same day, he recorded the statement of CW.16. On the basis of voluntary statement given by the accused, he took the accused to Precision Duplication Centre, situated at the cross of Avenue road, where the CW.10, the owner of the centre identified the accused. He seized MO.3 and 4 hard disks from his shop in the presence of CW.8 and 9 by drawing Ex.P.18, as the accused got typed the 18 C.C.No.5153/2019 document in the computer available therein. On the same day, he recorded the statement of CW.8 and 9. He issued notice to CW.13 and 14, went to Kilari road along with accused and drawn Ex.P.25 mahazar at the spot, where he had thrown the original note[n¥ÀàtÂ] by tearing it. He did not find any pieces of the same. Ex.P.26 is the notice issued to CW.13 and 14. On the same day, he recorded the statement of CW.10. On 26.08.2018, he produced the accused before the court and on 21.09.2018 he recorded the statement of CW.5. On 29.10.2018 he wrote a letter to CW.1 to furnish the specimen signatures of CW.2 and the documents having original signatures of CW.2 made earlier. Accordingly, the CW.1 forwarded 3 original documents and 3 original letter heads through Tapal. They are marked as Ex.P.6 to 11 respectively. On the same day, he recorded further statement of the complainant. On 19.12.2018 by obtaining the permission of DCP, he sent the specimen signatures, original documents, original letter heads to Truth lab for examination. On 02.02.2019, 19 C.C.No.5153/2019 he received Ex.P.27 report from Truth Lab. By reserving the receipt of additional report from FSL, he submitted charge sheet against the accused on 05.02.2019. On 13.02.2019, the CW.2 gave Ex.P.15 to 17 letter heads consisting of his specimen signature made in English language. On 14.02.2019, he forwarded those letter heads to Truth lab. Subsequently, the PI-Manjunath continued the investigation and received Ex.P.28 report from Truth Lab. The PI filed a requisition to consider hand writing expert Shankarappa Mural as the witness to this case. Thereafter, he continued with the investigation of the case. He forwarded 2 mobile phones and 2 hard disks for examination to Clue for evidence Forensic lab situated at Dickenson Road. That requisition is marked as Ex.P.30. Ex.P.31 is the report given by the expert. 2 mobiles and 2 hard disks are marked as MO.1 to 4 respectively. He has identified the accused.
23. On the basis of Ex.P.2/complaint given by PW.3/Tukuram Kalyankar, the Vidhana Soudha police have registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. 20 C.C.No.5153/2019 The PW.3 is none other than the personal secretary of PW.10/Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. In Ex.P.2, the PW.3 alleged that, on 24.08.2018 in between 3.15 -3.30 p.m., and 4.15 p.m., a visitor met him in the office of Chief secretary and showed a note[n¥ÀàtÂ] written on the letter head of Chief Secretary by forging the signature of Chief Secretary and hence he requested the police to take necessary legal action against the offender.
24. Ex.P.1 is the alleged note[n¥ÀàtÂ] said to be forged document made on the forged letter head by forging the signature of PW.10/Chief secretary, Government of Karnataka. In Ex.P.1, it is informed to the Prl. Secretary of Revenue department to merge the services of Erappa Onimani, the lecturer of Government Pre- university college, Dommasandra, Anekal Taluk to Revenue department as equivalent scale under Rule 16[A][ii] of Karnataka Service rules.
21 C.C.No.5153/2019
25. The prosecution contends that, the accused sent Ex.P.1/ note[n¥ÀàtÂ] to PW.3 to his whatsapp number on 30.07.2018. Further, the prosecution contends that, the accused has forged the signature, letter head of PW.10/ T.M.Vijay Bhaskar and created the note[n¥ÀàtÂ]. According to PW.10, in the disputed note[n¥ÀàtÂ] his name is mentioned as T.M.Vijaya Bhaskar and in the original letter head his name is mentioned as T.M.Vijay Bhaskar. The PW.10 contends that, the signature found on Ex.P.1 is not his signature.
26. Ex.P.9 to 11 are the genuine letter heads maintained by the office of PW.10. Ex.P.12 [a] to 14 [a] are the original signatures of PW.10 made during his regular course of duty. Ex.P.12 is the copy of Ex.P.1, which was sent to the Truth Lab for examination. The CW.19 is the author of Ex.P.29 report. The CW.17 is the author of Ex.P.27 report. The scientific officer of Clue 4 Evidence Forensic lab has given Ex.P.31 report. The author of Ex.P.31 is not arrayed as witness to this case.
22 C.C.No.5153/2019
27. The authors of Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.29 reports are no more and hence, the Court could not record their evidence. The disputed signature found on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.12 is marked as Q.1 by the examiner. The specimen signatures of PW.10 are marked as SS4A to SS4F, SS5A to SS5F, SS6A to SS6F by the examiner. Those specimen signatures are marked as Ex.P.15 to 17 respectively. As per Ex.P.29, the specimen writings marked as SSA.1 to SSA.6 are the writings of the accused.
28. The PW.11 being the IO did not say that, he had collected specimen signatures of the accused so as to send them to the hand writing expert to compare it with the signature found on Ex.P.1/Ex.P12, which is marked as Q.1. As per Ex.P.29, the standard English signatures marked as SS4A to SS4F, SS5A to SS5F, SS6A to SS6F did not write questioned signature marked as Q.1. Further, the CW.19 being the author of Ex.P.29 has opined that, the person who wrote standard writings marked as SWA.1 to SWA18 and standard figures marked as SWA.19 to SWA.24 also wrote questioned writings and figures marked as Q.1. It 23 C.C.No.5153/2019 means that, the signature found on Ex.P.1 and 12, which is marked as Q.1 is forged signature.
29. But, the prosecution has not produced the so-called specimen writing before the Court, which is marked as SWA.1 to SWA18 and specimen figures marked as SWA.19 to SWA.24 by the hand writing expert. Moreover, the expert opined that, the signatures found on SSA.1 to SSA.6 are not appropriate for comparison purpose with the questioned signature and printings marked as Q.1, Q.2 to Q.4. No witnesses stated before the Court that, they have seen the police collecting specimen signatures of the accused in their presence. Moreover, the PW.11 being the IO did not say that, he had sent the specimen signatures of the accused to hand writing expert for comparison with Q1 signature found on Ex.P.1/Ex.P.12 note[n¥ÀàtÂ].
30. In Ex.P.27, the CW.17 has opined that, the writing characteristics as observed in the questioned signature marked Q.1 could not be collectively accounted for form any of the 24 C.C.No.5153/2019 specimen signatures/writings of the suspect marked as SSA1 to SSA6 and SWA1 to SWA24 supplied for comparison. Hence, no definite opinion could be expressed regarding their common authorship or otherwise. It means that, Q1 signature does not tally with the hand writing of the accused. So, it can be easily said that, the accused is not the person, who made Q1 signature.
31. Ex.P.31 is the report given by Clue 4 Evidence Forensic Lab. The PW.11 in his evidence nowhere stated that, he had sent MO.1 to 4 i.e., mobile phones and hard disks to Clue 4 Evidence Forensic Lab for examination. The PW.11 in his evidence has stated that, he had handed over the file to Manjunath, the police Inspector on 13.03.2019 as, he was transferred and subsequently, again on 17.06.2017 he continued with the investigation. But, the so-called police inspector Manjunath has not been arrayed as witness to this case.
32. As per Ex.P.31 report, HTC desire mobile phone contains the document in question and it has been accessed from the examined mobile phone. But, the author of Ex.P.31 is not arrayed as witness 25 C.C.No.5153/2019 to this case. Moreover, the PW.11 being the IO did not say that, he had sent MO.1 to 4 to Clue 4 Evidence Forensic Lab for examination. As per Ex.P.18, two hard disks were seized from the shop of PW.7. The prosecution contends that, the accused got typed Ex.P.1/ note[n¥ÀàtÂ] at the shop of PW.7.
33. The PW.4 being the signatory to Ex.P.18 has clearly stated that, the police did not seize any articles in his presence, while taking his signature to the mahazer. The PW.5 is another signatory to Ex.P.18. Though the PW.5 stated that, the police have seized CPU boxes from the shop of CW.10 and drawn Ex.P.18, he clearly stated that, he has not seen MO.3 and 4 hard disks earlier. The PW.7 is the owner of the computer centre, where the alleged Ex.P.18 mahazer was drawn. The PW.7 in his evidence has stated that, the police seized 2 hard disks from his computer, though he had told that, the accused did not visit his shop.
34. The PW.7 denied that, the accused created note[n¥ÀàtÂ] by using the computer of his shop. During the course of cross 26 C.C.No.5153/2019 examination, the PW.7 clearly stated that, the accused never visited his computer shop. Hence, there is no convincing evidence on record to hold that, MO.3 and 4 contain data to show that, Ex.P.1 note[n¥ÀàtÂ] got typed from the computer in which MO.3 and 4 hard disks were installed.
35. The PW.1 in his evidence has stated that, the police have seized MO.2/MI mobile of the accused on 25.08.2018 by drawing mahazer. But, the PW.1 did not affix his signature to Ex.P.20 seizure mahazer dated:25.08.2018. As per Ex.P.20, gold and white colored MI mobile had the sim card of 9986715304 number. The PW.11 did not collect the customer details from the service provider as to whom, the said phone number was allotted. Likewise, the IO did not collect the details of service provider of that phone number. Hence, it cannot be accepted that, MO.2-MI mobile belonged to the accused.
36. The PW.6 is a police constable and signatory to Ex.P.20 mahazer. Though, he contended that, the police seized MO.2-MI 27 C.C.No.5153/2019 mobile from the accused by drawing Ex.P.20 mahazer, his version is not supported by the oral evidence of any independent witnesses. MO.1 and 2 does not bear the label containing the signatures of the witnesses, so as to hold that, those mobiles were seized in the presence of witnesses by drawing mahazer. Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 are the original letter heads of PW.10. Ex.P.13 and 14 are original notes[n¥ÀàtÂ] written on original letter heads, which bears the genuine/original signatures of PW.10.
37. As per Ex.P.27, there is difference in the composition of characters in the words T.M.Vijay Bhaskar, I.A.S, the size of Ashoka Emblem is bigger in the original letter head, difference in the location of characters of Government of Karnataka and address part is not found in original letter head. It means that, Ex.P.1 is a forged document created by forging the signature of PW.10 on forged letter head. But, there is no convincing evidence on record to hold that, the accused forged the signature of PW.10 and created Ex.P.1 note[n¥ÀàtÂ].
28 C.C.No.5153/2019
38. There is no believable evidence to accept that, MO.2-MI mobile belonged to the accused and he is the creator of Ex.P.1- note[n¥ÀàtÂ]. Except an oral ascertain that, the accused has torn the original of Ex.P.1 and caused disappearance of the evidence, the prosecution has not placed cogent evidence to substantiate that aspect. Hence, the evidence led by PW.1 to 11 is no way helpful to the prosecution to hold the accused guilty of the offences. From their evidence, the charges levelled against the accused are not proved.
39. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that, the accused with dishonest intention of making money created false letter head of CW.2/PW.10, fabricated false note[n¥ÀàtÂ] envisaging the Principal Secretary of Revenue department regarding merger of service of CW.3 to Revenue department from Pre-University education department as equivalent scale under Rule 16[A][ii] of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, forged the signature of PW.10 thereon, forwarded the same to PW.1 through 29 C.C.No.5153/2019 whatsapp on 24.08.2018 in between 3.15p.m to 4.45p.m and its copy was given to PW.3 in the office of Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Room No.320, 3rd Floor, Vidhana Soudha, he did so for the purpose of cheating and making money, used forged document as genuine document, which is known to be forged, cheated PW.1, 3 and PW.10 as well as the Government, torn the original note[n¥ÀàtÂ] and thereby caused disappearance of evidence. In such circumstances, I answer point No.1 to 5 in Negative.
Point No.6: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the charges of Sec. 420, 465, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.30 C.C.No.5153/2019
The bonds executed by the accused U/Sec.437[A] of Cr.P.C., will be in force for a period of 6 months.
The property seized under PF
No.42/2018, 43/2018 and 44/2018
[P.R.No.6/2021]-MO.1 and 2 mobile phones and MO.3 and 4 hard disks are ordered to be confiscated to the Government after the appeal period.
TATTANDA Digitally signed by TATTANDA
DAMAYANTI SOMAIAH
DAMAYANTI Date: 2025.03.24 16:46:02
SOMAIAH +0530
24.03.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU
31 C.C.No.5153/2019
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Erappa Onimani PW.2 : Mallikarjun PW.3 : Tukuram Kalyankar PW.4 : K.Sridhar PW.5 : Eshwar PW.6 : S.B.Kutni PW.7 : D.Yuvaraj PW.8 : B.R.Ramesh PW.9 : Manjunath PW.10 : T.M.Vijay Bhaskar PW.11 : B.Shankarchar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : copy of forged note
Ex.P.2 : complaint
Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2[b] : Signature of PW.11
Ex.P.3 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P.3[a] : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.3[b] : Signature of PW.11
Ex.P.4 : covering letter
Ex.P.4[a] : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.5 : Covering letter
Ex.P.5[a] : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.6-8 : Specimen signature of PW.10 made in
Kannada language
Ex.P.9 to 11: Original letter heads
Ex.P.12 : Copy of forged office note
Ex.P.13-14 : Original office notes of PW.10 32 C.C.No.5153/2019 Ex.P.15-17 : Specimen signatures of PW.10 made in English language Ex.P.18 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.18[a] : Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.18[b] : Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.18[c] : Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.18[d] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.19 : Portion of statement of PW.4 Ex.P.20 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.20[a] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.20[a] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.21 : Seizure mahazer Ex.P.21[a] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.21[a] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.22 : Portion of the statement of PW.7 Ex.P.23 : Report given by PW.8 Ex.P.23[a] : Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.24 : FIR Ex.P.24[a] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.25 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.25[a] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.26 : Police notice given to the pancha witnesses Ex.P.26[a] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.27. : Report of Truth lab Ex.P.27[a] : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.28 : Requisition of the IO Ex.P.29 : Report of truth lab Ex.P.30 : Requisition of the SHO Ex.P.31 : Report of Clue 4 Evidence Forensic lab 33 C.C.No.5153/2019 LIST OF MO'S MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
MO.1 : HTC mobile MO.2 : MI mobile MO.3 & 4 : Hard disks
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED : Nil ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 11/22.03.2025
Transcribed on : 22.03.2025
checked on : 23.03.2025
Signed on : 24.03.2025
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS