Bangalore District Court
Rajendra Prasad Yadav vs Ramesh Machaknur on 12 August, 2024
1 C.C.No.16274/2013
KABC030617842013
Presented on : 08-10-2013
Registered on : 08-10-2013
Decided on : 12-08-2024
Duration : 10 years, 10 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 12th day of August 2024
PRESENT : SRI.SAHEEL AHMED S. KUNNIBHAVI, B.Com., LL.B.
(Spl.)
II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.16274/2013 Date of commission of the
2. 22.06.2010 offence (As per F.I.R.) Jayanagar Police Station,
3. Name of the complainant Bengaluru City
4. Name of the accused 1. Ramesh Machakur, S/o Siddappa Machakur, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.15/2, 10th Cross, 9th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Road, Bengaluru City.
2. Mohammed Sharief, S/o Sulaiman, Aged about 26 years, 2 C.C.No.16274/2013 R/at No.149, Ramaiah Layout, Kempapura, Hebbal, Bengaluru City.
3. Mausin @ Musthafa.
(Split Up)
4. Irfan Iqbal Shah.
(Split Up) The offences complained Section 420 of the Indian
5.
of Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Accused No.1 and 2 are
7. Final order
acquitted
8. Date of order 12.08.2024
The Police Sub-Inspector of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City has filed Police Report against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the Prosecution that the informant had been to the Police Station and lodged the information on the ground that he was having a Bank Account bearing No. 005301039553 of ICICI Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru. From 2nd June 2010 to 30th June 2010 many payments have 3 C.C.No.16274/2013 been made from his Credit Cards. He has not made any payments. His internet User ID and Password has been hacked by some unknown persons and by hacking several payments have been made to an amount of Rs.4,14,100/- . Soon after the knowledge, the informant had been to the Police Station and lodged the information against the unknown persons.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.374/2010 at Jayanagar Police Station. During the investigation, accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and produced before this Court on 13.08.2011. On 24.08.2010, they were enlarged on bail. Since, the presence of accused No.3 and 4 could not be secured, the case against them was ordered to Split Up on 13.02.2017. On completion of the investigation, the Police Sub-Inspector of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against accused No.1 and 2 alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to accused No.1 and 2. The copies of the 4 C.C.No.16274/2013 Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to accused No.1 and 2 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that accused No.1 and 2 have committed offences triable by this Court, charges for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to them in Kannada language. They have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. After completion of the prosecution evidences, for the purpose of enabling accused No.1 and 2 personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution against them, examined accused No.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the entire evidences of the Prosecution which are incriminating against them. They have submitted that they have no defense evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for accused No.1 and 2. Perused the materials available on record. 5 C.C.No.16274/2013
6. The points for determination are;
1. Whether the Prosecution has proved the offences charged against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 :- It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused persons by hacking the password and user ID of the credit card of the informant made several payment to the tune of Rs. 4,14,100/-. During the course of Investigation, the Investigation Officer has came to know that ICICI Bank has issued Credit Card to the informant. In between the period of 22.06.2010 to 30.06.2010 transactions have been made from the Account of the informant to the Accounts of the accused persons namely Irfan Iqbal Shah and Ramesh S. 6 C.C.No.16274/2013 They have hacked the Account of the informant and have got transferred the amount to their Accounts. The Investigation Officer i.e., PSI Shivakumar has directed PC No.4551, 9787, 9167 and HC No.2102 to search the accused persons and as per the information, at about 20.30 p.m. the accused persons were caught hold and produced before the Investigation Officer. The Investigation Officer has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused persons wherein they have admitted that they have hacked the Accounts of the informant and transferred the amount in their name.
9. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, the Prosecution has examined CW1/PW1 who is the First Informant of this case, wherein he has deposed that he got massage of wrong password and User ID when he was trying to assess his inter Banking. The balance of his account was also showing less than Rs.4,00,000/-. Immediately he had to the Bank and enquired with the Bank manager and thereafter he has lodged the Information against unknown accused. This witness has not identified the accused. But however as per the case of the prosecution, during the course 7 C.C.No.16274/2013 of Investigation, the Investigation Officer has called this informant and has recorded his further statement by showing the accused to him. Further, the IO came to know that ICICI Bank has issued Credit Card to the informant. In between the period of 22.06.2010 to 30.06.2010 transactions have been made from the Account of the informant to the Accounts of the accused persons namely Irfan Iqbal Shah and Ramesh S. They have hacked the Account of the informant and have got transferred the amount to their Accounts. The Investigation Officer even has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused persons wherein they have admitted that they have hacked the Accounts of the informant and transferred the amount in their name. But with surprise the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the accused were able to hack the account of the informant?. Whether they have obtained the user ID and password from the informant or they have use some other maneuver to hack the account. Further, the IO even has not produced the statement of the account of the informant to show that such and such amount was hacked by these accused. 8 C.C.No.16274/2013
10. Further to prove the charges framed against accused No.1 and 2, out of 14 witnesses cited in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, the Prosecution has produced the oral evidence of only CW1/PW1. In spite of issuance of processes and proclamation to CW2 to CW14 several times, their presence could not be secured. Therefore, the examination of the said witnesses from CW2 to CW14 are dropped. As per Order dated 30.01.2024, the Counsel for the accused has submitted that PW1 has expired. As per Order dated 21.02.2024, no Report has been submitted in respect of the death of PW1. On perusal of the entire order sheet, it reveals that even after repeated issuance of summons and warrants against PW1, the Prosecution has failed to secure for further examination of the said witness. Hence, the evidence of PW1 was taken as closed.
11. On perusal of the above evidences produced by the Prosecution both oral and documentary, it appears that there are no evidences either oral or documentary to prove the involvement of accused No.1 and 2 in commission of the 9 C.C.No.16274/2013 alleged offences charged against them. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against them. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bond and surety bond executed will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, they shall be canceled. 10 C.C.No.16274/2013 Office is hereby directed to keep the entire file with Split up Criminal Case of accused No.3 and 4.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court, today this the 12th day of August 2024) (SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI) II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Rajendra Prasad Yadav.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information,
Ex.P1(a) : Signature.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL 11 C.C.No.16274/2013 Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI) II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.