Bangalore District Court
Cid, Eod vs John Michael on 25 April, 2026
1 Spl.C.No.823/2019
KABC010227002019
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-48)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2026
PRESENT
Sri.Satish J.Bali, B.Com, LL.M,
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPL.CC.NO.823/2019
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka by
Ramamurthy Nagar P.S.
Bengaluru./CID Police.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor -
Smt. S.K.Anupama)
Vs.
ACCUSED: 1. John Micheal
s/o Yesu Das,
Aged about 52 years,
Working as Marketing Executive,
R/at House No.392,
First Tower, First Block,
Pashmina Water Front
Apartment, Old Madras Road,
Next to Evoma Hotel,
Bhatrahalli, Bengaluru-49.
[By Sri. Rakshit .R., Advocate]
2 Spl.C.No.823/2019
1.Date of Commission of Offence : During the
period from
2005.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 11/09/2010
3. Arrest of Accused : Accused is on bail.
4. Name of the complainant : Sridharan s/o
Narasimha Iyangar
5. Date of recording of Evidence : 29/03/2022
6. Date of closing Evidence : 12/09/2025
7. Offences complained of : 419, 420, 465, 468
and 471 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : As per the final order
(Satish J. Bali)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge and Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Bengalulru.
****
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police (Economic Offences Cell), CID, Bengaluru filed this charge-sheet against 3 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution in nutshell are as follows:
The Accused by name John Micheal s/o Yesudas got introduced himself to the complainant N.Sridharan - PW.1 as a Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri N.Dharam Singh having political as well as administrative influence and thereby made the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- in connection with assurance of got allotting site from Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for the purpose of brevity) under chief minister's quota. He also lured CWs. 2 to 8 and mother of CW.1 in that connection and thereby collected a sum of Rs.1,14,39,708/- from them and furnished false and fabricated documents such sale deeds, lease cum agreement of sale, allotment letter etc., It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused fabricated the above 4 Spl.C.No.823/2019 said documents and made the above said complainant as well as CW.1 to 8 to believe them as genuine documents. It is further case of the prosecution that, when PW.1 enquired in the office of Bangalore Development Authority about said documents, he came to know that the documents which were furnished by the accused person were all forged documents and being fabricated. Immediately the complainant Sridharan lodged first information as per Ex.P1 before Police Inspector Rammurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, on the basis of which criminal law was set into motion.
The Investigating Officer on receipt of the first information and after registration of FIR had commenced investigation and had recorded the statement of witnesses. The Investigating Officer had also secured the presence of accused who led to a place where he had allegedly burnt seal etc., which were used to create sale deeds, lease cum agreement of sale, allotment letter and necessary mahazar was 5 Spl.C.No.823/2019 drawn at that place and laptop, printer which were allegedly used by the accused to create the aforesaid forged documents were also recovered during the investigation. The Investigating Officer had sent necessary requisition to various offices such as Sub Registrars at Bangalore wherein the alleged sale deeds came to be registered and had received necessary information to the effect that documents which were furnished by the accused person were all forged and fabricated. The Investigating Officer has also collected necessary information from the Secretary of Bangalore Development Authority as to the genuineness of the above said sale deeds and also obtained the specimen signatures of accused and specimen writings during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer had sent a specimen signatures along with alleged sale deeds furnished by the accused for the purpose of ascertaining the signatures and had found that the specimen signatures with that of signatures found in 6 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the sale deeds, and on perusing the writings made on the sale deed had arrived at a conclusion that accused had affixed signature on the said sale deeds. The Investigating Officer after perusal of materials and also statement of witnesses which he had recorded during the course of investigation arrived at a conclusion that accused had committed aforesaid offences which resulted in filing of charge-sheet.
3. As there were sufficient materials and prima faice case against the accused person, the cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offences. The accused appeared in response to the summons and enlarged on bail. The copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,
4. Having found the prima facie case as against the accused, the charges came to be framed for the aforesaid offences. The materials reveals that the said charges came to be altered and altered charges came to be framed on 12/2/2024. The 7 Spl.C.No.823/2019 substance of accusation was read over to the accused in the language known to him and by understanding the same he did not plead guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilty of the accused has in all examined 29 witness as PWs. 1 to 29 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P71 and closed its side.
6. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution was read over to the accused in compliance of Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same , answers and explanations given by him was recorded. The accused chosen to lead defence evidence.
7. The Accused got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Another witness by name Y.A. Abdul s/o Y. A. Akbar was examined as DW.2 and closed his side. 8 Spl.C.No.823/2019
8. Heard Learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as Learned counsel for the accused and perused the materials. The Learned counsel for the accused submitted written synopsis and has relied upon following decisions in support of his arguments.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 372/1988 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 793-794 of 2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajesh & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. Criminal Appeal No.1000, 1001 and 1146 of 1999 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka.
9. The following points arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Hon'ble 9 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh and had made CW1 Sridharan, CW.2-
L.Lalitha, CW.3-N.Bhanumathi, Cw.4- Ramachandra Kumar, CW.5 Abhinav Sinha, CW.6 Pradeep Kuruvilla, CW.7 Himabindu and CW.8 Ivan Raj Samuel to believe that he was having political, administrative influence and would be able get them allotment of BDA Site under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister and by furnishing false documents with a fraudulent and dishonest intention he had induced them to deliver a sum of Rs.1,14,39,708/- and thereby he had received the aforesaid amount and had forged and fabricated documents that were purporting to be original site allotment and had defrauded them and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh and 10 Spl.C.No.823/2019 had made the aforesaid persons to believe that he was having political, administrative influence and would be able get them allotment of BDA Site under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister and by furnishing documents with a false, fraudulent and dishonest intention he had induced them to deliver a sum of Rs.1,14,39,708/- and thereby he had received the aforesaid amount and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh and had made CW1 Sreedharan and others mentioned above to believe that he was having political, administrative influence and would be able get them allotment of BDA Site under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister and by furnishing forged documents with a fraudulent and dishonest intention he had induced them to 11 Spl.C.No.823/2019 deliver a sum of Rs.1,14,39,708/- and had furnished forged documents with an intent to commit fraud and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh and had made CW1 Sreedharan and others mentioned above to believe that he was having political, administrative influence and would be able get them allotment of BDA Site under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister and by furnishing forged documents with a fraudulent and dishonest intention he had induced them to deliver a sum of Rs.1,14,39,708/- and had furnished forged documents pertaining to the title of the alleged allotment of site by BDA and he had forged documents intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby he had committed 12 Spl.C.No.823/2019 an offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister Sri.Dharam Singh and had made CW1 Sreedharan and others to believe that he was having political, administrative influence and would be able get them allotment of BDA Site under the discretionary quota of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and by furnishing forged documents with a fraudulent and dishonest intention he had induced them to deliver a sum of Rs.1,14,39,708/- and had furnished forged documents pertaining to the title of the alleged allotment of site by BDA and he had forged documents intending that it shall be used as a genuine document when he knew that it was a forged document and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC?
13 Spl.C.No.823/2019
6. What Order ?
10. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: In the Affirmative;
Point No.4: In the Affirmative;
Point No.5: In the Affirmative;
Point No.6: As per final order; for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1 TO 5: Since all these points are interconnected, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
12. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor in support of the case of the prosecution argued that while framing altered charges, charge for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC was added and out of 48 witnesses, the prosecution has got examined 29 witnesses and got marked the 14 Spl.C.No.823/2019 documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P71. It is submitted that CW.1 to 8 and mother of CW.1 were cheated by the accused as per the case of the prosecution and as per the first information Ex.P1, the complainant alleged that the fabricated documents were created not only in the name of complainant but also in the name of other victims. It is submitted that since CW.4 was not secured as such he was dropped and CW.5 is the husband of Smt.Tanjuj Kapil Sharmi who supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that CW.9, CW.12 and CW.13 were not examined since in their place CW.10 and CW.12 were examined, as CW.18 dead was not examined before the court. It is also canvassed that PW.9 was examined in place of CW.23, CW.27, CW.31, CW.34, CW.35 and CW.43 reported to be dead.
13. It is canvassed that Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 documents i.e., lease cum sale agreement, sale deed and allotment letter pertains to the wife of PW.1 and Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 are pertaining to PW.3 15 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Smt.N.Bhanumathi. The learned Special Public Prosecutor by taking this court to the documentary evidence submitted that, Ex.P30 to Ex.P34 are vital documents and the signature appearing on the sale deeds, agreement of sale and allotment letters purported to have been signed by the accused were sent for FSL by taking his signature and as per the report of the FSL Ex.P57 both the signatures are made by one person. It is also submitted that the cross-examination of PW.1 makes it very clear that the accused has fabricated documents and cheated the prosecution witnesses CW 1 TO CW8. It is submitted that eventhough the accused in his defence taken up contention that there was loan transaction between him and the complainant, but no such suggestion was put to PW.1 as to loan transaction between him and the accused to the extent of Rs.80,00,000/-. It is further canvassed that cross examination of PW.2 is to be considered as it was first in point of time. With reference to the 16 Spl.C.No.823/2019 evidence of PW.23, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer has obtained specimen signature of accused and referred the same to FSL to compare the same with the signatures appearing in alleged fabricated documents and FSL report reveals that both the signatures are made by the accused. It is submitted that Ex.P22 statement of account of accused reveals that certain amounts have been credited to his account by the prosecution witnesses in connection with the allotment of BDA sites. It is submitted that the evidence of PW.23 makes it very clear that he has compared the admitted signatures, handwriting with those appearing in the alleged sale deed, allotment letter and lease cum sale agreement by following procedure known to law and his evidence has not been shaken in the cross-examination. It is submitted that since the alleged offences are continuing in nature, there is no question of delay in filing the complaint. The Learned Special Public 17 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Prosecutor by taking this court to the oral as well as documentary evidence on record submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused for the alleged offences.
14. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Accused by taking this court to the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses has submitted the following points in support of his case.
1) The prosecution has failed to examine Anthony Moses who alleged to have introduced the accused to CW.1 eventhough he was cited as witness in the charge-sheet.
2) As per the complaint averments and evidence of PW.1, the complainant had already applied for BDA sites. Hence, question of again approaching the accused in connection with allotment of BDA sites does not arise at all.
3) The complainant is a educated person and it is in his knowledge that sale deeds are to be 18 Spl.C.No.823/2019 registered in the office of Sub Registrar but as per the evidence on record the prosecution witnesses have signed to the sale deed not in the office of Sub Registrar but in their respective houses, as such it cannot be believed that the complainant being educated person, he was lured by the accused.
4) It is canvassed that though the alleged fabrication of documents took place during the year 2005, but complaint was filed in the year 2009. As such, there is a delay which is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
5) Cash paid to the accused by the complainant is not proved by the prosecution.
6) There are no documentary evidence to fortify the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
7) The amount transferred from account of Ramachandra Vermuri and Tanuj Kapil Sharmi 19 Spl.C.No.823/2019 are in connection with loan transaction with the complainant.
8) The prosecution has not examined the said Ramachandra Vermuri and Tanuj Kapil Sharmi to show the transaction between them and the accused.
9) No incriminating material was recovered from accused and the alleged documents are recovered from the possession of the complainant.
10) Though the alleged fabricated documents were secured in the year 2010, till 2011 they were not sent for forensic examination.
11) Opinion of expert is not a substantive piece of evidence and only it is a corroborative piece of evidence.
12) Specimen signatures were not obtained in accordance with law and in compliance of Order 1504 to 1506 of Karnataka Police Manual.
20 Spl.C.No.823/2019
13) The specimen signatures alleged to have been obtained from the accused not proved by the prosecution, as no panchanama was drawn while obtaining specimen signatures from the accused.
14) There is no endorsement of the accused to the effect that he himself voluntarily has given his specimen signatures and writing before the Investigating Officer.
15) No document/summons was produced to show that accused was secured to give specimen signatures.
16) The prosecution has violated the Order 1504 to 1506 of police manual and the
admissions of PW.27 makes it very clear that the specimen signatures of the accused were not obtained in accordance with the above said orders. There is a contradictions in the evidence of PW.25, PW.27 and PW.29 as to the identification of Vamshi Anand.
21 Spl.C.No.823/2019
17) No document to show that accused
scribed forged documents and inspite of
consent of accused he was not subjected to Narco Analysis Test.
18) No documentary evidence as to the accused having received money from CW.1 to CW.8.
15. Therefore by highlighting the above said points learned counsel prayed to acquit the accused.
16. In reply, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that not following the Karnataka Police Manual in securing the specimen signatures form the accused is only procedural lapse and only on the said basis, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. It is also canvassed that there is no enmity between the accused and the Investigating Officer and as such it cannot be believed that specimen signatures were not obtained from the accused. It is further canvassed that report of the handwriting expert and 22 Spl.C.No.823/2019 his evidence makes it very clear that the specimen signatures as well as signatures found on the fabricated documents are made by one and the same person i.e., accused as such he has fabricated the documents and induced CWs.1 to 8 to part with the money in connection with got allotting sites from BDA. Hence, it is prayed to convict the accused.
17. Before appreciating the above said rival contentions, it is necessary to have look into the evidence led by the prosecution with relevant materials.
18. The First Informant - N. Sridharan s/o Late. S.Narasimha Iyengar was examined as PW.1 who deposed that somewhere in the month of January 2005, he was introduced to accused by his Ex-office colleague and Ex-sales Officer Mr. Anthony Moses stating that accused is the Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh and in his capacity as Private Secretary, he was quite influential person in all administrative, 23 Spl.C.No.823/2019 political and social circles. He further deposed that after brief introduction, the accused voluntarily offered to use his influence with the Chief Minister of Karnataka to get BDA sites allotment done in the name of complainant under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister. He further deposed that having excited with the said offer and with desire to own a site in Bangalore city, complainant accepted the said offer and after few months, the accused visited his house and started demanding money. He also deposed that whenever the accused met him, he was insisting for money in cash and in total he has paid Rs.11,13,004/- during the year 2005. The complainant further deposed that after payment of the said amount, he repeatedly asked the accused as to when he will receive the allotment letter from BDA and accused assured that said letter will be received very soon. The complainant further deposed that on 14/7/2006, he received a letter from BDA dated 12/7/2006 through ordinary mail signed by 24 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Town Planning Authority of BDA. He further stated that on 6/11/2006, the accused visited his house and brought lease cum sale agreement and took his signature and taken away the same stating that the said instrument will be returned at the time of handing over the sale deed.
19. He further deposed that accused has took 4 passport size photos of him along with 4 specimen signatures for the purpose of registration and on 20/3/2007, the accused brought the original sale deed which has been signed by the Secretary of BDA and Sub Registrar of Yelahanka Registration Office and handed over the said document to him which later on proved to be fake. He stated that the site No.27, situated at 3rd stage, Arkavathi Layout, Bidarahalli Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore measuring 4800 square feet was shown as a property allotted to him. The complainant further deposed that the said sale deed was disclosed to his friends and relatives and they were also excited and 25 Spl.C.No.823/2019 handed over money to the accused for the purchase of site. He further deposed that including him 11 other victims have handed over the sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/- to the accused and on 10/11/2008, the accused voluntarily handed over a letter from the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri B.S. Yediyurappa stating that the accused person John Micheal has been appointed as Executive Board Member of BDA and the work for cleaning up of the Ministerial Layout of Arkavathi has been handed over to Serikhe projects and work has to be completed within 90 days and any questions or clarification on the said matter has to be sought from the accused. He further deposed that subsequently they asked the accused for katha certificate in respect of their sites and accused became not reachable and there-afterwards they visited the BDA office in Bangalore in order to verify the authenticity of the said document wherein they were told that those documents are completely fake 26 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and they were cheated. The complainant further deposed that immediately he lodged a complaint with Ramamurthy Nagar Police on 11/9/2010 which has been identified by him as Ex.P1 and also his signature as Ex.P1(a).
20. The complainant further deposed that on 12/9/2010, the Ramamurthy Nagar Police visited his house situated at No.153, Lashmamma Layout, 1st Cross, Behind Renuka Devi Kalyana Mantapa, Doddabansavadi, Bangalore and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and identified his signature on the same as per Ex.P2(a). He further deposed that said mahazar was conducted in between 10.30 am to 11.30 am in presence of Mr. Arockia Swamy and Mrs. Priya. He further deposed that on 16/9/2010, he has handed over the documents such as original allotment letter dated 12/7/2006 received by post from BDA along with original envelope, original sale cum lease agreement dated 6/11/2006 issued by BDA, original sale deed signed by Secretary BDA and 27 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Sub Registrar of Yelahanka, Bangalore dated 20/3/2007, original letter of communication issued by Department of Stamps and Registration, Government of Karnataka dated 30/11/2006, xerox copy of letter signed by the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri B.S. Yediyurappa, communication issued by the office of the Chief Minister of Karnataka listing the names of all VIP allottees, xerox copy of the communication issued by the Government of Karnataka addressed to the Sub Registrar, Yelahanka detailing list of allottees and their date of registration. He further deposed that he has also handed over the xerox copies of allotment letter, sale cum lease agreement, sale deeds of Mrs. N.Lalitha, Mrs. V.Srirangammal, Mrs.N.Bhanumathi. He further deposed that he also handed over xerox copies of cheques and demand drafts issued in favour of John Micheal and also in the name of Vamshi Anand whom accused claimed as Secretary 28 Spl.C.No.823/2019 to the Government of Karnataka Treasury Department.
21. The complainant has also got marked the allotment letter dated 12/7/2006 as Ex.P11, copy of lease cum sale agreement issued by BDA dated 6/11/2006 as Ex.P12, copy of sale deed signed by Secretary BDA and Sub Registrar, Yelahanka dated 20/3/2007 as Ex.P13, copy of letter of communication dated 30/11/2006 under Rule -3A as Ex.P14. The complainant further deposed that the above said documents were seized by the Investigating Officer under the mahazar Ex.P15 and identified his signature as Ex.P15(a). He further deposed that he has also produced nearly 20 documents of Smt. Lalitha, Smt.V.Srirangamal, Smt.N.Bhanumathi, Smt. Chanda Bhandari and Smt.Hima Bindu before the Investigating Officer.
22. During the course of cross-examination this witness has admitted that PW.2 Smt. N.Lalitha is his wife and PW.3 Smt. N. Bhanumathi is her 29 Spl.C.No.823/2019 sister, and stated that since from past 29 years, he was working in HSBC Bank in various capacity in Bengaluru and joined MG Road Branch in the month of November 2004. He admitted that, during customers hours, between 10 am to 4 pm he has to remain in office. He further stated that in the year 2005, he worked as a Assistant Manager of MG Road Branch and CW.4 was worked during the year 2004-
05. He further stated that, one Anthony Moses was his colleague during the year 2004-05 and he was working as a Sales Officer in a Bank. He specifically stated that the said Anthony Moses introduced accused to him on 11/1/2005 in his branch and admitted suggestion that he was selling products of the said Branch. Further, he stated that as Mr.Anthony committed certain mistakes in the office and he resigned from the job before his dismissal.
23. The PW.1 during the course of cross- examination further stated that in the year 2004-05 he applied for a BDA site and deposited Rs.32,000/- 30 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and Rs.52,000/- respectively as an advance amount to the BDA. He deposed that the BDA had fixed the rates of the sites at Rs.193/- or Rs.194/- per square feet. He further deposed that he had given all the documents to the police to show that he applied for BDA site. He further stated that, he had paid Rs.12,00,000/- both in cash and DD which was obtained from his branch. He specifically stated that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid in cash and he has paid Rs.11,13,004/- each on behalf of his wife and mother in cash during 2005 in his house. He stated that the said amount was paid on many occasions and in total he had paid Rs.33,39,012/- to the accused out of savings, withdrawing PF and sale proceeds of house standing in the name of his mother in Andhra Pradesh. He specifically stated that he sold the said house in the month of November 2005, and the above said all transactions have been reflected in his income tax returns which 31 Spl.C.No.823/2019 have been produced by him before the Enforcement Directorate.
24. The PW.1 during the course of cross- examination also stated that, he received a letter dated 12/7/2006 through post and had given cover of the said letter to the police. He specifically stated that the accused handed over sale deed to him on 20/3/2007 in Taj Residence Hotel and admitted that he has disclosed about the allotment of BDA site to his friends, and denied that the persons on whose behalf he has lodged a complaint have never met accused at any point of time. He further denied suggestion that, the said persons have not paid any amount to the accused and he himself has created the documents and given them to his friends.
25. PW.1 in his cross-examination further deposed that he do not know Vamshi Anand personally but he was introduced to him as Secretary of the Government of Karnataka Treasury. He denied suggestion that, said Vamshi Anand was 32 Spl.C.No.823/2019 not introduced to him by the accused. The perusal of the above said cross-examination reveals that, the accused was introduced to complainant through one Anthony Moses who was his colleague, and Vamshi Anand was introduced by the accused as a Secretary of Government of Karnataka Treasury. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited to falsify the evidence of PW.1 in respect of the offer made by the accused as to the allotment of BDA site under Chief Minister's quota and also payment of consideration of Rs.11,13,004/-. It is pertinent to note that, nowhere in the cross-examination it was suggested that, complainant did not knew the accused.
26. The careful perusal of entire cross- examination of PW.1 makes it very clear that he stood to his case. Further, it is also vital to note that, even though the accused has taken up contention that, complainant availed loan of Rs.80,00,000/- from him, but as rightly argued by Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, no such suggestion 33 Spl.C.No.823/2019 was put to PW.1. The careful perusal of cross- examination of PW.1 also reveals that, the allotment of BDA site to the complainant was disclosed by him to his friends. A suggestion to that effect is admitted by PW.1 which itself makes it very clear that, the complainant had informed his friends as to the allotment of BDA site to him through Accused John Micheal.
27. The wife of complainant Smt. Lalitha was examined by prosecution as PW.2 who deposed that her husband CW.1 was working in HSBC Bank of MG Road Branch and along with him Mr. Anthony was working. She deposed that said Anthony got introduced accused to the complainant and accused introduced himself as Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Government of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh. She deposed that the accused assured to got allot BDA sites under Chief Minister's quota and in the guise of the same received a sum of Rs.11,13,040/- from complainant. She further 34 Spl.C.No.823/2019 deposed that at that time accused had handed over alleged allotment letter, lease cum sale deed and receipts which have been handed over to the police, and on enquiry in the office of BDA, she came to know that the said documents are all fabricated documents. She specifically stated that the accused had posted the said allotment letters and in this regard, complaint was lodged by CW.1 before Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station. She further deposed that the complainant had withdrawn his PF amount and paid the same to the accused. She further deposed that, she saw the accused when he came to her house at the time of death of her mother-in-law and also had seen the accused when he came to ITI Hospital to see his son. She got marked lease cum agreement of sale as per Ex.P3, and deposed that, her husband took her signature in his house by obtaining the same from the accused and identified her signature as per Ex.P3(a). She got marked the allotment letter as per Ex.P4 and 35 Spl.C.No.823/2019 absolute sale deed as per Ex.P5. She further deposed that, she had signed to Ex.P5 in her house which was brought by complainant by obtaining the same from the accused. She identified her signature on the said sale deed as Ex.P5(a) and identified the Form No.1(a) as Ex.P6 and identified the accused before the court.
28. During the cross-examination conducted on 22/5/2018, PW.2 admitted that she is a housewife and denied suggestion that accused was not introduced by anybody and specifically stated that, in the year 2005, the accused was introduced to her in her house and denied that, accused has not offered to get a BDA site to her husband at any point of time. She further denied suggestion as to non- payment of any amount to the accused either by herself, or by her husband or her mother-in-law and admitted that Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 documents were handed over to her by her husband. She denied a 36 Spl.C.No.823/2019 suggestion that accused has not played any fraud and receipt of amount.
29. This witness was recalled on 17/4/2025 and again subjected to cross-examination by the Learned counsel for the accused. During the cross- examination she stated that, in the year 2000, she got married the complainant Sridharan and initially they resided at Vizhag, and in the year 1989, her husband got job in HSBC bank and during the month of December 2004, they shifted to Bengaluru, at that time her husband was working in MG Road Branch of HSBC Bank. She specifically stated that during the year 2004, her husband was working as a Manager of HSBC Bank and he used to discuss all the official matters with her. Further, she specifically stated that she had seen Mr. Anthony who was working with her husband at MG Road Branch of HSBC Bank. But, failed to state his designation at that time. She denied a suggestion that the complainant had no capacity to pay a sum of 37 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Rs.11,13,040/- to the accused and also denied suggestion that her husband had availed loan from the accused for domestic purpose. She specifically denied a suggestion that when the said loan was not repaid, the accused went to HSBC Bank and made galata. She also denied suggestion that her husband repaid the said loan by transferring the amount from his relatives accounts. She further denied suggestion that her husband was in due of small amount to the accused and in consideration of friendship her husband used to avail loan from the accused. She denied suggestion that Mr.Anthony never introduced accused to her husband and she specifically stated that her husband himself disclosed the fact that the accused got introduced himself as Personal Secretary of Sri Dharam Singh. She denied suggestion that, her husband had not paid Rs.11 lakhs and odd to the accused and also denied that Ex.P3 was not handed over by the accused. She admitted that, her signature on Ex.P3 was obtained 38 Spl.C.No.823/2019 by her husband and also Ex.P4 was shown to her by her husband. But, voluntarily stated that said documents were handed over to her husband by the accused. She admitted suggestion that on Ex.P5, her signature was obtained by her husband but stated that said documents were handed over by the accused. She identified the witnesses to Ex.P5 as brother of her husband and his wife. But, denied suggestion that same was got created by her husband in the presence of above said witnesses.
30. PW.2 further denied suggestion that Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 were not handed over by accused to her husband and she specifically stated that her husband had told to her as to handing over the said documents by the accused. She denied suggestion that she had no knowledge of transaction of her husband and only in order to help him deposing false before the court.
31. The perusal of above said cross-examination makes it very clear that PW.2 had specifically stated 39 Spl.C.No.823/2019 that the accused had handed over the above said documents to her husband and nothing worthwhile has been elicited to demonstrate that complainant himself had created the said documents. The careful perusal of evidence of PW.2 also makes it very clear that she stood in the cross-examination. The suggestion to the effect that, when this witness had pregnancy issues, the accused referred her to the doctors of ITI hospital makes it very clear that the accused was familiar to the complainant as well as this witness. The said suggestion also makes it very clear that the accused had gained confidence of the family members of the complainant.
32. The prosecution has also got examined the sister of complainant by name N.Bhanumathi w/o K.N.Ramaswamy as PW.3 who deposed that, she used to visit the house of the complainant who informed that the accused got allotted BDA site under the Chief Minister's quota. She deposed that she saw the accused in the house of the complainant 40 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and believing the words of the complainant she also handed over a sum of Rs.2,78,376/- to the complainant so as to get a BDA site to her also. She deposed that said amount was paid by the complainant to the accused and during the year 2007, the accused had handed over sale deed and other documents to the complainant and on verification of the same, she came to know that her residential address was wrongly shown and on enquiry with the accused, she came to know that if correct address is disclosed no site will be allotted as she had applied for a small site measuring 30 feet X 40 feet.
33. This witness further got identified Lease cum sale Agreement as Ex.P7 and her signature as Ex.P7(a). She got marked allotment letter, absolute sale deed, Form No.1(a) as Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 and identified her signatures on sale deed. She further deposed that Smt.Rangamma was her mother to whom also accused defrauded. She deposed that, 41 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the accused had come to her house to see the body of her mother at the time of her demise, and subsequently she came to know that the accused is not Personal Secretary of Sri Dharam Singh, the then Chief Minister of Government of Karnataka.
34. During the course of cross-examination, she deposed that, in the month of May 2006, she had seen the accused in the house of the complainant, and she had paid a sum of Rs.2,78,376/- to the complainant which had been paid to the accused and same has been seen by her. But, failed to state the date of the same. She denied the suggestion that she had not handed over the above said amount to the complainant and had not seen the handing over of the said amount to the accused. She denied suggestion that she had not paid any amount to the accused and Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 were got created by herself. She denied a suggestion that, accused never told that site will not be allotted to her if her correct address is furnished. 42 Spl.C.No.823/2019 She further denied suggestion that she had not seen the accused at the time of death of her mother.
35. The careful perusal of above said cross- examination makes it very clear that PW.3 has specifically deposed as to handing over of sum of Rs.2,78,376/- to the complainant which was in turn paid to the accused. She also identified the accused when he visited the house of the complainant. The careful perusal of the entire cross-examination makes it very clear that nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness also.
36. The prosecution has also got examined one Pradeep Kuruvilla s/o E.J.Kuruvilla as PW.4 who deposed that, the accused was got introduced to him by the complainant and at that time the accused told to him that, he was working as a Personal Secretary to then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh and he would got allot BDA site in CM quota. He further deposed that, in the year 2006, he paid Rs.11,13,004/- to the 43 Spl.C.No.823/2019 accused through complainant in connection with the said site and complainant had given him allotment letter which was obtained from the Government and later he came to know that said letter was fake one. Subsequently he enquired with the complainant who called upon the accused through phone who did not picked up the call and deposed that the accused cheated him and others.
37. During the course of cross-examination this witness has stated that, complainant was his brother's friend and accused was introduced to him by the complainant. He admitted that, he has not paid amount directly to the accused and whatever documents received by him were all issued by complainant Sridharan. He also admitted a suggestion that accused did not told him he is the personal secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and would get BDA site in CM quota. He further admitted that the accused never told him that he was working in a Government department 44 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and only through Sridharan he came to know that all the documents were fake.
38. This witness was also recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination on 17/4/2025 and during the said cross-examination, it has been elicited that, accused had not personally demanded money from him to got allot BDA site and allotment letter had been given to him by Sridharan. It has also been elicited from the mouth of this witness that, he had paid Rs.10 lakhs in cash and remaining amount out of Rs.11,13,040/- to the Sridharan who told that the said amount is to be paid to the accused. It has also been elicited from the mouth of this witness that the accused had not directly demanded money from him. The above said evidence of this witness reveals that he had not directly transacted with the accused in connection with allotment of BDA site.
39. The prosecution has also got examined Smt. Hima Bindu w/o R. Venkata Ramachandra Rao 45 Spl.C.No.823/2019 as PW.5 who deposed that through complainant Sridharan she came to know about accused and Mr.Sridharan informed her husband that accused was working in the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka and he would get site allotment under special quota. She deposed that in the year 2007, herself and her husband met the accused and at that time, accused asked for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and odd in order to got allot site measuring 40 X 60 feet under special quota. She deposed that, her husband paid the said amount to the accused who sent agreement and sale deed to her which had been signed by her. She identified the allotment letter dated 14/8/2006, lease cum sale agreement and also Form No.1(a) of Department of Registration of Stamps, sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as per Ex.P16 to Ex.P19 and also identified her signatures on the above said documents.
40. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that, her husband is a good friend of 46 Spl.C.No.823/2019 N.Sridharan and once complainant had visited her house. She deposed that she heard name of Anthony from her husband. She admitted a suggestion that her husband being a good friend of complainant was talking in respect of site measuring 40 X 60 square feet but denied suggestion that at no point of time, she and her husband met the accused. She voluntarily deposed that, she was witness to the conversation between her husband and Accused. She specifically stated that the accused asked with her husband to a pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- and odd in the year 2006-07. She deposed that the said amount was their savings amount and her husband used to take care of all savings. She admitted that, she did not paid the amount to the accused and same has been paid by her husband and at that time she was not present. She stated that, she signed the documents which were brought by her husband and after reading the documents she signed to the same and handed over the same to her husband. She 47 Spl.C.No.823/2019 denied a suggestion that the accused never involved in handing over the said documents to her husband and also her husband had not paid any amount to the accused. She specifically stated that in the sale deed the amount was mentioned as Rs.5,58,000/- and odd, and deposed that, the documents which were signed by her were in possession for a day and after signing the said documents, she returned same to her husband who subsequently returned the said documents to the accused. She denied the suggestion that she had no knowledge of transactions as the said transactions were taken care by her husband. She denied suggestion that, her husband had not returned the documents to the accused and CBI have produced the said documents before the court.
41. The perusal of the above said cross- examination makes it very clear that she had signed to the documents which were furnished by her husband through the accused and after signing the 48 Spl.C.No.823/2019 said documents, she handed over the same to the accused through her husband. She specifically stood to her case by saying that the consideration amount was paid to the accused. She also identified accused and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from her mouth to show that she was never in picture during the above said transactions.
42. The prosecution has also got examined Priya W/o of Arogyaswamy, one of the witnesses to the mahazar which was conducted at the house of the accused on 12/9/2010 as PW6. She identified the said mahazar as Ex.P2 and her signature as Ex.P2(b). In the cross-examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness except to the extent that by believing the complainant she signed to the mahazar. The evidence of this witness makes it very clear that under mahazar documents were seized from the house of the complainant.
49 Spl.C.No.823/2019
43. One Ivon Raj Samuel who was working in HSBC Bank, Bengaluru as HRD Officer was examined by the prosecution as PW.7 who deposed that, complainant was his colleague who introduced accused to him and both accused and complainant came to his cabin and told that the accused would get site in prime area under CM quota. Believing the said words, this witness has paid Rs.11,00,000/- to the accused on several occasions and remaining amount was paid through complainant, and entire amount was paid in cash which was confirmed by the accused. He further deposed that in the year 2006, accused furnished agreement, sale deed in a hotel at Bengaluru and as he did not get possession of site, he destroyed the documents under frustration. He further deposed that, the accused has cheated him to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/-.
44. During the course of cross-examination this witness has stated that he came in contact with the accused in the year 2005 in the month of 50 Spl.C.No.823/2019 January or March and admitted suggestion that initially CW.1 introduced the accused by saying that he was working with Former Chief Minister. This witness voluntarily stated that accused himself also introduced in such a capacity. The said suggestion makes it very clear that, this witness had met the accused. This witness has further stated that once the accused came along with another person, and denied suggestion that accused never promised him of site. He also denied suggestion that he had not paid any amount to the accused directly. He also denied suggestion that accused did not gave either agreement or sale deed.
45. This witness was also recalled on 19/4/2025 and further cross-examined in which several suggestions as to non-payment of money to the accused was denied. He also denied suggestion that he never met the accused and there was a loan transaction between accused and the complainant. He also denied suggestion that he did not had 51 Spl.C.No.823/2019 capacity to pay Rs.11 lakhs and stated that by withdrawing amount of PF, gratuity and lump sum retirement benefit, he paid the said amount.
46. The perusal of entire cross-examination of above said witness makes it very clear that this witness had paid a sum of Rs.11 lakhs and odd to the accused and he had met him on several occasions in connection with allotment of BDA site. He also denied suggestion that, the accused was not at all involved in the alleged transactions.
47. The prosecution has also got examined one of the witness to the mahazar conducted on 13/9/2010 at the residence of the accused as PW.8 through whom the mahazar and signature were got marked as Ex.P20 and Ex.P20(a). This witness turned hostile and in the cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor.
48. The Assistant Vice President of HDFC Bank, Halasuru Branch, Bengaluru was examined 52 Spl.C.No.823/2019 by the prosecution as PW.9 who furnished the statement of account of accused, his wife and son Manjula Micheal and Kevin as per Ex.P22 to Ex.P24. This witness was not chosen to be cross-examined thereby admitted the transactions reflecting in the above said statement of Accounts.
49. The prosecution has also got examined one of the witness to the mahazar conducted on 18/9/2010 at place where the accused alleged to have destroyed seals which were used for commission of offence as PW.10. This witness has turned hostile and in the cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the prosecution. The said mahazar is as per Ex.P25.
50. The prosecution has also got examined one Sri Basappa s/o Subbaiah the then Deputy Secretary of Bangalore Development Authority as PW.11 who deposed that, as per the request of Sub Inspector of Ramamurthy Nagar Police he furnished clarification as to the allotment of sites through 53 Spl.C.No.823/2019 letter dated 4/10/2010 and 5/10/2010 and on verification of the alleged allotment letter, sale cum lease agreement which were furnished by the Inspector, he found that the said documents were not issued by his Department. He got marked the reply letter as per Ex.P26 and identified his signature as Ex.P26(a). During the cross- examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness denying the issuance of the above said documents by his Department.
51. The Sub Registrar of Bidarahalli, Bengaluru by name K.R.Nagarj s/o late K.Ramaswamy was examined as PW.12 by the prosecution who deposed before the court that the Arkavathi Layout does not fall within the jurisdiction of Bidarahalli Sub Registrar Office and accordingly he had sent a reply as per Ex.P27 and identified his signature as per Ex.P27(a). This witness was also not chosen to be cross-examined by the accused. 54 Spl.C.No.823/2019
52. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Karna s/o Mani as PW.13 who stood as a witness to the mahazar conducted on 14/9/2010 as per Ex.P28. The said mahazar was conducted at Bazar Street, Ganesh Temple, Halasuru where rubber stamp shop by name "One Hour Rubber Stamp" was situated. This witness also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the perusal of the mahazar shows that by the time the said mahazar was conducted, the metro construction was carried on, as such the said shop was not found.
53. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Yellappa s/o Kempaiah as PW.14 who was one of the witness to the mahazar conducted on 16/9/2010 at the time of seizure of original sale deed produced by the complainant. This witness also turned hostile, and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness by the prosecution.
55 Spl.C.No.823/2019
54. The prosecution has also got examined one of the witness by name Shiva s/o Shivangali as PW.15, who stood as a witness to the mahazar dated 17/9/2010 marked as Ex.P29 conducted at the house of the accused under which household articles were seized. This witness also turned hostile and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness by the prosecution.
55. The Husband of PW.5 Smt. Hima Bindu by name R.Venkata Ramachandra Rao s/o R. Prabhakar Rao was examined by the prosecution as PW.16 who deposed that, complainant was his friend and assured him to obtain site from BDA through the accused. He further deposed that, a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid through complainant in cash on 2 or 3 occasions in connection with the allotment of the said site, and it was agreed to allot the said site in the name of his wife Hima Bindu- PW.5. He further deposed that, the accused promised to take him to the office of the Sub 56 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Registrar for the purpose of execution of documents, but subsequently PW.1 - Sridharan requested for photograph of his wife and later he has got certain documents on which his wife put the signature and identified the alleged allotment letter dated 14/8/2006, alleged lease cum sale agreement and endorsement issued by the Sub Registrar so also the alleged registered sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as Ex.P16 to Ex.P19. He further deposed that, from PW.1, he came to know that the accused cheated them and above said documents are all forged documents.
56. During the course of cross-examination this witness stated that, the complainant had assured him of BDA site and in connection with same, he had no talks with accused, and admitted that, the alleged sale deed Ex.P19 was given to him by the complainant, and paid the amount in cash to him. This witness was again recalled and in further cross-examination he stated that, complainant came 57 Spl.C.No.823/2019 to his contact when he was working in a Vishakapatnam Branch of HSBC Bank. He further deposed that, payment of Rs.5.5 lakhs to the complainant is reflected in his IT returns as the said amount was withdrawn from his savings bank account. But, denied that, the complainant had loan transactions with him. He admitted that, the accused has not assured of him of getting BDA sites and also his wife Smt.Hima Bindu did not met the accused. He admitted that, the above said amount was paid in cash to Sridharan i.e., PW.1. But, stated that, he had seen the accused when he came to his bank. He deposed that, the accused used to visit HSBC Bank in order to meet the complainant. He further deposed that, he knows about Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 and his father and complainant are the witnesses to the Ex.P19 sale deed. He deposed that, his wife Hima Bindu signed to Ex.P19 which was brought by the complainant but denied that photographs of his wife were affixed by Sridharan to 58 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the sale deed. He deposed that the accused had affixed the same and from CID officials he came to know that Ex.P16 to Ex.P19 documents are fabricated by the accused. Though it has been elicited from the mouth of this witness that, at the instance of complainant, only in order to help him he is deposing before this court, but no suggestion was put to this witness that whatever stated by him in his cross-examination is false. Moreover, the careful perusal of entire cross-examination of this witness reveals that, he along with PW.5 - Smt. Hima Bindu met the accused. Though this witness stated that he did not paid cash directly to the accused but it is not suggested that Ex.P16 to Ex.P19 were not handed over to the complainant by accused. The careful perusal of the entire cross-examination of this witness makes it very clear that, his wife Hima Bindu has put her signature on Ex.P19 sale deed dated 30/11/2007.
59 Spl.C.No.823/2019
57. The prosecution has also got examined sister of the complainant by name Susheelamma wife of Jagannath as PW.17 who deposed that, in the year 2007, the complainant came to her house and stated that he had purchased a site in the name of his wife PW.2 and requested her to affix her signature as a witness to the sale deed and on enquiry that how the sale deed can be handed over for obtaining signature of a witness, the complainant stated that he knew the accused who was working as a Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and through him he had obtained site under Minister's quota, as such said sale deed was handed over to him. She further deposed that as per the request of complainant, she furnished her photographs and affixed her signature as an attesting witness to the sale deed of the complainant. She further identified her signature on the sale deed dated 20/3/2007 as Ex.P5(b) and also signature of her husband N.Jagannathan as Ex.P5(c). She 60 Spl.C.No.823/2019 further deposed that, later she came to know that the above said sale deed was bogus document. During the course of cross-examination, this witness has stated that through complainant she came to know that she paid the amount to the accused but did not enquired its mode. But, denied that she did not stood as a witness to the Ex.P5 sale deed dated 20/3/2007.
58. The brother of complainant by name Murali s/o Narasimha Iyangar was also examined by the prosecution as PW.18 who stood as an attesting witness to the sale deed of PW.3 Bhanumathi and identified his signature as Ex.P9(b) and also identified signature of Mr. Jagannathan as Ex.P9(c). He deposed that later he came to know that the said sale deed is a forged document and PW.3 told that she paid a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- in order to purchase the said site.
59. During the cross-examination this witness has sated that he had affixed his signature to the 61 Spl.C.No.823/2019 document which was already registered and personally he do not know about the accused. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify the fact that he stood as a witness to the sale deed of PW.3 Smt.Bhanumathi who was his elder sister.
60. The prosecution has also got examined Sri H.C.Lokesh s/o M.Chikanna, the then Senior Sub Registrar of Yelahanka who worked during the year 2009-2011 as PW.19. He deposed that, as per the requisition of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, he verified the documents which were alleged to have been furnished by the accused and replied stating that the said documents falls within the jurisdiction of Bidarahalli Hobli and expressed his inability to verify the same. He identified the said reply as Ex.P30. He further deposed that, on 3/10/2011, he received another letter from Investigating Officer seeking information in regard to documents registered in his office and also he received the said 62 Spl.C.No.823/2019 documents along with the letter and on verification found that, the sale deeds as per procedure and law have to be registered in Book No.I and not in Book No.III. He stated that, the said documents were registered in Book No.III is not in accordance with procedure and law. He accordingly furnished his opinion in the form of report stating that, the said documents were all fabricated documents and identified the said letter and his signature as Ex.P31 and Ex.P31(a). He further deposed that he had sent certified copy of the sale deed which were registered in his office with same registration number for comparison and came to know that the sale deeds bearing No. BNG / YLNK /3090 /2006-07 dated 10/5/2006 was executed between Deepchand Jain and R.Manjunath as per Ex.P32 and another certified copy of sale deed bearing No.BNG/YLNK/380/2006-07 dated 18/5/2006 was executed in between G.V.Anil and Umesh and identified the said document as Ex.P33. Further, this 63 Spl.C.No.823/2019 witness has identified the sale deed bearing registration No.BNG/YLNK/2820/2006-07 dated 6/5/2006 as Ex.P34 which was executed between Smt.Padma and Sri Rajanna.
61. The above said witness was not chosen to be cross-examined by the accused. The perusal of the above said evidence makes it very clear that, the sale deeds of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.9 when compared with their registration numbers proved to be fabricated documents, as no documents by said registered numbers were registered in the office of the PW.19.
62. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Shivakumar s/o Narayana Swamy as PW.20 who stood as a witness to the mahazar marked as Ex.P15 and identified his signature as Ex.P15(c). He deposed that under the said mahazar police have recovered certain documents and identified one of the document as sale deed as per Ex.P13. In the cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. Hence, the 64 Spl.C.No.823/2019 prosecution with the help of this witness has proved the mahazar dated 16/9/2010 under which the documents were furnished by the accused to the complainant.
63. The prosecution has also got examined a Pawn Broker of Chain Raj and Company of Halsuru by name Utthamchand s/o Chain Raj as PW.21 who deposed that, he used to discount the cheques of Mayuri Credit Co-operative Society on commission of 1%, and identified the accused by stating that he brought 4 cheques in the name of some person by name Vamshi who also accompanied him, and presented the said cheques and got them realised.
64. During the course of cross-examination this witness denied suggestion that, accused never approached him for discounting the 4 cheques and also said cheques were not got encashed by the accused. Though this witness admitted that, the person in whose name cheques are issued has to come for discounting the same, but he specifically 65 Spl.C.No.823/2019 stated that the accused had came to him along with one person in order to discount said cheques. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the prosecution has got marked the letters issued by HSBC Bank dated 11/6/2012 with consent which reveals that, the cheques bearing No.349438, 349439, 356577 and 356578 for an amount of Rs.32,500/-, Rs.32,500/-, Rs.13,557/-, and Rs.13,557/- respectively were credited to the account of Vamshi Anand. The perusal of the extract of Mayuri Credit Co-operative Society which is a part of Ex.P35 also reveals the said fact. Further, the account extract of complainant marked as Ex.P39 also fortifies that the above said amount was debited to the account of complainant. The above said cheques were also got marked by the prosecution as part of Ex.P39.
65. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.S. Kannan s/o M. Sarangapani as PW.22 who stood as a witness to the mahazar conducted at 66 Spl.C.No.823/2019 place where the accused alleged to have destroyed certain documents near ITI ground, Ramamurthy Nagar. This witness had stated that, he affixed his signature to the above said mahazar as per Ex.P25(b) but failed to state the contents of the same and reasons for conducting the said mahazar. By treating the said witness as hostile, prosecution cross-examined this witness wherein nothing worthwhile was elicited. During the course of cross- examination conducted by accused, this witness stated that he had visited the place situated near the flyover at Ramamurthy Nagar alone and he had seen a person who was showing some of papers, and he can identify the said person if shown to him and he was very smart looking. He also deposed that, on earlier instance, when he appeared before the court, he had seen the said person. The evidence of this witness makes it very clear that he identified the accused as the same person who was present at the time of conducting mahazar at the above said place. 67 Spl.C.No.823/2019 This witness was again recalled and in the cross- examination he admitted that, he affixed his signature to the mahazar in the police station when it was blank. The careful perusal of evidence of this witness makes it very clear that he was taken to the place mentioned in the mahazar Ex.P25 and after conducting the spot inspection the mahazar was drawn in the police station. The evidence of this witness makes it very clear that he has identified the accused as the person in whose presence the above said mahazar was conducted.
66. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Syed Asgar Imam s/o Late Syed Kaleemuddin who was Retired Assistant Director, FSL, Bengaluru who worked as a handwriting and document expert in State FSL, Bengaluru from 1981 to 2014. He deposed that, he is a graduate in Science and did Diploma in handwriting and document examination from the Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Ministry of Home 68 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. He deposed that, on 13/1/2012, his office received papers in Crime No.239/2010 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police through S.P. Economic Offences, CID, Bengaluru for the purpose of examination. He identified the said documents as allotment letter, sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006, Form of communication, Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department dated 1/12/2006, absolute sale deed dated 27/3/2007 in the name of PW.2. He also stated that, he received BDA allotment letter, lease cum sale agreement dated 14/8/2006, Form of communication, Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department dated 11/7/2007, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 in the name of one B.Chanda. He also identified BDA allotment letter, lease cum sale agreement dated 12/7/2006, Form of communication, Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department dated 2/12/2006, absolute sale deed dated 20/3/2007 in the name of mother of the 69 Spl.C.No.823/2019 complainant Smt.V. Srirangammal. He also identified BDA allotment letter, lease cum sale agreement dated 14/7/2006, Form of communication, Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department dated 91/22006, absolute sale deed dated 20/7/2007 in the name of N.Bhanumathi. He also identified BDA allotment letter, sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006, Form of communication, Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department dated 11/7/2006, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 in the name of Smt. R.V. Hima Bindu PW.5. He also identified BDA allotment letter, sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006, Form of communication, Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department dated 11/7/2007, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 in the name of Smt. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi. He also identified BDA allotment letter, lease cum sale agreement dated 24/7/2008, absolute sale deed dated 4/8/2008 in favour of Tanuj Kapil Sharmi. This witness has got marked 70 Spl.C.No.823/2019 questioned signatures appearing in the above said documents of the above said persons as A1, B1, C1 to C4, D1 to D8, A2, C5 to C9, D9 to D16, A3, B2, C13, B17 to B24, A4, B3, C14 to C17, D25 to D32, A5, C18 to C22, D30 to D40, A6, C23 to C27, D41 to D48, C28, C29, C42 to C55.
67. This witness has also identified the specimen signatures of accused obtained in 38 sheets marked as S1 to S5, S21 to S26, S6 to S10, S27 to S32, S11 to S15, S33 to S38, S16 to S20. This witness has deposed that, after thorough and scientific examination of the above said specimen and questioned signatures, he formed opinion that specimen signatures and questioned signatures are of the same person. He opined that, the specimen signatures marked as S1 to S15, S33 to S38, S16 to S20 and questioned signatures marked as C28, C29, B42, B49 to B55 cannot be compared as they are altogether in different form of execution. He accordingly furnished his Opinion Certificate on 71 Spl.C.No.823/2019 4/7/2012 marked as Ex.P42 and identified his signature as Ex.P42(a). The reasons assigned by the said witness for the above said opinion containing in page no. 251 to 253 marked as Ex.P43 and his signature as Ex.P43(a). He got marked the enlarged prints of questioned and respective specimen signatures containing in page no. 254 to 270 as Ex.P44. He identified the allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006 as Ex.P45 and his signature and seal as per Ex.P45(a) and (b). He also identified the form of communication under Rule -3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 dated 11/7/2007 as Ex.P46 and his signature and seal as Ex.P46(a) and (b). He also identified the absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as Ex.P47 and his signatures and seal as Ex.P47(a) and (b). He further identified lease cum sale agreement dated 6/11/2006 as Ex.P48 and his signature and seal as Ex.P48(a) and (b). He also identified the allotment letter for sale cum lease dated 12/7/2006 as Ex.P49 72 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and his signature and seal as Ex.P49(a) and (b). He identified lease cum sale agreement dated 6/11/2006 as Ex.P50 and his signature and seal of the department as Ex.P50(a) and (b). The form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 identified by this witness as Ex.P51 and also his signature and seal of the department as Ex.P51(a) and (b). He also got identified original registered absolute sale deed dated 20/3/2007 as Ex.P52 and his signature and seal of the department as Ex.P52(a) and (b). He also identified the form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 dated 11/7/2007 as Ex.P53 and his signature and seal of the department as Ex.P53(a) and (b). He also identified absolute original registered sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as Ex.P54 and his signature and seal of the department as Ex.P54(a) and (b). He further identified form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 dated 24/7/2008 as Ex.P55 and his 73 Spl.C.No.823/2019 signature and seal of the department as Ex.P55(a) and (b). He further identified the absolute original registered sale deed dated 4/8/2008 as Ex.P56 and his signature and seal of the department as Ex.P56(a) and (b). He further identified the specimen signatures of accused containing in Page No.349 to 385, seal of the department, his signature as Ex.P57 and Ex.P57(a) and (b). The said witness has also identified the lease cum sale agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006, allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006, absolute original sale deed dated 20/3/2007, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977, lease cum sale agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006, allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006, absolute original registered sale deed dated 20/7/2007, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977, allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006 as Ex.P3 to Ex.P11. He also identified the letter for 74 Spl.C.No.823/2019 sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006, lease cum sale agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977, original registered absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as Ex.P16 to Ex.P19.
68. During the course of cross-examination, this witness has stated that there were six types of different signatures and it is sufficient if 3 to 4 specimen signatures are available to compare with disputed signature. He further stated that, as the question of age of ink and type of ink was not at all involved, same has not been mentioned in his report. He further stated that, as the examination conducted by him was in respect of chemical, hence there is no instrumental error. He denied suggestion that type and age of the ink will affect on the document on which the signature is made. He also denied that, he received disputed and admitted signatures in a tampered cover. He further stated that, in some specimen signatures starting with 75 Spl.C.No.823/2019 letter 'G' there is a loop as such he has not mentioned the same in his report. He deposed that he has mentioned similarity of individual letters in his report but denied suggestion that he submitted a report generally. He further stated that, he has not mentioned the size of the signature as it depends of the size maintained by the executant. Further, he stated that signatures marked as S11 to S15, S33 to S38 and questioned signatures C28 and C29 are not compared as they are different in form. He further stated that signature of the accused is not required to submit his report and the Investigating Officer has sent signatures of the accused and handwriting has been mentioned in his report and the said report contains in detail with respect to strokes and brakes. He further stated that, he has submitted his report after considering all the specimen signatures provided to him and denied suggestion that the natural variations of sampled and disputed signatures are different. He further stated that, 76 Spl.C.No.823/2019 execution of each letter and strokes is important, if letter is visible. He denied suggestions to the effect that he has not given his opinion as to execution of each letter and strokes even though they are visible and also he had not given detailed report in respect of questioned signatures A1 to A6. He further denied suggestion that he has not mentioned in his report as to individualistic pattern of each letter and there is a difference in specimen as well as admitted signatures.
69. This witness was again recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination in which he has stated that on the basis of individual writing habits, he gave opinion and used advanced techniques which were available at laboratory so as to give his opinion which has been mentioned in Ex.P43. He further stated that the software generated equipments have been used to give his opinion which has been mentioned in his report. He further specifically stated that enlarged prints are 77 Spl.C.No.823/2019 obtained from VSC 5000 which has been mentioned in his report Ex.P43. He further deposed that, if there is a dispute as to the age of the ink same will be examined and the variations from one signatures to another will be counted as natural variations in case of genuine signatures. He further stated that, he has mentioned as to the natural variations in strokes in his report and admitted that, he has not individually analysed disputed as well as standard signatures. Once Again, this witness was recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination and this witness has stated that the requirement of admitted signatures and specimen handwriting's depends upon case to case and there is no rule that specimen signatures and handwriting's have to be obtained when there are admitted signatures and handwriting's. He deposed that, since the present case is not a case of forgery and the case being fictitious creation of signatures, the admitted signatures and specimen handwriting's were not 78 Spl.C.No.823/2019 obtained. He denied that, he has not elaborately given his reasons to form an opinion and also denied that opinion expressed by him is only on the basis of probability and not conclusive one. He further denied that, he has not considered all the factors such as specific shape of letter, regular or irregular spacing between the letters, slope of the letters, the rhythmic repetition of elements, the pressure to the paper, the average size of the letter and thickness of the letter in order to form an opinion. He further stated that, while considering individual writing habits all the above said factors have been taken into account and since there is a total similarity between specimen and questioned signatures, percentage of similarity between them is not expressed by him. He specifically stated that he has taken first letter appearing in questioned signatures as a simplified execution, movement and formation appearing in Ex.P44 and denied that, he has not given his opinion with each character and letter. He 79 Spl.C.No.823/2019 further stated that, the first letter of specimen signature appearing in Ex.P44 is a simplified execution, so also the first letter of questioned signature appearing in page no.260 of Ex.P43. He further stated that, as letter mentioned in page no.4 of Ex.P43 are legible, he formed opinion as to the manner of their execution. He denied suggestion that the said reason is not mentioned in his reasons for opinion. To a question that C23 to C27 does not tally with S11 to S13, he stated that, he has considered all the specimen signatures S11 to S15 and S33 to S38, and denied suggestion that specimen signatures S35 to S38 does not tally with C23 to C27. This witness has further denied suggestion that specimen signatures S11 to S15, S33 to S38 does not tally with C1 to C27. He also denied suggestion that, strokes found in C1 to C27 does not tally with strokes found at S11 to S15 and S33 to S38. He denied further suggestion that, only in order to help the Investigating Officer he has given 80 Spl.C.No.823/2019 false opinion in respect of C1 to C27, S11 to S13 and S33 to S37. He further stated that, on the basis of theory of similarities in respect of individual writing habits, he formed opinion in respect of A1 to A6, S1 to S5 and S21 to S26 which has been mentioned in Page No.2 of his Report Ex.P43. He denied suggestion that, there is no scientific analysis to the said opinion and without any scientific basis. He stated that, each and every individual has got unique style of writing which is called as individual writing habit. He further denied suggestion that questioned signatures A1 to A6 are not consistent with specimen signatures S1 to S5 and admitted that, specimen signatures S1 to S5 are consistent with each other. He further denied suggestion that questioned signatures A1 to A6 are inconsistent with each other. He stated that there is no hard and fast rule to take specimen signatures on atleast 6 pages. He further stated that for the purpose of observation he has selected specimen signatures S1 to S6 and 81 Spl.C.No.823/2019 denied suggestion that only in order to help the prosecution he has given his opinion in a tailored format.
70. The careful perusal of above said examination with opinion Ex.P43 makes it very clear that this witness has taken into account all the aspects such as specific shape of letter, regular or irregular shaping between the letters, slope of the letter, the rhythmic repetition of elements, the pressure on the paper, average size of the letter and formed his opinion to the effect that admitted and disputed signatures and writings are of the Accused John Micheal and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify the same.
71. The prosecution has also got examined the Police Constable of Ramamurthy Nagar P.S. by name one Ramesh Anagonda s/o Buddanna as PW.24 who deposed as to arrest of the accused on 11/9/2010 at Ramamurthy Nagar ring road junction 82 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and submission of report of arrest as per Ex.P58. He also deposed that, he can identify the accused who was arrested by him, and nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness in the cross-examination to falsify the fact he did not arrest the accused at the place mentioned in Ex.P58.
72. The prosecution has also got examined one of the Investigating Officer by name Sri B.N.Srinivas s/o B.S. Nanjappa as PW.25 who deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that, on 14/2/2011, he wrote a letter to CW.32 to furnish bank details of the accused and same has been furnished on 18/3/2011 as per Ex.P21 to Ex.P24. He further deposed that, he obtained the account details of Mayuri Credit Co- operative Society from page no.129 to 136 which is a part of Ex.P35 and reply issued by CW.32 as per Ex.P36 and Ex.P37. He further identified the reply issued by Sub Registrar, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru stating that Arkavathi layout will not fall 83 Spl.C.No.823/2019 within the jurisdiction of Bidarahalli Hobli as per Ex.P27. He identified the reply issued by Mayuri Souharda Credit Co-operative Society as per Ex.P59 to Ex.P60. He further deposed that on 9/3/2011, complainant had furnished original sale deed, allotment letter alleged to have been issued by BDA in respect of CW.2, CW.3, CW.7 and in respect of one Srirangammal, D.Chanda which are marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P10 and same has been seized under PF No.5/2011 which is marked as Ex.P61. He deposed that, on the very same day i.e., on 9/3/2011 itself, he obtained specimen signatures of accused in the presence of panchas as stated in Ex.P57 and recorded further statement of the complainant. He further deposed that the HDFC Bank Halsuru Branch also furnished Account opening forms of accused, his wife and son Manjula Micheal and Kevin. A.M. He further deposed that, on 18/5/2011, he has sent specimen signatures of accused and documents seized in PF No.5/2011 for FSL 84 Spl.C.No.823/2019 examination. He deposed that, on 21/7/2011, 25/7/2011, he recorded the statements of CW.25 to CW.28. He further deposed that, on 6/9/2011, CW.29 and CW.30 furnished written statement and handed over further investigation to CW.46 on 14/9/2011.
73. During the course of cross-examination this witness has stated that one Sridharan is complainant of this case and denied suggestion that he has not written any letter seeking bank details from CW.32 pertaining to the accused. He also denied that he has not sought details of Vamshi Anand by letter dated 14/2/2011. He deposed that, current account no.46 pertains to Mayuri Credit Co- operative Society and admitted that in letters furnished by the said society Ex.P35 and Ex.P36, the name of the accused is not forthcoming. He further stated that he has not recorded the statement of Vamshi Anand which is reflected in Ex.P35 to Ex.P37. He admitted that, in Ex.P59 and Ex.P60, the 85 Spl.C.No.823/2019 name of the accused is not forthcoming and specifically stated that on 9/3/2011, he obtained specimen signatures from the accused in CCB office by securing panchas. He admitted that, in page no.349 to 353 of Ex.P57, the date and place of obtaining personal signature of the accused is not forthcoming. He further specifically stated that he orally secured the accused for the purpose of obtaining specimen signatures and immediately after obtaining the same, he sent the same to Government FSL and before obtaining report, the case was transferred to CID from CCB as such he has no documents to show as to referring the specimen signatures of accused to FSL. This witness has voluntarily produced the acknowledgment dated 18/5/2011 and also the registration form for having submitted specimen signatures to FSL as per Ex.P62 and Ex.P63 and identified his signature as Ex.P62(a). This witness has denied suggestion that he has not conducted any investigation and 86 Spl.C.No.823/2019 obtaining of specimen signatures by securing the accused. He further denied suggestion that deliberately he has not recorded the statements of one Vamshi Anand and Anthony Moses.
74. This witness was recalled on 8/11/2024 for the purpose of further chief examination, and on the said date he deposed that, on 9/3/2011, he obtained specimen signatures of the accused in respect of his alleged signatures as Senior Sub Registrar, Unit No.VI, Bengaluru which are found in page no.382 to 385 marked as S16 to S19 and got identified the same as Ex.P57(f). He identified his signature appearing on the specimen signatures as Ex.P57(f)(i). During the course of cross-examination, this witness stated that the alleged signatures as Senior Sub Registrar, Unit VI, Bengaluru marked as Ex.P57(f) are obtained in CCB office from the accused but failed to state that whether at that time, accused was in custody. He specifically deposed that, before obtaining the said specimen signatures 87 Spl.C.No.823/2019 at Ex.P57(f) from the accused, the signatures appearing on the documents furnished by the accused to the complainant were shown to the accused. He further specifically stated that Ex.P57(f) specimen signatures are obtained in the presence of mahazar witness who have been called orally and denied suggestion that the said specimen signatures are not at all obtained from the accused and same have been created by him.
75. This witness was recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination on 5/6/2025 wherein he stated that the accused had presented pay orders in the name of Vamshi Anand to ಹೋಟೆಲ್ಉದ್ಯ ಮದಾರರ ಸಹಕಾರ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ನಿಯಮಿತ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು and denied suggestion that no enquiry was made as to the relationship between accused and Vamshi Anand. He denied a suggestion that said Vamshi Anand is no way concerned to the accused, and also he has not retrieved any documents, bank statements as to the above said pay orders. He denied suggestion that, 88 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Ex.P35 to Ex.P37 are no way concerned to the accused. He further denied suggestion that there is no relationship or transactions between the accused and Vamshi Anand and in Ex.P59, it is mentioned that the above said Pay Orders were got realized by Vamshi Anand. This witness has further denied suggestion that he has not obtained specimen signatures of the accused on 9/3/2011. Though this witness admits that if any document or material seized during investigation same is to be reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate but Ex.P61 PF No.5/2011 reveals that the seizure of documents were intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15/3/2011. It is pertinent to note that, though this witness admitted that the alleged specimen signatures obtained from accused were not reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate but as per Section 102 of Cr.P.C., such intimation is required only when any property alleged to have been stolen or which might have been used in commission of 89 Spl.C.No.823/2019 offence is seized. Hence, intimation to the jurisdictional Magistrate as to obtaining specimen signatures of the accused is not warranted in the eyes of law. This witness has denied suggestion that no such specimen signatures have been obtained from the accused. This witness has feigned his ignorance as to the obtaining specimen signatures in accordance with Order 1504 of Police Manual. This witness has further admitted that the statement of witnesses in whose presence the said specimen signatures at Ex.P57 was not recorded, but perusal of Ex.P57 reveals that the said specimen signatures were obtained in the presence of two witnesses by name K.P. Satish s/o Puttegowda and Pundalik Varadaraj @ Raju Varadashetty. By obtaining the specimen signatures in the presence of above said panchas, the Investigating Officer has complied procedural aspect. It is to be noted that though the to above said witnesses summons was taken by the prosecution but same was not served on account of 90 Spl.C.No.823/2019 vacating the address. But, fact remains is that specimen signatures of accused are obtained in the presence of above said witnesses and evidence of PW25 is sufficient to come to conclusion that by following the process of law the said specimen signatures were obtained from the Accused.
76. The prosecution has also got examined another Investigating Officer by name Manjunath s/o Late Muniswamy as PW.26 who deposed as to transfer of the file to the CCB as per the order of Commissioner of Crime, Bengaluru City and got marked the permission obtained to transfer the case from the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P64. In the entire cross-examination nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness and fact remains is that the investigation is conducted by City Crime Branch, Bengaluru.
77. The prosecution has also got examined another Investigating Officer by name Mohan Kumar s/o Late Ramaiah as PW.27 who deposed as to part 91 Spl.C.No.823/2019 of investigation conducted by him. He deposed that, on 22/11/2011, he recorded the statement of CW.8 Ivon Raj Samuel and obtained letter on 8/12/2012 from Office of the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Government of Karnataka, stating that nobody by name 'John Micheal' worked in the said office. Further, he deposed that, on 23/12/2012, he obtained consent letter in order to submit the accused as well as complainant for Narco Analysis Test. He further deposed that, on 27/12/2012, he received a letter from CCB, Bengaluru in order to obtain specimen signature from the accused pertaining to Ramesh, Anand and Gowtham. He further deposed that on 10/1/2012 he obtained the said specimen signatures from accused and sent the same for FSL. He further deposed that on 7/1/2012 he issued notice to CW.4 so as to give his statement which has been replied on 18/1/2012 putforthing his inconvenience in order to give statement. He further deposed that on 7/10//2011, he wrote a 92 Spl.C.No.823/2019 letter to the Commissioner of Registrar of Stamps, Bengaluru to furnish details of sellers who sold the stamp papers on which the alleged sale deeds were got executed. He deposed that, he also wrote a letter to the Chief Officer, General Post Office, Bengaluru so as to furnish details of postal order bearing No.GOB/45609/9-12-2006 and GOB/1089/ 21-7-2008. He further got marked the letter addressed to the Chief Officer of Post Office as per Ex.P56, to the Registrar General and Commissioner of Stamps dated 7/10/2011 as per Ex.P67 and also letter addressed by Director, FSL dated 18/11/2011 so as to obtain specimen handwriting of the accused in relation to words "Anand, Ramesh and Gowtham"
as per Ex.P68. He also got marked the said specimen writings as per Ex.P57(c) to (e).
78. During the course of cross-examination this witness has stated that in order to conduct investigation and to match the signatures he has obtained specimen signatures from accused and the 93 Spl.C.No.823/2019 names such as 'Ramesh, Anand and Gowtham' are appearing in the site allotment documents furnished by the accused as officers by forging their signatures. Though the said witness has admitted that the above said three persons are not cited as witness but since they being fictitious persons they cannot be cited as witnesses. He specifically stated that Ex.P57(c) signatures are obtained from the accused and denied suggestions that he has not sent the said signatures for FSL examination. This witness was again recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination on 2/5/2025 wherein he has admitted that statement of CW.8 is not recorded in Kannada and he has not verified financial capacity of CW.8, but denied that CW.8 has given false statement. He admitted that, he has not conducted investigation to find out whether CW.8 has paid money to the accused. This witness has admitted that, Order 1502 of Police Manual has to be followed while obtaining specimen signatures and the 94 Spl.C.No.823/2019 previous writing as well as specimen writings have to be sent to the FSL. This witness admitted that as per Order 1504 of Karnataka Police Manual, it is mandatory to obtain admitted handwriting or signature and also specimen handwriting and signature. He further admitted that he has not collected previous admitted handwriting's of the accused. He denied suggestion that as per Karnataka Police Manual, a consent is to be obtained from the suspect before collecting his specimen handwriting or signature. He also admitted that as per Clause 1 of Order 1506 of Karnataka Police Manual, an intimation has to be given to the suspect as to in which mode, he has to give his specimen which has not bee followed in this case. He also admitted that generally specimen signatures are to be obtained in the presence of panchas by conducting panchanama and same has not been followed at the time of obtaining specimen signatures Ex.P57(c) to (e), but witness voluntarily 95 Spl.C.No.823/2019 stated that the said signatures were obtained in the presence of panchas. This witness denied that accused has not put his specimen signatures as per Ex.P57(c) to (e) in his presence and also same were not obtained in the presence of panchas. He also admitted that statement of said panchas has not been recorded by him, but denied suggestion that the said specimen signatures are created in order to send to the FSL. Though this witness admitted that the date of obtaining, the name of the panchas or their signature are not forthcoming in Ex.P57(c) to
(e), but the careful perusal of Ex.P57(c) to (e) makes it very clear that the said signatures were obtained from accused on 9/1/2012 in the presence of the above said witness.
79. The prosecution has also examined one of the Investigating Officer who has filed charge-sheet against the accused by name Renuka Aradhya H.S. s/o Srikanth Aradhya as PW.28 who deposed as to his part of investigation done in the case. He 96 Spl.C.No.823/2019 deposed that on 13/1/2012, he has sent seized documents for FSL examination marked as Ex.P45 to Ex.P57 and recorded the statement of CW.5 on 1/3/2012 and documents furnished by the said witness are reported in PF No.1/2012 as per Ex.P69. He identified the said documents as Ex.P11, Ex.P12, Ex.P54 and Ex.P56. He further deposed that, on 21/4/2012, he collected statement of account of HSBC Bank pertaining to Tanuj Kapil Sharmi marked as Ex.P40 and his signature as Ex.P40(a). He identified the page no. 209 and 216 of the said Bank Statement as Ex.P40(b) and (c) particularly, the entries dated 17/12/2007 and 23/7/2008. He further deposed that on 2/6/2012, he recorded the statement of CW.7 and on 14/6/2012 collected documents from Mayuri Co-operative Society, Bengaluru marked as Ex.P70. He further deposed on 21/6/2012 he recorded the statement of CW.36 and collected the statement of account of CW.1 from HSBC Bank as per Ex.P39 running from page 97 Spl.C.No.823/2019 no.177 to 206. He identified the relevant entry dated 24/1/2005 pertaining to the Pay Orders which has been taken by complainant in the name of Vamshi Anand so as to give same to the accused. The said entry is marked as Ex.P39(b) and deposed that above said Pay Orders encashed through Mayuri Souharda Co-operative Society Ltd.,
80. This witness has further deposed that on 4/7/2012, he has collected FSL report as per Ex.P42 to Ex.P44 and on 12/7/2012, he received a letter from CW.4 sent through email as per Ex.P71. Further, he deposed that on 10/8/2012, he collected HSBC Bank statement pertaining to CW.4 as per Ex.P41 and identified the relevant entry dated 3/7/2008 for Rs.7,50,000/- in page no. 243. He further deposed that on 23/8/2012, he recorded the statement of CW.6 and as he found sufficient materials against the accused submitted the charge- sheet on 25/2/2013. He also identified the accused. 98 Spl.C.No.823/2019
81. During the course of cross-examination this witness has stated that, CW.5 has produced documents relating to the site which have been furnished to him by the accused and said site was standing in the name of Tanju Kapil Sharmi. He specifically stated that as per bank statement, on 21/4/2012, the amount has been credited to the account of accused from the account of Tanuj Kapil Sharmi. He further stated that, as per the said bank statement, the said amount was transferred on 23/7/2012 and 17/12/2007 by way of seven cheques, but he has not recorded the statement of Smt. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi as she was not secured. He specifically identified the entries as per Ex.P40(b) relating to the transactions between the accused as well as Smt. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi. He also stated that during the investigation, he has collected documents pertaining to Vamshi Anand from Mayuri Co- operative Society and the in voluntary statement, the accused has stated that he had opened account in 99 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the name of above said Vamshi Anand. Further, this witness has stated that the said Vamshi Anand himself is the accused. He submitted that he has produced all the documents which have been submitted by Vamshi Anand to Mayuri Credit Co- operative Society and Ex.P37 and parts of Ex.P35 are produced by him. He specifically identified at page No.129 sl No.7 and 8 of Ex.P35 pertains to the above said P.Vamshi Anand. He further stated that in vouchers and application forms, the signature of said Vamshi Anand is appearing at Page No.119 to 125(a) annexed to Ex.P70 and admitted that in Ex.P35, the signature of Vamshi Anand is not forthcoming. He further stated that, as per bank statement of complainant, he had transferred the amount to Mr.S.P.Vamshi Anand and the demand drafts from the account of the complainant were sent to Mayuri Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., and admitted that except the voluntary statement of the accused, he has not collected any documents to 100 Spl.C.No.823/2019 show that Vamshi Anand himself is accused. Further this witness has stated that he has sent all the documents collected from accused pertaining to sites for FSL but he has not referred the signature of Vamshi Anand for FSL. This witness has stated that only the signature of the accused is sent for FSL, and deposed that CW.4 has sent his statement through email which has been attested by him on 12/7/2012. He admitted that, he collected the bank statement of CW.4 based upon the above said email sent by him. He further deposed that, he had also recorded the statement of CW.6 Sri Pradeep Kuruvilla but has not collected any documents from him. The suggestion that he has not sent any documents for FSL and further suggestion that Vamshi Anand and accused are not one are denied by this witness.
82. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.H.Hanumanthappa s/o Erappa as PW.29 who worked as a Police Inspector, EOS, Bengaluru 101 Spl.C.No.823/2019 who deposed that on 14/9/2011 as per the order of SP, he took up further investigation from CW.45 and on 1/10/2011, recorded the statement of CW.2 Lalitha w/o M.Sridharan. He further deposed that, on 3/10/2011, he wrote a letter to the Sub Registrar, Yelahanka seeking to furnish sale deeds which has been replied as per Ex.P31. He deposed that on 7/10/2011, 15/10/2011 and 10/11/2011, he recorded the statements of CW.3 -Smt. N.Bhanumathi, complainant -Sri Sridharan and that of Anthony Moses. He further deposed that on 5/11/2011, he wrote a letter to the Office of Chief Minister of Karnataka seeking information as to whether any person by name 'John Micheal' worked in the said office. He identified the reply issued by Sub Registrar, Yelahanka dated 2/11/2011 as per Ex.P31 and identified the sale deeds furnished by the said Sub Registrar as per Ex.P32 to Ex.P34 along with letter Ex.P31.
102 Spl.C.No.823/2019
83. Though this witness in the cross- examination admitted that he has not produced letter addressed to the Office of the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha seeking details of the accused, but perusal of Ex.P38 reveals the reference of said letter bearing No.17 ಅಪರಾಧ /ಇಒಎಸ್/ ಸಿಐಡಿ/ 2011, ದಿನಾಂಕ 5/11/2011. Further, though this witness admitted that he has not sent the documents which are referred in Ex.P21 to the FSL, but since the documents mentioned in the said letter are certified copies of sale deed obtained from the Office of Sub Registrar, Yelahanka being genuine documents, there is no question of referring the same for FSL examination.
84. In view of the above said oral evidence, it has to be appreciated the arguments canvassed by both learned counsels by referring to the documentary evidence on record.
85. On appreciation of the entire materials placed before the court, the first and foremost aspect 103 Spl.C.No.823/2019 which is alleged by the prosecution is that accused John Micheal induced the complainant - Sridharan and other prosecution witnesses to part with huge amount on the pretext of got allotting the site of BDA and in furtherance of the same, he has received huge amount from them, in particular, a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/-.(Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Only). It has been specifically contended by the prosecution that accused had received the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant in the guise of got allotting the BDA site, by pretending himself as Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh.
86. The criminal law was set into motion by Sridharan s/o Narasimha Iyengar as per Ex.P1. The perusal of the said document reveals that it is stated that the accused was got introduced to him by a common friend by name Anthony and during the year of 2005, he received Rs.12,00,000/- from complainant on the pretext of got allotting BDA site 104 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and he parted with the said amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and on 12/7/2006, the complainant received allotment letter in the letterhead of BDA and accused, thereafter-wards handed over the sale agreement and collected 4 photographs of the complainant for the purpose of Registration of a document. It is further stated that on 20/3/2007, the accused handed over the sale deeds and other documents in respect of site no.27 measuring 60 X 80 feet situated at 3rd stage, Arkavati Layout, Bidarahalli Hobli, Yelahanka,which fact has been disclosed by the complainant to his eleven friends and got introduced the accused to all of them who assured to got allot BDA site to all of them. It is stated that in the guise of allotting the sites, the accused had collected a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/- from the above said aspirants including the complainant and when they enquired about the documents furnished by the accused with BDA authorities came to know that the said documents 105 Spl.C.No.823/2019 are fabricated and forged documents and immediately the law was sent into motion on 11/9/2010 by the complainant.
87. The averments of the first information at Ex.P1 reveals in detail about the manner in which the accused induced the complainant and also other prosecution witnesses.
88. In the light of the above said averments of the complaint, it has to be appreciated as to the oral evidence of the first informant - Sri Sridharan in relation to the documents produced by him before this court.
89. The first informant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the first information dated 11/9/2010 as per Ex.P1. The mahazar conducted at the house of the complainant dated 12/92010 as per Ex.P2. Further, the complainant had also got marked the copy of the allotment letter dated 12/7/2006 as per Ex.P11 in the name of Ms.Tanuj Kapil Sharmi. He further got marked the copy of the 106 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Lease cum Sale agreement issued by the BDA dated 6/11/2006 in her name as per Ex.P12. Further, he has also got marked copy of the sale deed signed by Secretary, BDA and Sub Registrar, Yelahanka dated 20/3/2007 as per Ex.P13. The copy of the letter of communication dated 30/11/2006 issued by Karnataka Stamps and Registration Department is got marked as Ex.P14. He specifically stated that the said documents were seized from him by the Investigating Officer under mahazar Ex.P15. He identified his signature on the said mahazar as per Ex.P15(a), and he deposed that he has produced nearly 20 documents pertaining to Smt. Lalitha, Smt. V.Srirangamal, Smt.N. Bhanumathi, Smt. Chanda Bhandari and Smt.Hima Bindu before the CCB. He also identified the accused before the court.
90. The Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the common friend of accused as well as first informant - Sri Antony was neither cited as an witness nor examined before this court. Hence, it 107 Spl.C.No.823/2019 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. But, on the other hand, when the entire cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 2 is carefully perused, it is quite clear that Sri Antony has introduced the complainant to the accused in the month of January 2005. Nowhere in the entire cross-examination of PW.1, it has been denied that the complainant was not at all familiar with accused. Moreover, it is to be noted that the complainant as well as his wife PW.2 identified the accused before the court. It is not suggested that the complainant as well as PW.2 for the first time have seen the accused before the court. Another aspect which is to be noted that the accused himself in his examination in chief has not disputed that the complainant was known to him. Under such circumstances, mere non-examination of common friend of accused as well as first informant sri Antony cannot be held as fatal to the case of the prosecution.
108 Spl.C.No.823/2019
91. When cross-examination of PW.1 is carefully perused, it is quite clear that he stood to the case of the prosecution by stating that earlier he had applied for allotment of BDA site in the year 2004-05 by depositing a sum of Rs.32,000/- and Rs.52,000/- respectively as an advance amount. He specifically stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- both in cash and Demand Draft by obtaining said DD in his HSBC branch. He specifically stated that he had paid nearly Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- each on behalf of his wife - PW.2 and mother - Srirangamal in cash during the year 2005 in his house. PW.1 specifically stated that above said amount was paid on many occasions and in total he had paid Rs.33,39,102/- to the accused out of his savings, by withdrawing PPF and sale proceeds of house standing in the name of his mother situated in Andhra Pradesh. He specifically stated that he has sold the said house in the month of November 2005 109 Spl.C.No.823/2019 and the said aspect has been reflected in his income tax returns. The above said evidence of PW.1 as to mobilizing the funds in order to pay to the accused has not been traversed by the accused by putting suggestions denying the same. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution has not placed any materials to show that complainant had earlier applied for BDA site, but PW.1 in his cross-examination specifically stated that he has produced all the documents such as income tax returns and the earlier applications seeking for allotment of BDA site before the Enforcement Directorate. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that initially on the basis of the first information lodged by one Mr. Thapang Bhandari, Spl. CC. 94/2021 was filed against the accused, the Judgment of which has been placed before this court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The said case was ended in conviction and on the basis of the complaint lodged by Sri 110 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Thapang Bhandari, the Enforcement Directorate had lodged the complaint under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act in Spl.CC. 132/2015 which also ended in conviction by Judgment dated 8/4/2024 of which court has taken judicial notice. PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that on 12/7/2006, he has received allotment letter through post and cover of the same had been handed over by him to the police. He specifically stated that on 20/3/2007, the accused handed over the sale deed to him in Taj Residency Hotel. A suggestion to the effect that he had disclosed the allotment of BDA site to all of his friends which is admitted by PW.1 makes it very clear that after receipt of allotment letter and sale deed and other documents, the complainant has disclosed the said fact to all of his friends. PW.1 denied a suggestion that he himself has created all the documents such as sale deed, lease cum sale agreement, allotment letter and same have been 111 Spl.C.No.823/2019 handed over to his friends. He denied that the said documents are not at all handed over by the accused to him.
92. The prosecution has also got marked the statement of account of complainant - Sridharan as per Ex.P39 with consent. The careful perusal of Ex.P39 reveals that from 3/2/2005 to 12/12/2005, a total sum of Rs.23,46,704/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant - Sridharan on various dates. Though it has been argued that, the financial capacity of complainant to pay such huge amount is not proved before the court, but the above said statement of account makes it very clear that, he withdrawn the above said sum during the year 2005. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 in his cross- examination itself has specifically stated that, he has paid the said amount on several occasions substantially in cash. The withdrawal of the above said amount from January 2005 to December 2005 fortifies the financial capacity of the complainant to 112 Spl.C.No.823/2019 pay the amount to the accused. The PW.1 has got marked allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/07/2006 as per Ex.P11, lease cum sale agreement for sites dated 6/9/2006 as Ex.P12, and sale deed dated 20/3/2007 as per Ex.P13 and also the endorsement issued by Department of Registration and Stamps in Form No.IA as Ex.P14. The perusal of sale deed at Ex.P13 reveals that under the said sale deed, consideration of Rs.9,31,200/- stated to have been passed by way of government pay order bearing No.Govt/ Mqt/45609/06-07. The prosecution has also got marked lease cum sale agreement for site of wife of complainant PW.2 Smt. N. Lalitha as per Ex.P3, allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006 as per Ex.P4, absolute sale deed dated 20/3/2007 as per Ex.P5, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp as per Ex.P6. The perusal of the sale deeds and above said documents reveals that under the said sale deed, 113 Spl.C.No.823/2019 consideration of Rs.9,31,200/- stated to have been passed by way of government pay order bearing no. Govt/Mqt/45609/06-07. The perusal of the above said sale deed also reveals that, the seal of BDA and signature of Secretary of BDA is appearing. The prosecution in order to support the above said documents examined the wife of the complainant Smt.Lalitha as PW.2 who deposed as to the accused being introduced to complainant through one Antony and accused pretended himself as a Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh. She deposed that accused assured her husband to got allot a site of BDA under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister and received a sum of Rs.11,13,040/- from him. She got identified the above said documents. In the cross-examination also, she supported the case of the prosecution by denying the suggestion that accused was never introduced to her by anybody and she specifically stated that during the year 2005, the accused was 114 Spl.C.No.823/2019 introduced to her in her house. It is also denied a suggestion that accused never offered to get BDA site to her husband at any point of time. Further, PW.2 specifically stated that she has seen Mr.Antony who was working with her husband of M.G.Road Branch of HSBC Bank. She denied a suggestion that her husband PW.1 Sridharan availed loan from the accused. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of PW.2. Though she admitted that, Ex.P4 was shown to her by her husband, but she stated that said documents were handed over to her husband by the accused. She specifically denied a suggestion that Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 were not at all handed over by the accused to her husband and she specifically stated that her husband told to her as to handing over of the said documents by the accused. Nowhere in the entire cross-examination, it has been denied that complainant had not paid any amount to the accused in connection with allotment of BDA site.
115 Spl.C.No.823/2019
93. The prosecution has also got examined the sister of the complainant N.Bhanumathi as PW.3 who also deposed that, when she came to know about the allotment of BDA site to her brother by the accused, she requested complainant to also got allot one BDA site to her and in this regard, she paid a sum of Rs.2,78,376/-, and identified lease cum sale agreement as per Ex.P7, allotment letter as per Ex.P8, absolute sale deed as per Ex.P9, and form no.IA as per Ex.P10. She further deposed that Smt.Rangammal was her mother and accused had cheated her also in the guise of got allotting BDA site. She specifically stated that, when the accused had attended funeral of her mother in the year 2010, she had seen him. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that she had handed over a sum of Rs.2,78,376/- to the complainant which was in turn handed over to the accused by him. She denied a suggestion that Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 documents were created by herself. She specifically stated that, on 116 Spl.C.No.823/2019 wrong mention of her residential address in the sale deed, the accused told that since she had applied for small site measuring 30 X 40 feet and if her correct address is disclosed, she will not get site, as such her residential address was wrongly shown in the sale deed as no.30, Sai Apartment, II floor, Whitefield Brookfield, Bengaluru which does not belongs to PW.3 at all. The above said evidence of PW.3 makes it very clear that she witnessed handing over of a sum of Rs.2,78,376/- by the complainant to the accused towards allotment of BDA site to her. When the above said oral evidence of PW.3 is compared with Ex.P7 to Ex.P10, it is quite clear that she deposed in consonance of case of the prosecution.
94. The prosecution has also examined one Pradeep Kuruvilla as PW.4 who also deposed as to handing over of sum of Rs.11,13,004/- to the accused through complainant who gave him allotment letter which proved to be fake one. The 117 Spl.C.No.823/2019 admissions of PW.4 in the cross-examination makes it very clear that the complainant stood as a middleman between the accused and this witness in connection with allotment of BDA site as all the transactions took place through complainant.
95. The prosecution has got marked the allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006 as per Ex P16 , lease cum sale agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006 as per Ex P17, Form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamps as per Ex.P18, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as per Ex.P19. The above said documents belongs to PW.5 Smt. Himabindu who got marked the above said documents in her examination in chief. The perusal of absolute sale deed at Ex.P19 reveals that the sale consideration for site bearing no. 68/1 at 5 th stage, Arkavati Layout, Bidarahalli hobli, Yelahanka taluk measuring 40 X 60 feet shown as a sum of Rs.4,65,600/- which was paid through government 118 Spl.C.No.823/2019 pay order vide Govt/Mqt/8009/2007-08. The PW.5 in her cross-examination has specifically stated that, her husband was working in HSBC Bank since from 1998 and complainant was his good friend. It was suggested that her husband was talking with the complainant in respect of site measuring 40 X 60 feet and denied suggestion that herself and her husband never met accused at any point of time. PW.5 voluntarily deposed that she had listen to the talks held between her husband and accused in connection with allotment of BDA site, and she deposed that a sum of Rs.5,50,752/- was paid out of savings. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify her evidence and also as to the above said documents Ex.P16 to Ex.P19.
96. PW.7- Sri Ivon Raj Samuel also deposed as to payment of Rs.11,00,000/- to the accused in connection with allotment of BDA site to him. The cross-examination of this witness reveals that, the 119 Spl.C.No.823/2019 above said transaction took place through the complainant Sri Sridharan.
97. The prosecution has also got marked allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006 issued in favour of B.Chhanda as per Ex.P45, lease cum sale agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006 as per Ex.P48, the form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamps as per Ex.P46. The prosecution has also got marked the allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006 of V. Srirangamal who is none other than the mother of the first informant as per Ex.P49, sale deed of Mrs. B. Chhanda as per Ex.P47, lease cum sale agreement for sites of Smt. V.Srirangamal dated 6/11/2006 as per Ex.P50, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamps as per Ex.P51, her absolute sale deed dated 20/3/2007 as per Ex.P52. The perusal of the above said documents reveals that the sale consideration for allotment of BDA site to Smt.Srirangamal was 120 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Rs.9,31,200/- which was paid through government pay order vide Govt/Mqt/45609/2006-07. The sale deed reveals that site bearing no. 49, at 4 th stage, Arkavati Layout, Bidarahalli hobli, Yelahanka taluk, Bengaluru measuring 60 X 80 feet was shown to have been allotted to mother of the complainant.
98. The prosecution has also got marked form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp pertaining to Tanuj Kapila Sharmi as Ex.P53, her absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 as per Ex.P54, another form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamps as per Ex.P55, her another sale deed dated 4/8/2008 as per Ex.P56 through PW.23. When the above said two sale deeds are perused, it is stated that, a sum of Rs.5,82,000/- and another sum of Rs.15,52,000/- stated to have been paid vide government pay order bearing No.Govt/ Mqt/ 1073/ 2008-09 and another government pay order bearing No.Govt/Mqt/ 15481/2007-08 respectively. The prosecution has 121 Spl.C.No.823/2019 also got marked statement of account of Ms. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi with consent as per Ex.P40 and letter of HSBC Bank dated 17/4/2012. Along with the said documents, the cheques bearing No.131885 for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 16/7/2008, cheque bearing No.131887 dated 16/7/2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.131886 of Rs.2,50,000/- dated 16/7/2008, cheque bearing No.107058 of Rs.2,22,000/- dated 3/12/2007, cheque bearing No.107059 dated 3/12/2007 for Rs.3,30,000/-, cheque bearing No. 107061 of Rs.4,70,000/- dated 6/12/2007, cheque bearing No.107060 for Rs.4,30,000/- dated 8/12/2007 are also got marked. All the above said cheques were of HSBC Bank issued in favour of accused Mr. John Micheal. The prosecution has also got marked the statement of account of Ms.Tanuj Kapil Sharmi held with HSBC Bank which is a part and parcel of Ex.P40 reveals that the above said cheques were honoured and credited to the account of accused. The letter of 122 Spl.C.No.823/2019 HSBC Bank Ex.P40 also reveals that the above said cheques were credited to the account of accused - John Micheal. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the prosecution has got marked the Statement of Account of John Micheal bearing No. 02861000024779, Statement of Account of his wife Manjula Micheal bearing No.02861930001386 and that of his son Kevin A.M bearing No.02861460000671 as per Ex.P22 to Ex.P24 through Assistant Vice-President of HSBC Bank Smt. Lakshmi Mantri-PW.9. She was not subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the accused. The perusal of Statement of Account of Accused - John Micheal marked at Ex.P22 of HDFC Bank as stated supra reveals that on 17/12/2007, on 9/7/2008 and on 23/7/2008, the above said cheques issued by Ms. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi have been credited to his account. Though it has been argued that said Ms.Tanuj Kapil Sharmi was not examined before this court, but since the 123 Spl.C.No.823/2019 prosecution has got marked the sale deeds, lease cum agreement of sale, allotment letter, statement of account belonging to her, as such her non- examination before the court is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that, the credit of the above said amount is very much within the knowledge of the accused as after the credit of the same, he had withdrawn the said amount from his account. When the entries found in Ex.P22 are read along with Ex.P53 to Ex.P56, it is quite clear that Ms. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi was also one of the victim of the accused.
99. The prosecution in order to prove that the above said sale deeds furnished by the accused are forged and fabricated got examined PW.19 Sri H.C.Lokesh s/o Chikkanna, the then Senior Sub Registrar of Yelahanka. He deposed that, on verification of the records, he found that the above said sale deeds were allegedly registered in Book no. III whereas as per rules, the sale deeds have to be 124 Spl.C.No.823/2019 registered in Book No.I. Accordingly, he furnished report stating that, the above said sale deeds are fabricated and said report is got marked as Ex.P31. He also deposed that, he furnished the copy of sale deeds which were registered in his office with same registration numbers which were furnished to the complainant and to other prosecution witnesses by the accused and got identified the said sale deeds as per Ex.P32 to Ex.P34.The perusal of the said documents makes it very clear that they related to genuine transactions. The evidence of this witness has not been shaken since this witness was not chosen to be cross-examined by the accused. The perusal of Ex.P32 to Ex.P34 makes it very clear that, the sale deeds furnished to the prosecution witnesses by the accused with same registration number and as per the evidence of PW.19, the sale deeds have to be registered in Book No.I, whereas the perusal of above said fabricated sale deeds reveals that they were registered in Book No.III 125 Spl.C.No.823/2019 which is not at all in accordance with the procedure and Rules.
100. The prosecution in order to prove the accused John Micheal impersonated himself as Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister - Sri Dharam Singh of Government of Karnataka has got marked with the consent the letter issued by Special Officer to the Chief Minister, Chief Minister's Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru dated 3/12/2011 as per Ex.P38. Under the said letter, the above said authority intimated that, at no point of time, a person by name John Micheal worked in the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, as such not able to furnish any documents to that effect. Since the said document was got marked with the consent of the accused, the question of verifying its correctness or otherwise by the Investigating Officer does not arise at all. The Ex.P38 reveals that, at no point of time, a person by name John Micheal never worked in the Chief Minister's Secretariat 126 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Office, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru but accused impersonated himself in the said capacity and lured the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses.
101. The prosecution has got marked the letter issued by HSBC Bank dated 11/6/2012 in respect to statement of account of the complainant as per Ex.P39. Again, the said document and statement of account of the complainant, pay orders were got marked with the consent. When Ex.P39 is perused, it is quite clear that, a complainant had paid a sum of Rs.32,500/-, Rs.32,500/-, Rs.13,557/- and another sum of Rs.13,557/- through cashier order no. 349438, 349439, 356577 and 356578 in favour of one Sri S.P. Vamshi Anand @ Vami Anand. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the evidence of PW.1 who in his cross-examination stated that, he does not know Vamshi Anand personally but he was introduced as if he was Secretary of Government of Karnataka, Treasury. He denied suggestion that accused never introduced him such a person. The 127 Spl.C.No.823/2019 above said cashier orders/cheques were cleared through Mayuri Credit Co-operative Society, Bengaluru. The statement of account of the said society got marked as part and parcel of Ex.P35 which reveals as to clearing of the said cheques through the said society. Though the Investigating Officer has stated that, accused and Vamshi Anand are one and the same, but since the complainant Sridharan stated that accused himself introduced Vamshi Anand as Secretary of the Government of Karnataka Treasury and his evidence being primary evidence has to be believed. The prosecution has also got examined Sri Uttam Chand s/o Chain Raj as PW.21 who got discounted the above said cheques on commission basis and who was running a Pawn Broker shop in the name and style "B.Chain Raj and Company" at Halasuru, Bengaluru. He identified the accused before the court and stated that the accused brought four cheques in the name of some person by name Vamshi and the said person had also 128 Spl.C.No.823/2019 accompanied accused so as to got discount the above said cheques. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was denied to the effect that the accused never approached him for discounting the above said four cheques and admitted that, in order to discount the cheques, the person in whose names cheques are issued has to furnish his ID card and there is no possibility of getting cheque discounted which are in the name of another person. This evidence of PW.21 makes it very clear that the accused himself got introduced a person by name Vamshi Anand as Secretary of the Government of Karnataka, Treasury and through him the above said four cheques were got discounted. The accused through Vamshi Anand had played fraud on the complainant in encashing the above said cheques issued by complainant. The accused cleverly got issued the above said cheques from the complainant not in his personal name, but in the name of above said Vamshi Anand and got 129 Spl.C.No.823/2019 encashed the same which were issued in connection with allotment of BDA site.
Appreciation of evidence of Handwriting Expert:
102. The prosecution has got examined Sri Syed Asgar Imam as PW.23 to prove that signatures appearing on allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps, sale deeds which alleged to have been furnished by the accused to the prosecution witnesses are forged by the accused John Micheal. PW.23 has deposed before the court that on 13/1/2012, his office received papers in Crime No.231/2010 of Ramamurthynagar P.S. through Superintendent of Police, Economic offences, CID Bengaluru for examination. He deposed that, the allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps dated 1/12/2006, absolute sale deed dated 27/3/2007 belonging to Smt. N. Lalitha in which questioned signatures are marked as A1, B1, C1 to 130 Spl.C.No.823/2019 C4, D1 to D8. Further, he got marked the questioned signatures appearing on allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps dated 11/7/2007, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 in the name of B.Chhanda as A2, C5 to C9, D9 to D16. Further, he got identified questioned signatures appearing on allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps dated 2/12/2006, absolute sale deed dated 20/3/2007 in the name of V.Srirangammal as A3, B2, C13, B17 to B24. Further, he got identified questioned signatures appearing on allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/7/2006, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps dated 9/12/2006, absolute sale deed dated 20/7/2007 in the name of N.Bhanumathi as A4, B3, C14 to C17, D25 to D32. Further, he got identified the questioned signatures appearing on allotment letter 131 Spl.C.No.823/2019 for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps dated 11/7/2006, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 in the name of R.V.Himabindu as A5, C18 to C22, D30 to D40. He further got identified questioned signatures appearing on allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 12/7/2006, form of communication, Karnataka Stamps dated 11/7/2007, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007 standing in the name of Tanuj Kapil Sharmi as A6, C23 to C27, D41 to D48. Further, he got identified the questioned signatures appearing on allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 24/7/2008, absolute sale deed dated 4/8/2008 in the name of Tanuj Kapil Sharmi as C28, C29, D42 to D55. He further got identified the specimen signatures obtained from accused in 38 sheets marked as S1 to S5, S21 to S26, S6 to S10, S27 to S32, S11 to S15, S33 to S38, S16 to S20 and after thorough and scientific examination of the above 132 Spl.C.No.823/2019 said questioned signatures and specimen signatures opined that the person who wrote the specimen signatures marked as S1 to S5, S21 to S26 also wrote the questioned signatures marked as A1 to A6. He opined that, the person who wrote the specimen signature marked as S6 to S11, S27 to S32 also wrote the questioned signatures marked as B1 to B3. He further opined that, the person who wrote the specimen signatures marked as S11 to S15, S33 to S38 also wrote questioned signatures marked as C1 to C27. He further opined that, the person who wrote the specimen signatures marked as S16 to S20 also wrote the questioned signatures marked as D1 to D41, D43 to D48. He got identified opinion certificate issued by him dated 4/7/2012 as Ex.P42 and also reasons for the said opinion as Ex.P43. Through the said witness, the allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/8/2006, form of communication under Rule3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1977, absolute sale deed dated 30/11/2007, lease cum 133 Spl.C.No.823/2019 sale agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006, allotment letter for sale cum lease dated 12/7/2006, lease cum sale agreement dated 6/11/2006, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules, absolute sale deed dated 20/3/2007, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 dated 11/7/2007, sale deed dated 30/11/2007, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1977 dated 24/7/2008, registered sale deed dated 4/8/2008 are got marked as Ex.P44 to Ex.P56. He also identified the specimen signatures in different form obtained from accused as Ex.P57, Ex.P57(a) and Ex.P57(b). He also got identified Ex.P3 to Ex.P11 which are lease cum sale agreement, original sale deed, form of communication and also Ex.P16 to Ex.P19.
103. The learned counsel for the accused with reference to the opinion of the expert PW.23 submitted that, the prosecution has not followed Order No.1504 of Police Manual and the opinion of 134 Spl.C.No.823/2019 expert is not a substantive piece of evidence. To fortify the said contention, he pressed into service decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter between S. Gopalareddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1996 SCC (4) 596 and another Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter between Murarilal s/o Ramsingh Vs. State of Madhyapradesh reported in 1980 AIR 531. The careful perusal of the above said Judgment makes it very clear that, the opinion of Expert is not a substantive piece of evidence, and the opinion of Expert has to be tested by the acceptability of reasons given by him. Further, it is also held that there is no rule of law nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into rule of law that opinion evidence of handwriting Expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. In this regard, it is also useful refer to a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 280 between State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal, 135 Spl.C.No.823/2019 wherein at Para No.18, 35, 39 and 40, it was observed as under:
"18. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions."
"35. This brings us to an ancillary issue as to how the Court would appreciate the evidence in such cases................ The courts, normally, look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports 136 Spl.C.No.823/2019 are perfunctory, unsustainable and are the result of a deliberate attempt to misdirect the prosecution..................."
"39. The Indian law on expert evidence does not proceed on any significantly different footing. The skill and experience of an expert is the ethos of his opinion, which itself should be reasoned and convincing. Not to say that no other view would be possible, but if the view of the expert has to find due weightage in the mind of the court, it has to be well authored and convincing........................"
"40. We really need not reiterate various judgements which have taken the view that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the court. The court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not.........................."
104. In this regard, it is also fruitful to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court 137 Spl.C.No.823/2019 reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 418 between Santosh @ Bhure Vs. State, (2013) 9 SCC 454 between Suresh Hingurani Vs. State of Haryana and also another decision reported in (2005) 9 SCC 15 between Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla.
105. Keeping in view the above said settled position of law, now the duty is casted upon this court to appreciate the evidence of PW.23 with reference to his report Ex.P42 and Ex.P43. Before that, since the obtaining of specimen signatures from the accused is seriously disputed, it has to be seen whether said signatures were obtained in compliance of the above said order. For the purpose of better understanding of the said order, it is reproduced as under which are contained in Chapter XXXVII of Karnataka Police Manual.
"1504. As a general procedure the Investigating Officer should submit two types of standard writings as detailed below:138 Spl.C.No.823/2019
(i) Request writings, i.e., writings or signatures written to dictation by the suspect for the purpose of comparison with the questioned writings;
(ii) Previous writings ie., admittedly genuine writings or signature written in ordinary course of business by the suspect when he had no knowledge that these writings and signatures would be used for comparison with the questioned writings.
1505. The writing produced in the ordinary course of business is generally an unconscious act. Request writing produces consciousness in the writer which tends to make the writing formal. Request writings may also be deliberately disguised and distorted by the writer. Such request writings are, therefore, not always suitable for comparison with the questioned writings executed in ordinary course of business. The importance and necessity of obtaining previous writings for comparison with the questioned writings can thus be well realised. The previous writings are found to be useful writings of the suspect 139 Spl.C.No.823/2019 without any attempt at disguise or formal execution, as the writer had no knowledge that, these writings will ever be used as standards for comparison. It is of utmost importance that such writings should be capable of being proved in a Court of Law, as the standard it purports to be. The usual method of proving the previous hand writing of an accused is by the evidence of a person who is well acquainted with his writings and can identify them. The previous writings of those persons who are to appear as witnesses in the case can be proved by their own admissions in the Court.
1506. If the suspect is willing to give specimens of his handwritings, the following procedure should be adopted.
(i) Examine the document and note whether it is written in cursive (i.e., freely written having connected small letters) of pen printing or block-lettering style or is a mixture of all. Make it clear to the suspect which style of handwriting you desire him to use but never show him the questioned writings.
(ii) Obtain paper similar to that of the questioned document and try to match 140 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the paper especially with respect to size and lines if any. Never allow a large sheet of paper if the questioned document is small or plain paper, if the questioned document is lined and vice versa. If the questioned document is an envelope, supply envelopes for the dictation to be written on; if an endorsement is on cheque, supply blank cheques and ask them to be endorsed leaving it to the suspect as to where and how he does it. If the questioned document is in the nature of an official form, the most strenuous efforts should be made to obtain similar blank forms on which the suspect should be invited to write. If blank forms cannot be obtained, endeavor to duplicate them on a typewriter taking care to keep the dimensions of the same.
(iii) Provide the suspect with writing instrument similar to that used for writing the questioned document. Where ink of writing is concerned, try to match the nib width. The ink used need not be matched as this has every little influence on the writing.
141 Spl.C.No.823/2019
(iv) Dictate the questioned writing to the suspect at a reasonable speed. This will allow the suspect, if he so attempts an opportunity to disguise his handwriting which will tend to make him much slower than usual. The time taken should be carefully noted.
(v) When the first dictation has been completed, the writing should be removed from the sight of the suspect who should be persuaded to give a second specimen. The second dictation should be given as fast as the suspect will allow, because if the speed is kept up and he has disguised his first specimen, he will have difficulty in remembering the details of the disguise previously used.
(vi) The procedure detailed in the aforesaid sub-orders (iv) and (v) should be repeated with two different pens on two different dates. In this way, specimens of the writings of the suspect on six different sheets are to be obtained.
(vii) When taking specimen hand writings of several persons whose handwritings are required to be examined, the writing of 142 Spl.C.No.823/2019 each individual should be taken on separate sheets of paper. In cases where a person is required to give several specimens of his signature it is also advisable to take each specimen on a separate sheet of paper, care being taken to remove the previously written sheets from the sight of the individual when he is writing the latter specimens. When obtaining specimen handwritings, the matter should preferably be dictated. If the person whose handwriting is required to be examined, is unable readily to write to dictation, he may be made to write from typewritten or printed matter, but not from manuscript matter so that the chances of imitation or variation are minimised. In no case should he or she be allowed to see the document in question. When a long piece of writing is dictated or given to copy, the actual time taken for writing should be noted and also the kind of pen used and the position of the paper while in the act of writing, i.e., whether laid on a flat hard surface or held across the palm or placed across the thigh or in 143 Spl.C.No.823/2019 any other position. The officer taking the specimen should state on it the writer's name and the date of writing together with the particulars referred to above. He should also certify on the same sheet that the specimen was written in his presence.
(viii) Such request writings given by the suspect or accused should be voluntary and they should be obtained in the presence of witnesses who should attest the paper. No element of compulsion should be employed in obtaining the specimens.
106. The prosecution has got marked specimen signatures of Secretary, CM Office, Bengaluru, specimen signatures of Town Planning Authority, BDA, Bengaluru, specimen signature of Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru, specimen signatures of Senior Sub Registrar, Unit VI, Bengaluru obtained from accused as per Ex.P57.
107. In this regard, it is useful to appreciate the evidence of two Investigating Officers Sri 144 Spl.C.No.823/2019 B.N.Srinivas - PW.25 and Sri Mohan Kumar - PW.27.
108. PW.25 deposed that, on 9/3/2011, the complainant furnished Ex.P3 to Ex.P10 which are seized in P.F.No.5/2011 marked as Ex.P61. He deposed that, on the very same day, he obtained specimen signatures of the accused in the presence of panchas stated in Ex.P57 contained in Page No.349 to 353. Further, he deposed that, on 18/5/2011, he sent specimen signatures of the accused and documents seized in P.F.No.5/2011 for Experts opinion. PW.27 deposed that, on 10/1/2012, he obtained specimen signatures of Ramesh, Anand and Gowtham from accused and sent the same for experts opinion. During the course of cross-examination, PW.25 stated that, on 9/3/2011, he obtained specimen signatures of accused in CCB office in the presence of panchas who were secured orally. He stated that, he orally secured the accused in order to obtain specimen 145 Spl.C.No.823/2019 signatures and produced the acknowledgment dated 18/5/2011 and also registration form for having submitted specimen signatures for FSL as per Ex.P62 and Ex.P63. He denied a suggestion that no specimen signatures were obtained from the accused by securing him. He further deposed that, on 9/3/2011, he obtained specimen signatures from accused of Senior Sub Registrar, Unit-VI, Bengaluru which are found in Page No.382 to 385 marked as Ex.P57(f). In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that, Ex.P57(f) specimen signatures were obtained from accused in CCB office and at that time, the signature appearing on the documents furnished by the accused to the complainant were shown to the accused . He specifically stated that, in the presence of witness who have been secured orally the said specimen signatures were obtained and denied suggestion that no such signatures were obtained from the accused. Even in the cross- examination of PW.27, suggestions were admitted to 146 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the effect that, as per Order No.1504 stated supra, it is mandatory to obtain admitted handwriting of signature and also the specimen handwriting and signature. He also admitted that, by following the procedure prescribed in the above said order, specimen signatures have to be obtained and the order No.1506 of Police Manual was not followed in obtaining specimen signatures from the accused, but the careful perusal of Ex.P57 the specimen signature of Secretary, CM office, Bengaluru, specimen signature of Town Planning Authority, BDA, Bengaluru, specimen signature of Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru and specimen signature of Senior Sub Registrar, Unit No.VI, Bengaluru were obtained from he accused in the presence of two witnesses by name K.P.Satish s/o Puttegowda and Pundarik Varadaraj @ Kuchhi Varadashetty. Nowhere the Order No.1504 to 1506 of Police Manual prescribes the obtaining of the specimen signatures by drawing mahazar. It is 147 Spl.C.No.823/2019 sufficient if the specimen signatures were obtained in the presence of witness. The prosecution by obtaining the above said specimen signatures in the presence of above two witnesses complied Order No.1504 to 1506 of Police Manual. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, as soon as specimen signatures were obtained from the accused, they have to be reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate which was not done, as such no reliance can be placed on the same. But when Section 102 of Cr.P.C., is carefully perused, it is quite clear that only when any material which is alleged to have been used to commit offence is recovered from the accused, same has to be reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate, but in this case, by obtaining specimen signatures in the presence of two witnesses, Order 1504 to 1506 of Police Manual was complied and there is no need to report the same to jurisdictional magistrate. The records reveals that, the prosecution has made efforts to got examine the 148 Spl.C.No.823/2019 above said two pancha witness by summoning them, and in this regard, filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which came to be allowed on 21.10.2025 and summons issued to the said witnesses returned unserved as left the address. The prosecution had made efforts by taking summons on two occasions to the above said witnesses to examine before the court, but since they left the address, were not examined before the court. Be that as it may, the evidence of Investigating Officers PW.25 and PW.27 makes it very clear that by complying the Order 1504 to 1506 of Police Manual, they obtained specimen signatures from the accused in the presence of two witnesses. Even the evidence of PW.25 and PW.27 proves that the said specimen signatures were obtained from the accused in compliance of the above said orders. Hence, the non-examination of the witnesses mentioned in Ex.P57 is not fatal to the case of prosecution as PW25 and PW27 have deposed to the said fact who 149 Spl.C.No.823/2019 have no reason to sharpen their swords against the accused, as there is no enmity between accused and PW.25 and PW.27. Hence, there is no occasion for them to depose falsely as against the accused. It is also pertinent to note that, PW.23 during the course of cross-examination has stated that, when specimen signatures were sent to him for the purpose of examination, he felt necessary to obtain specimen writings from accused for examination of questioned signatures and therefore requested to procure specimen writings containing words as 'Anand, Ramesh and Gowtham' in six sheets and sent the same for examination. The said requisition is got marked as Ex.P68.
109. PW.23 - The handwriting expert was cross-examined on three occasions by the accused and in his cross-examination, he specifically stated that there is no question of instrumental error in arriving at conclusion as examination conducted by him was not in respect of chemical, age and type of 150 Spl.C.No.823/2019 ink. He denied suggestion that, the age and type of the ink will affect the document on which signature is made. He specifically stated that, he has mentioned similarity of individual letters in his report and as the size of signature depends upon size maintained by the executant, same has not been mentioned in his report. He further specifically stated that, the Investigating Officer has sent signatures of the accused and in his report, he has mentioned the method followed by him so as to examine the questioned as well as admitted signature and handwriting. He specifically stated that in his report, he has in details narrated as to strokes and brakes and submitted his report after considering all the specimen signatures provided to him. He denied suggestion that, there will be natural variations of sampled and disputed signatures and both are different. He specifically stated that execution of each letter and strokes is important, if letter is visible, and denied suggestion that he has 151 Spl.C.No.823/2019 not given his report and opinion as to execution of each letter and strokes. Further, this witness has specifically stated that, by using advance techniques which were available at laboratory, he has given his report and same has been mentioned by him in his report at Ex.P42 and Ex.P43. He specifically stated that, enlarge prints were obtained from VSC 5000 and same has been mentioned in Ex.P43. He specifically stated that, natural variations in the strokes is mentioned by him in his report and admitted suggestion that he had individually analysed the disputed as well as standard signatures. Further, this witness in his cross- examination stated that, since the present case is not a case of forgery and it is a case of fictitious creation of signatures, the admitted signatures and specimen handwritings were not obtained. He denied suggestion that he has not elaborately given his reasons so as to form an opinion as stated in Ex.P42 and only on the basis of probability, he expressed 152 Spl.C.No.823/2019 his opinion. He further admitted suggestions that, while expressing his opinion and also furnishing reasons for his opinion, he has taken into account all factors such as specific shape of letter, regular or irregular spacing between the letters, slope of the letters, the rhythmic repetition of elements, the pressure to the paper, the average size of the letter and thickness of the letter. He specifically stated that, while considering individual writing habits, all the above said factors are taken and since there is a total similarity of specimen and questioned signatures, handwritings, as such the percentage of similarity is not expressed by him in his report. This witness has stated that he has taken first letter appearing in questioned signature as simplified executions, movement and formation appearing in Ex.P44. He specifically stated that as the letter mentioned in Page No.4 of Ex.P43 are legible, as such he formed an opinion as to manner of execution and denied suggestion that the said 153 Spl.C.No.823/2019 reason is not mentioned in Ex.P43. He specifically stated that he has considered all specimen signatures S11 to S15 and S33 to S38 and formed his opinion, and denied suggestion that specimen signatures S35 to S38 does not tally with C23 to C27. He also denied suggestion that the specimen signatures S11 to S15, S33 to S38 does not tally with C1 to C27 and the strokes found in C1 to C27 also does not tally with strokes found in S11 to S15, S33 to S38. He specifically stated that on the basis of theory of similarities in respect of individual writing habits, he formed an opinion as to A1 to A6, S1 to S5 and S21 to S26 which has been mentioned by him in Page No.2 of his reasons for opinion Ex.P43. He specifically stated that there is no hard and fast rule to take specimen signatures on atleast six pages and for the purpose of observation, he selected specimen signatures S1 to S6.
110. The perusal of the above said evidence of PW.23 when compared with his opinion and also 154 Spl.C.No.823/2019 reasons for opinion contained in Ex.P42 and Ex.P43, it is quite clear that, by following the procedure for comparison of admitted as well as specimen signatures and handwritings, PW.23 has given his opinion. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to falsify his report as well as the reasons for report contained in Ex.P43. In view of the above said position of law, when the expert has expressed his opinion with sufficient reasons, there is no impediment on the part of this court to accept his report.
111. The evidence of PW.23 - handwriting expert makes it very clear that, there is no rule that, specimen signatures and handwritings have to be obtained when there are admitted signatures and handwritings, since the present case is not a case of forgery and it is a case of fictitious creation of signatures. It is pertinent to note that, the accused created signatures of various authorities as mentioned in sale deeds, lease cum agreement of 155 Spl.C.No.823/2019 sale, allotment letter, as such the question of obtaining admitted signatures from the accused does not arise at all, since it is a case of forgery of documents by fictitious signatures. When the evidence of PW.23, PW.25 and PW.27 is read along with PW.1 to PW.3 in comparison with statement of account of complainant, that of Ms Tanuj Kapil Sharmi and Ramachandra Kumar Varmuri got marked as Ex.P39 to Ex.P41, it is quite clear that the accused had received the money as alleged by the prosecution from the witnesses in connection with got allotting BDA sites under discretionary quota of Chief Minister of Karnataka. When the evidence of PW.1 -Sridharan, PW.2 - N. Lalitha, PW.3 - Bhanumathi and PW.5 - Himabindu read along with evidence of PW.23 -Syed Asgar Imam who is the handwriting expert would indicate that the person who had executed specimen signatures had executed the signatures on the sale deeds, lease cum sale agreement for sites, allotment letter for sale cum 156 Spl.C.No.823/2019 lease agreement furnished by the accused and prosecution has established the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
112. At this juncture, it is relevant to appreciate the evidence led by the accused as DW1 and his witness by name Y.Abdul s/o Y.Akbar as DW2. The accused as DW.1 deposed before this court that from 2005 to 2010, he came in contact with Sridharan and in the month of February 2006, Compainant-Sridharan availed loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and out of which he had repaid Rs.5,00,000/- in the month of June 2006, and again in the month of September 2006, Sridharan asked for a loan of Rs.45,00,000/- which was arranged by selling his jewels, site etc., He further deposed that, by withdrawing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Savings Bank Account at Indian Overseas Bank, Indiranagar Branch he arranged loan of Rs.80,00,000/- and same was paid to the 157 Spl.C.No.823/2019 complainant who in order to repay the said loan, issued seven cheques belonging to Tanuj Kapil Sharmi and also to one Mr. Ramachandra Varmuri. He deposed that, as on 27/10/2007, Mr. Sridharan repaid Rs.41.56 lakhs and had to repay the balance of Rs.25,00,000/-. But, to substantiate the above said alleged loan transactions, the accused has not placed any records, such as Loan Agreement or promissory note etc., By examining DW.2, the accused made an effort to show that he had availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- during the year 2006 from the said witness in order to advance the same to complainant, but in his cross-examination this witness clearly admitted that, there is no agreement as to lending of Rs.25,00,000/- to the accused. If at all, either accused or DW.2 had advanced loan same should have been reflected in their income tax returns as DW.1 and DW.2 are income tax assesses at relevant point of time. The accused by failing to prove his defence admitted that, he had received 158 Spl.C.No.823/2019 substantial amount from Tanuj Kapil Sharmi and also from Ramachandra Varmuri through account transfer. The prosecution has got marked their statement of accounts as per Ex.P39 to Ex.P41 to prove the transfer of amount from their respective account to the accused. The prosecution has also got marked statement of account of accused John Micheal as per Ex.P22 held with HDFC Bank which reveals that above said amounts were credited to his account. When the said evidence is read along with sale deed, lease cum sale agreement for sites, allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P14, Ex.P45 to Ex.P56, it is quite clear that the accused in the guise of got allotting BDA sites to the complainant and other witnesses created false documents referred above and made them to part with huge amount. Even though the accused has got marked the passbook of Bengaluru City Co- operative Bank, Main Branch, Bengaluru, letter issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Indiranagar 159 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Branch as per Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, but same will not aid him in any manner.
113. It is settled principle of law that court cannot solely rely on the evidence of an expert, but can be used for the purpose of corroboration. In the instant case, as noticed, the amount came to be transferred by way of cash and also through account which was subsequently transferred to John Micheal and in furtherance of the same, he has issued alleged sale deeds, lease cum sale agreement for sites, allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement, form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1977 which were found to be forged and fabricated one. The accused got issued the said documents in order to indicate that same were being used as genuine documents though they were not the original and genuine documents and also he had intended to use them as valuable security in the eyes of law.
160 Spl.C.No.823/2019
114. The prosecution has also got marked the mahazar conducted at the house of the complainant as per Ex.P2, where the accused used to meet complainant in connection with allotment of BDA sites. The prosecution has also got marked Ex.P15- seizure mahazar conducted at the time of seizing the documents from complainant. The prosecution has also got marked the seizure mahazar conducted at the house of the accused situated at Varanasi Road, T.C.Palya, Jinke Thimmanahalli, Bengaluru under which one Laptop, Wagon-R car bearing Regn.No.KA03-MK-998 were seized. Further, the prosecution has also got marked the mahazar conducted at the shop by name 'One Hour Rubber Stamp' situated at Bazar Street, Halasuru, Bengaluru, where the accused had created the seals in the names of various authorities as per Ex.P28. The prosecution has also got marked mahazar conducted near ITI ground, K.R.Puram where accused destroyed the seals used to create sale 161 Spl.C.No.823/2019 deeds etc., as per Ex.P25. The prosecution has also conducted seizure mahazar at the house of accused situated at Varanasi Main Road, Jinke Thimmanahalli, T.C.Palya, Bengaluru where the articles found in the house of the accused came to be seized as per Ex.P29.
115. The learned counsel for the accused argued that, the prosecution has not examined CW.4-Sri Ramachandra Kumar varmuri and CW.5 - Sri Abhinava Sinha to prove their case. The records reveals that, as per the request of learned Spl. Public Prosecutor summons was issued to the said witnesses on 21/10/2024 which came to be returned unserved for want of correct address. Again, on 8/11/2024 the summons to the said witnesses was re-issued which again returned unserved for want of correct address. Again on 29/11/2024, summons was re-issued to the said witnesses which returned unserved on the ground that, CW.4 is settled at Malaysia and CW.5 who is 162 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the resident of Mumbai but has vacated the premises and there is no such person in the given address which could be seen from order sheet dated 6/12/2024. Hence, the above said facts and circumstances makes it very clear that the prosecution has made every effort to got examine CW.4 and CW.5 before the court, but as CW.4 was settled in abroad and CW.5 left the address of Mumbai, it was not possible for the prosecution to examine them.
116. The learned counsel for the accused has also argued that, the first information was lodged in the year 2010, whereas the alleged title deeds were handed over in the month of March 2007, as such there is a delay in lodging the first information which is not properly explained. It is to be noted that, when the complainant had received lease cum allotment letter and other title deeds, he informed the same to all of his friends which was suggested to PW.1 and admitted by him, and there-afterwards the other 163 Spl.C.No.823/2019 witnesses requested the complainant to got allot them also BDA site with the help of the accused. Accordingly, the prosecution witnesses through complainant have parted with amount and the fabricated documents were furnished to the complainant. The perusal of the said documents reveals that they were got issued during the year 2007-08. The complainant as well as the other prosecution witnesses have believed the said documents as genuine and when they enquired about said documents with the BDA authorities by doubting their genuineness came to know that the documents furnished by the accused were all forged and fabricated. Immediately there-afterwards the first information came to be lodged on 11/9/2010. Under such circumstances, until the complainant and other prosecution witnesses came to know as to documents furnished by the accused as forged and fabricated, there was no occasion for them to suspect the said documents and lodged complaint. 164 Spl.C.No.823/2019 When the complainant and other prosecution witnesses came to know that the documents furnished by the accused were forged and fabricated, immediately the first information was lodged, as such there is no delay in lodging the same. Merely because PW.2 and PW.3 are wife and sister of complainant, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses since they have also received title deeds from the accused by parting with consideration amount, as such they are also victims of the accused. Though some of the witnesses to the mahazar turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, but same is not fatal as the present case is based upon oral as well as documentary evidence and chain of links. The opinion of handwriting expert -PW.23 is corroborated by the other direct and circumstantial evidence. Though it has been argued that the prosecution has cited nor examined persons by name 'Anand, Ramesh and Gowtham' but it is to be noted that, in the name of 165 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the above said persons, signatures were created by the accused and they being fictitious persons, they cannot be arrayed as prosecution witnesses.
117. The above said discussion makes it very clear that the accused since from inception even though he was not the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh pretended and impersonated himself in the said capacity and lured the complainant - Sri Sridharan as well as other prosecution witnesses who can be termed as gullible persons who are in need of sites. Under the pretext of providing allotment of sites by the competent authorities, the accused induced the general public by impersonating himself to be connected closely with the persons in power. The accused forged signatures of various authorities and created title deeds and used them as genuine documents. The complainant as well as prosecution witnesses by believing the said documents as genuine parted with huge sum of money and thereby 166 Spl.C.No.823/2019 accused got himself enriched by wrongful gain, and at the same time wrongful loss to the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses. The accused by impersonation himself as Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka committed the offence of cheating by personation as provided under Section 416 of IPC which is punishable under Section 419 of IPC. Further, the accused cheated the complainant and other prosecution witnesses dishonestly inducing them to part with huge sum of money under the guise of got allotting BDA site under special quota of Chief Minister of Karnataka, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The accused committed forgery of various documents by forging the signatures and seals of various authorities such as Bangalore Development Authority, Sub Registrar Unit iv, Registrar of Stamps and Duty etc., and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC. The accused committed forgery of the above 167 Spl.C.No.823/2019 said documents only for the purpose of cheating the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses and used the said documents as genuine and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 468 and 471 of IPC.
118. Now with respect to decisions pressed into service by learned counsel for the accused are concerned, first decision in the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttarpradesh, it is in respect of case and counter case wherein it was held that, both the cases have to be tried independently without there being influenced by evidence led and have to be disposed keeping in view the evidence led in particular case. There is no dispute as to the said position of law, but same cannot be made applicable to the present case on hand.
119. So far as the second decision in the matter between Rajesh and another Vs. State of Madhyapradesh is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the offence punishable under 168 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Section 302, 120-B and 364-A of IPC where the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the procedure to be followed while conducting search and seizure and also panchanama. There is no dispute as to the said position of law, but in the case on hand, the Investigating Officers have followed due procedure while conducting the seizure and panchanama. Hence, with due respect the said case cannot be made applicable to the present case on hand.
120. So far as the another decision in the matter between Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with procedure of recording confessional statement and held that when a thing is to be done in certain manner, it must be done in that way. The perusal of facts of the said case reveals that the Hon'ble Apex Court has given benefit of doubt to the accused on the basis of the confessional statement was not recorded in accordance with law. But, with due respect to the said decision, same cannot be 169 Spl.C.No.823/2019 made applicable to the present case on hand, as the facts of the present case are totally different. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt as against the accused. Therefore, Points 1 to 5 are answered in the "Affirmative".
121. POINT NO.6 : In view of my findings on Point No.1 to 5 supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused- Sri John Micheal s/o Yesudas is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
To hear regarding order on sentence.
****** ** ** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of April 2026.) SATISH Digitally signed by SATISH BALI BALI Date: 2026.04.25 16:53:32 +0530 (Satish J. Bali) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.170 Spl.C.No.823/2019
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE In the instant case, the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
The Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the offences against the accused for the provisions of law have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that the accused had induced the complainant PW.1
- Sri Sridharan and other witnesses who had parted with substantial amount towards allotment and registration of BDA site. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused had represented himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and had forged and fabricated the documents and created the documents to cheat and defraud the complainant. It is further contention of the prosecution that the said act of impersonation is to be viewed seriously. The 171 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Spl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the act of the accused has to be viewed seriously as he is a snollygoster person who was in the habit of cheating and defrauding the general gullible public. Accordingly, it is sought for imposing maximum punishment as provided under the aforesaid provisions of law.
The Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that accused is a married person having wife and suffering from kidney diseases. It is also submitted that, during the pandemic accused had lost his only son. It is also submitted that, considering the age of the accused, an opportunity should be given to him to reform himself and since there is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences, taking into account the accused stood trial for 15 years, thereby prayed to take lenient view while awarding sentence.
The Court has also heard the accused, who has also reiterated the submissions made by his counsel. 172 Spl.C.No.823/2019
Heard the parties and the point that requires to be considered is what would be the appropriate sentence that could be imposed on the accused person.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that, in matters of awarding sentence, the court should be cautious and has to consider all the relevant factors to arrive at a just conclusion. It is a cardinal principle of law that the nature and gravity of crime is to be appreciated and not the criminal which are germane for consideration to impose suitable punishment. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the trial courts to precisely consider the aggravating and mitigating factors at the time of awarding sentence. If the aggravating and mitigating factors are appreciated, the same can be culled out as follows;
Aggravating Factors:
1. The accused had induced the PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses to part with a huge amount under the pretext of providing BDA sites.173 Spl.C.No.823/2019
2. The accused had impersonated himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister and the same is a serious aspect.
3. The act of the accused was deliberate and intentional one.
4. The accused is a habitual offender having been convicted in Spl.CC. 94/2021 and Spl.CC. 132/2015 on the file of this court.
Mitigating Factors:
a. The accused has to take care of his wife and also he is the sole bread earner of his family. b. The accused is suffering from various ailments and accused is having deep roots in the society.
On considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, it is noticed that the offence which is committed by the accused could be termed as white collared offence, which bleeds the economy of the nation. Further, the maxim "Nullum crimen sine lege" which means, the principle of legality in the rule of construing criminal statute is to be in favour of citizens and also the approach should be towards 174 Spl.C.No.823/2019 the social welfare. The important aspect of socio- economic offence is to be considered from the point of view of the harm it has caused to the society at large. Even though the gravity of offence cannot be deciphered easily, the same requires to be considered in a manner which would indicate the mode in which its execution was carried out by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also specifically laid down the dictum that the Court has to consider the cry of the victim at the time of imposing punishment. It is also been held that the society at large is the sufferer due to the commission of white collared offence by the accused person. When the aforesaid aspect is applied to the case on hand, it indicates that the accused had induced the witnesses in the above case to part with huge amount of money. It is to be appreciated that the accused had chosen the persons who had got faith and had made them to part with money under the pretext of providing BDA sites.175 Spl.C.No.823/2019
In this regard, the act of accused in collecting a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- each from PW.1 and PW.2, Smt. Srirangammal, a sum of Rs.2,78,376/- from N.Bhanumathi - PW.3, a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- from Sri Pradeep Kuruvilla - PW.4, a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from Himabindu - PW.5, a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from Sri Ivon Raj Samuel, a sum of Rs.23,02,000/- from Smt. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi (wife of CW.5 - Abhinav Sinha) and a sum of Rs.26,07,000/- from Ramachandra Kumar -CW.4 has been established by the prosecution.
Under the circumstances, the court has to consider imposing of maximum punishment as contemplated under Section 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. By considering the said aspects, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Accused - John Micheal, S/o. Yesudas, is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 419 of 176 Spl.C.No.823/2019 IPC, and he is hereby sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE years and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE year.
The Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of SEVEN years and imposed with a fine of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE years.
The Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWO years and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, he 177 Spl.C.No.823/2019 shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of SEVEN years and imposed with a fine of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE years.
The Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWO years and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The sentences ordered shall run concurrently and accused shall be entitled for the period of set off as 178 Spl.C.No.823/2019 contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of detention he has already undergone, if any as Under Trial Prisoner in the above case.
Acting under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C., suitable compensation requires to be ordered to the victims out of the fine amount i.e., PW.2 -Smt. N. Lalitha, PW.3
-Smt. N.Bhanumathi, PW.4 - Sri Pradeep Kuruvilla, PW.5 - Smt. Himabindu, PW.7
- Sri Ivon Raj Samuel, CW.5- Sri Abhinav Sinha, CW.4- Sri Ramachandra Kumar and legal heirs of deceased Smt. Srirangammal and accordingly, PW.2 - Smt. N.Lalitha and legal heirs of deceased Srirangammal are awarded with compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- each (Rupees Twelve lakhs each only), PW.3 -
Smt.N.Bhanumathi awarded with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), PW.4 - Sri Pradeep Kuruvilla is awarded with compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), PW.5 - Smt. Himabindu is awarded with compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- 179 Spl.C.No.823/2019 (Rupees Six Lakhs only), PW.7 - Sri Ivon Raj Samuel is awarded with compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), CW.4
- Sri Ramachandra Kumar is awarded with compensation of Rs.26,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), and CW.5 - Sri Abhinav Sinha s/o Anunaya Kumar [Husband of Smt. Tanuj Kapil Sharmi] is awarded with compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), and the remaining amount is ordered to be forfeited to the State.
Since PW.1- deceased N.Sreedaran was already awarded with compensation in Spl.CC. 94/2021, no compensation is awarded to him in this case.
In the event of deposit of fine amount, the same shall be forfeited after disbursing the compensation as stated supra.
180 Spl.C.No.823/2019
Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this Judgment to the accused forthwith.
The bail bond and surety bonds
executed by the accused stands
cancelled.
***
(Dictated directly on computer to the Judgment Writer, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of April 2026. ) SATISH Digitally signed by SATISH BALI BALI Date: 2026.04.25 16:53:47 +0530 (Satish J. Bali) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judgeand Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : N.Sreedaran PW.2 : Lalitha PW.3 : N.Bhanumathi PW.4 : Pradeep Kuruvilla PW.5 : Hima Bindu PW.6 : Priya PW.7 : Ivon Raj Samuel PW.8 : Obalesh PW.9 : Lakshmi Mantri PW.10 : Deva Anbu PW.11 : Basappa.S PW.12 : K.R.Nagaraj 181 Spl.C.No.823/2019 PW.13 : Karna PW.14 : Yellappa PW.15 : Shiva PW.16 : R. Venkataramachandra Rao PW.17 : Susheelamma PW.18 : Murali PW.19 : H.C. Lokesh PW.20 : Shivakumar PW.21 : Uttham Chand PW.22 : S. Kannan PW.23 : Syed Asgar Imam PW.24 : Ramesh Anagonda PW.25 : B.N.Srinivas PW.26 : M. Manjunath PW.27 : Mohan Kumar PW.28 : Renuka Aradhya H.S. PW.29 : H. Hanumanthappa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P3 Lease Cum Sale agreement Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P4 Allotment letter Ex.P5 Absolute Sale Deed Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P6 Form-1(a) of Ex.P5 Ex.P7 Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P8 Allotment letter of Ex.P7 Ex.P9 Absolute Sale Deed Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P10 Form-1(a) of Ex.P9 182 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Ex.P11 Allotment letter dated 12/7/2006 Ex.P12 Copy of Lease cum Sale agreement dated 6/11/2006 Ex.P13 Copy of sale deed dated 20/3/2007 Ex.P14 Copy of letter of communication dated 30/11/2006 Ex.P15 Mahazar Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P15(c) Signature of PW.20 Ex.P16 Allotment letter dated 14/08/2006 Ex.P17 Lease cum Sale agreement Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P18 Form 1(A) of Department of Registration of Stamps. Ex.P19 Sale deed dated 30/11/2007 Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P20 Mahazar Ex.P20(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P21 Covering Letter dated 15/3/2011 Ex.P22 Statement of account bearing
No.02861000024779 of John Michael. Ex.P23 Statement of account bearing No.02861930001386 of Manjula Michael. Ex.P24 Statement of Account bearing No.02861460000671.
Ex.P25 Mahazar Ex.P25(a) Signature Ex.P25(b) Signature of PW.22 Ex.P26 Reply letter Ex.P26(a) Signature of PW.11 Ex.P27 Reply to the PI Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW.12
Ex.P27(b) Signature of PW.25 on Ex.P27 Ex.P28 Mahazar Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW.13 183 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Ex.P29 Mahazar Ex.P29(a) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P30 Letter dated 29/9/2010 Ex.P30(a) Signature of PW.19 Ex.P31 Letter dated 21/10/2011 Ex.P31(a) Signature of PW.19 Ex.P31(b) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P32 Sale Deed dated 10/05/2006 Ex.P33 Sale Deed dated 18/05/2006 Ex.P34 Sale Deed dated 06/05/2006 Ex.P35 Letter dated 3/3/2011 Ex.P36 Letter dated 25/2/2011 Ex.P37 Letter dated 6/3/2011 Ex.P38 Letter dated 3/12/2011 Ex.P38(a) Signature of PW.27 Ex.P39 Letter and extracts Ex.P39(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P39(b) Relevant entries Ex.P40 Letter and A/c Statements Ex.P40(a) Signature of PW.28 on Ex.P40 Ex.P40(b) Statement of account from Page No.209 to and 216 forthcoming in the file which are part of Ex.P40(c) Ex.P40.
Ex.P41 Letter and A/c Extract Ex.P41(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P42 Opinion Certificate on 4/7/2012 Ex.P42(a) Signature of PW.23 Ex.P42(b) The covering letter dated 5/7/2012 Ex.P42(c) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P43 Detailed reasoning for the opinion Ex.P43(a) Signature of PW.23 Ex.P44 Enlarged prints of questioned and respective specimen signatures containing page no.254 to 270.
184 Spl.C.No.823/2019Ex.P45 Allotment letter for sale cum lease agreement dated 14/08/2006 containing pages from 283 to 288.
Ex.P45(a) Signature and seal appearing on Ex.P45. and Ex.P45(b) Ex.P46 Form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamps Rules 1977 dated 11/7/2007 containing page No.289.
Ex.P46(a) Signature of PW.23 Ex.P46(b) Seal of Department of witness Ex.P47 Absolute original registered Sale Deed dated 30/11/2007 containing page No.290 to 294. Ex.P47(a) Signature of PW.23 appearing on Ex.P46 Ex.P47(b) Seal of Department of PW.23 Ex.P48 Lease Cum Sale Agreement for sites dated 6/11/2006 containing pages 284 to 288. Ex.P48(a) Signature of PW.23 appearing on Ex.P48 and and his department seal.
Ex.P48(b) Ex.P49 Allotment Letter for sale cum lease dated 12/07/2006 containing page no. 295. Ex.P49(a) Signature of PW.23 appearing on Ex.P49 and and his department seal.
Ex.P49(b) Ex.P50 Lease Cum Sale Agreement dated 6/11/2006 containing pages 296 to 300.
Ex.P50(a) Signature of PW.23 appearing on Ex.P50 and and his department seal.
Ex.P50(b) Ex.P51 Form of communication under Rule 3A of Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 containing page
301.
Ex.P51(a)
and Signature of PW.23 and seal.
Ex.P51(b)
185 Spl.C.No.823/2019
Ex.P52 Original Registered Absolute Sale Deed dated
20/03/2007 containing page no.302 to 306. Ex.P52(a) Signature of PW.23 and seal.
and
Ex.P52(b)
Ex.P53 Form of communication under 3A of
Karnataka Stamp Rules 1977 dated
11/7/2007 containing page no.337.
Ex.P53(a)
and Signature of PW.23 and seal.
Ex.P53(b)
Ex.P54 Absolute Original Registered Sale deed dated
30/11/2007 containing page no.338 to 342.
Ex.P54(a)
and Signature of PW.23 and seal.
Ex.P54(b)
Ex.P55 Form of communication under Rule 3A of
Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1977 dated
24/07/2008 containing page no.343.
Ex.P55(a) and Signature of PW.23 and seal. Ex.P55(b) Ex.P56 Absolute original registered sale deed dated
4/8/2008 containing page no. 344 to 348.
Ex.P56(a) and Signature of PW.23 and seal. Ex.P56(b) Ex.P57 Specimen signatures of John @ John Micheal
containing page no.349 to 385 (different form of signatures of John Micheal).
Ex.P57(a) and Signature of PW.23 and seal. Ex.P57(b) Ex.P57(c) Specimen signature of Mr.
Anand obtained from accused at page no.354 to 359.
Ex.P57(d) Specimen signatures of Mr.Ramesh obtained from accused at page no. 365 to 369.
186 Spl.C.No.823/2019Ex.P57(f) Specimen signature of the accused in respect of his alleged signature as Senior Sub Registrar, Unit VI, Bengaluru which are found in page no. 382 to 385 denoted as S16 to S19. Ex.P57(f)(i) Signature of PW.25.
Ex.P57(e) Specimen signatures of Gowtham obtained from accused contained in page no. 376 to
381. Ex.P58 Report for having arrested the accused and also as to seizure of Carbonn mobile from him.
Ex.P58(a) Signature Ex.P59 Reply from Mayuri Souharda Credit Co-
and operative Society Ltd., dated 8/3/2011 and Ex.P60 18/3/2011.
Ex.P59(a) Signature of PW.25 appearing on Ex.P59 and and Ex.P60.
Ex.P60(a) Ex.P61 PF No.5/2011 Ex.P62 Acknowledgment dated 18/5/2011 and also and registration form for having submitted Ex.P63 specimen signatures for FSL. Ex.P64 Letter dated 8/1/2011 Ex.P65 Certified copy of the order sheet of
Cr.No.239/2010 of X ACMM, Bengaluru dated 11/1/2010.
Ex.P66 Letter addressed to Chief Officer, General Post Office, Bengaluru dated 7/10/2011. Ex.P66(a) Signature of PW.27 Ex.P67 Letter written to Commissioner of Registrar and Stamps, Bengaluru dated 7/10/2011 Ex.P67(a) Signature of PW.27 Ex.P68 Letter dated 18/11/2011 Ex.P69 P.F.No.CID1/2012 Ex.P69(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P70 Letter issued by Mayuri Souharda Co-
operative Society dated 14/06/2012 Ex.P70(a) Signature of PW.28 187 Spl.C.No.823/2019 Ex.P71 Letter sent by CW.4 through email dated 12/07/2012 Ex.P71(a) Signature of PW.28 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
DW.1 Sri John Micheal s/o Yesudas DW.2 Sri Y.A. Abdul s/o Y.A. Akbar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH DEFENCE SIDE:
Ex.D1 Passbook of SB Account bearing No. 3196 standing in the name of F.Yesudas held at Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank Ltd., Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.D1(a) Relevant 3 entries dated 3/12/2011
Ex.D1(b) Entries dated 28/12/2001, 8/2/2002,
12/1/2002, 15/1/2002, 30/1/2002,
01/02/2002, 25/02/2002.
Ex.D1(c) Entries dated 30/3/2002, 15/3/2002,
26/03/2002 and 28/03/2002.
Ex.D1(d) Entry dated 28/3/2002
Ex.D2 Email communications and blank
statement of account in the name of John Brother Communications from 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2005.Digitally signed
SATISH by SATISH BALI
BALI Date: 2026.04.25
16:54:04 +0530
(SATISH J. BALI)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge and Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Bengalulru.
188 Spl.C.No.823/2019