Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs William Prakash @ Prakash on 27 January, 2022
1
KABC010057202018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.327/2018
COMPLAINANT:- State of Karnataka
By Indiranagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. William Prakash @ Prakash,
S/o. Late Anthoni,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at.No.22, 2nd Cross, Near Sai Hospital,
Nagawara, Bengaluru.
3. Sanni Slim @ Sanni,
S/o. Sunil Slim,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.175, (Old No.13/3),
1st Floor, 8th Cross,
Nanjareddy Colony,
2
S.C.No.327/2018
Murugesh Palya, H.A.L. Post,
Bengaluru.
1. Date of commission of offence : 27.12.2010
2. Date of report of offence : 28.12.2010
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : Produced under body
Warrant
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Gopi
5. Date of recording evidence : 22.08.2019
6. Date of closing evidence : 09.09.2021
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.395 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence U/s.395 of
I.P.C. against A.1 & 3
is not proved.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. Sudhendra Prasad
Adv. for accused.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Indiranagar Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 395 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.529/2010. In the present case, accused No.1 and 3 stand charged U/s.395 of I.P.C.
3S.C.No.327/2018
2. There is no undisputed facts in this case.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.4.2011 Commercial Street police had credible information about assembling of few persons engaged in preparation for commission of dacoity near Military Quarters Compound at Dickenson Road, Bengaluru city. This information has been forwarded to B.B.Ashok Kumar, A.C.P., Pulikeshinagar, Sub-Division, Bengaluru city, who intended to conduct raid. In the process, he secured two panch witnesses and formed a raid team consisting of police officers and police staff. Raid team went near the said spot and confirmed that, these accused persons along with others have assembled with preparation for commission of dacoity by holding dragger, knife, long with two wheeler vehicles. Raid was conducted, during which Accused No.1 to 5 have been apprehended. B.B.Ashok Kumar, A.C.P. interrogated accused, who confessed about their preparation of commission of dacoity, thus, he made a search on accused and noticed that, accused possessed with dragger, knife, two longs and other articles with two wheeler vehicles. He also noticed that, accused possessed amount in cash. Thus, he prepared a mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and seized incriminating articles. After conducting seizure mahazar, he took accused to Commercial Street Police Station, where he lodged report along with seizure mahazar and produced seized articles before S.H.O., of Commercial Street Police Station. On the basis of such report, Commercial Street police have registered a case in Cr.No.64/11 against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable 4 S.C.No.327/2018 U/s. 399 and 402 of I.P.C. Commercial Street Police started investigation during which, voluntary statements of accused was recorded, in which accused have confessed about commission of theft and dacoity at different places, at Bengaluru city. Accused in their voluntary statements have confessed about commission of dacoity in M/s. S.S.Wines Shop situated at No.118/1, 80 feet Road, Tippasandra, Bengaluru city. Therefore, Commercial Police have intimated this fact to the Indira Nagar Police, who filed necessary application for securing the presence of accused under body warrant. Documents and properties related to this case has been obtained by Indiranagara police, who conducted further investigation, recorded statements of other witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is laid.
4. On the basis of complaint lodged by Cw-1 Gopi alleging commission of theft of cash of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) kept inside the cash draw, SHO Indiranagara PS registered case in crime No.529/2010 for offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for punishable U/s.395 of IPC came to be filed.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and passed orders for registration of one criminal case against accused in C.C.No.22562/2011 on the file of X-Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Meanwhile, accused No.1 obtained bail on 6.4.2011, accused No.2 to 4 obtained bail on 17.8.2011. Accused No.5 also released on bail, during committal proceedings itself. On 5 S.C.No.327/2018 4.7.2011 Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of this case to the court of Sessions, since offences alleged against accused are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions. After committal U/s.209 of Cr.P.C. this case is reregistered as S.C.No.960/2011. Accused No.1 and 3 remained absent and hence case against accused No.1 and 3 came to be split up and re-registered as S.C.No.327/2018. After hearing, charges against accused No.1 and 3 get framed as per Sec.228 of Cr.P.C, which they denied and claims to be tried.
6. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the evidence of the prosecution side were explained to the accused persons as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements. Accused denied all incriminating circumstances as false. Further they have submitted that they did not commit any offence. A false case is foist against them.
7. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused submitted under Section 224 of Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor has urged to convict the accused person wherein the learned counsel for the accused has prayed to acquit them.
8. Despite issuance of NBW, presence of accused No.2 not traced out. Hence, case against No.2 is split up as per order dated 6.7.2021.
9. Now, points arising for determination are :
6S.C.No.327/2018 1 Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 27.12.2010 at 9.00 p.m., at S.S. Wines situated at No.118/1 80 Feet Road, Old Thippasandra within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar police station, Bengaluru accused No.1 and 3 along with other accused have committed robbery of cash of Rs.25,000/-(twenty five thousand) kept inside the cash drawer thereby committed offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?
2 What Order ? Acquittal or conviction?
10. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- Cardinal principle of criminal trial is that prosecution have to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. As per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act, burden of proof to prove ingredients of the offence charged against the accused persons is on the prosecution. To determine the same it is just and necessary to evaluate the evidence available on record. Section 395 of IPC deals with punishment for dacoity. Offence of dacoity is defined U/s.391 of IPC which states that when 5 or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt amount to 5 or more, every person so committing, attempting 7 S.C.No.327/2018 or aiding is said to commit dacoity. To establish the offence of dacoity, there must be either theft or extortion by using criminal force amounting to robbery committed by 5 or more persons. To determine whether ingredients of dacoity is established by the prosecution side, it is just and necessary to consider the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution.
12. Prosecution side examined totally 17 witnesses. Cw-5 Sampangirama signatory for spot mahazar is examined as Pw-1. Pw- 1 did not support the contents mentioned in the spot mahazar Ex.P.1. No admissions are elicited during cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor by treating the witness as hostile as per section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. Cw-13 Nandakumar owner of the rented house of the accused No.1 Villiam Prakash is examined as Pw-2. Pw- 2 has deposed that accused No.1 was residing in his house. Commercial street Police have arrested him on allegation of theft. Pw- 2 identified accused No.1 produced before the court through VC. Cw- 26- B.B.Ashokkumar is examined as Pw-3. Pw-3 is the Police officer who received credible information in respect of assembly of persons armed with deadly weapons prepared for commission of dacoity. Pw-3 deposed in respect of conduct of raid, arrest of the accused along with deadly weapons seized under the cover of Ex.P.2 seizer panchanama. Pw-3 stands unrebutted during cross examination. Cw-25 S. Badarinath is examined as Pw-4. Pw-4 is the then PI at Commercial street PS who assisted Pw-3 to conduct raid and to arrest accused persons. Pw-4 further deposed in respect of conducting custodial 8 S.C.No.327/2018 intergeneration, recording voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 3 as per Ex.P.4 and 5, seizure of cash under the cover of Ex.P.6 and 7 seizure mahazar. Pw-4 stands unrebutted during cross examination. Cw-1 Gopi is examined as Pw-5. Pw-5 is the complainant in this case. Pw-5 has deposed in respect of incident of robbery committed by accused No.1 to 3 and others in the wine shop where he was working as cashier. Pw-5 identified his signature on Ex.P.7 complaint. Pw-5 identified accused No.1 William Prakash and accused No.3 Sunnislim, produced through VC. Pw-5 stands unrebutted during cross examination.
13. Cw-14 K Mallesh PI is examined as Pw-6. Pw-6 is another Police officer who assisted Pw-3 for raid and to arrest accused and to seize deadly weapons from their possession. Pw-6 stands unrebutted during cross examination.
14. Cw-11 Mohankumar is examined as Pw-7. Pw-7 is the owner of the Bajaj Pulsar KA-05-EU-3621 said to be used by the accused for commission of offence. Pw-7 further deposed that he came to know that the vehicle used for commission of offence by brother of Anthony and his followers.
15. Cw-29 Giriraj PI is examined as Pw-8. Pw-8 has deposed in respect of reopen of the investigation in which C final report was submitted. Cw-30 Ravi P, the then PI at Indiranagara PS is examined as Pw-9. In his evidence Pw-9 has deposed in respect of filing 9 S.C.No.327/2018 separate charge sheet against accused No.1 William Prakash and accused No.3 Sanny slim on 04-01-2018.
16. Cw-9 Mehaboob Khan signatory for seizure mahazar Ex.P.22 is examined as Pw-10. In his evidence Pw-10 has deposed that on 17-04-2011 he was summoned to Commercial Street Police station. Badarinath PI of Commercial Street Police station brought 6 accused persons to Nanjareddy Layout situated at Murugesha Palya. Among them accused No.3 Sunni slim took them to the 1 st floor of the his house, produced gold ornaments, cash of Rs.5000/- and 2000/- kept inside the Almeria. Totally 22 gold ornaments weighing 260 grams was seized by the police under the cover of panchanama. He signed the said panchanama. Pw-10 identified accused No.3 Sunny slim produced before the court through VC. However in the cross examination Pw-10 has admitted that no written notice was given by the Commercial street Police to act as pancha witness. Pw-10 further admitted that he do not know the contents written on Ex.P.22. Properties seized are not produced before the court.
17. Cw-11 Rehamathullakhan another signatory for Ex.P.22 seizure panchanama is examined as Pw-11. In his evidence Pw-11 has deposed that on 17-04-2011 he was summoned to Commercial Street Police station. Badarinath PI of Commercial Street Police station brought 6 accused persons to Nanjareddy Layout situated at Jeevanbhima Nagara. Among them accused No.3 Sunny slim took them to the 1st floor of the his house, produced gold ornaments, cash 10 S.C.No.327/2018 of Rs.5000/- and 2000/- kept inside the Almeria. Totally 22 gold ornaments weighing 262 grams was seized by the police under the cover of panchanama. He signed the said panchanama. Pw-10 identified accused No.3 Sunny slim produced before the court through VC. However in the cross examination Pw-10 has admitted that no written notice was given by the Commercial street Police to act as pancha witness. Pw-10 further admitted that he do not know the contents written on Ex.P.22. Properties seized are not produced before the court. Issuance of written notice directing witnesses to assist as panchas for recovery on the basis of information given by the accused person is mandatory under Cr.P.C., and the Investigating Officer admitted to complied the said condition.
18. Cw-27 Manjunath SR, PI is examined as Pw-12. Pw-12 is the then state house officer at Commercial Street PS. Pw-12 has deposed in respect of production of 5 accused persons along with seizure mahazar, seized materials by Pw-3 B.B Ashokkumar. Pw-12 further deposed in respect of registration of FIR at Ex.P.23 on the basis of the report submitted by B.B Ashokkumar as per Ex.P.2. Pw- 12 further deposed that he entered seized weapons in station PF No.42/2011. Pw-12 stands unrebutted during cross examination.
19. Cw-20 Ashwathaiah retired ASI is examined as Pw-13. Pw-13 is another police officer who assisted Pw-3 B.B. Ashokumar in conducting raid and to arrest accused persons, seize deadly weapons from their possession. Pw-13 also stands unrebutted during cross 11 S.C.No.327/2018 examination. Cw-16 Nasirullakhan the then Police head constable is examined as Pw-14. Pw-14 is another police officer who assisted Pw- 3 B.B. Ashokumar in conducting raid and to arrest accused persons, seize deadly weapons from their possession. Pw-14 also stands unrebutted during cross examination.
20. Cw-28 Rangaswamaiah, the then state house officer at Indiranagara PS is examined as Pw-15. In his evidence Pw-15 has deposed in respect of registration of FIR No.529/2010 on the basis of complaint lodged by Cw-1 Gopi. Pw-15 further deposed in respect of preparation of spot panchanama as per Ex.P.8. Pw-15 stands unrebutted during cross examination.
21. Cw-2 Kiranraj signatory for Ex.P.8 spot mahazar is examined as Pw-16. Even though Pw-16 has identified his signature on Ex.P.8, he has not deposed anything in respect of seizure of any articles under the cover of Ex.P.8. No admissions are elicited during cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor by treating.
22. Cw-6 Vinod signatory for Ex.P.17 seizure panchanama is examined as Pw-17. Even though Pw-17 has identified his signature on Ex.P.17, he has not deposed anything in respect of seizure of any articles under the cover of Ex.P.17. No admissions are elicited during cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor by treating the witness as hostile as per section 154 of Indian Evidence Act.
12S.C.No.327/2018
23. Ex.P.1 is seizer Panchanama, Ex.P2 is Report, Ex.P3 is Panchanama, Ex.P4 and 5 is Voluntary Statements of Accused No.1 and 3, Ex.P6 Is Panchanama, Ex.P7 is Panchanama, Ex.P8 is Spot Mahazar, Ex.P9 Property Form No.56/11, Ex.P10 is FIR No.529/2010, Ex.P11 is Property Form No.42/11, Ex.12 and 13 is Notices, Ex.P14 is Sample Seal, Ex.P15 and 16 are Property Form No.45/11 and 46/11, Ex.P17 is Seizer Mahazer, Ex.P18 and 19 is Property Form No.47/11 and 48/11, Ex.P20 Seizer Mahazer dated 16.04.2011, Ex.P21 is Property Form No.49/11, Ex.P22 is Seizer Mahazer, Ex.P23 FIR, Ex.P24 is Statement of PW.17, Ex.P25 Memo (Gnapana) Dated 15.04.2011 are market at Ex.P1 to 25.
24. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that evidence deposed by the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 3 has submitted that evidence recorded on behalf of prosecution is not sufficient to establish the case against accused No.1 and 3 for punishable U/s.395 of IPC.
25. Evidence adduced in respect of arrest of accused persons, seizure of deadly weapons from their possession is relevant in the case of offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC. In this case charge get framed only for offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. Therefore, evidence adduced by police officers and police staff who have participated in the raid is not so relevant. To establish the charge for offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, 13 S.C.No.327/2018 following evidence adduced by the witnesses is relevant. Complainant Cw-1 Gopi is examined as Pw-5. His evidence has to be verified with the complaint lodged by him immediately after happening of the incident. Ex.P.7 is the complaint lodged by Cw-1. In the said complaint Ex.P.7 it is allegd that on 27-12-2010 night at 9.00 p.m. somebody have stolen Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) cash kept in the cash draw. It is further stated that he suspect some persons and deposed that he can identify them if seen. Cw-1 Gopi has prayed in his complaint to trace the stolen cash. Averments made in Ex.P.7 complaint is quite different from the version of evidence adduced by Cw-1 as Pw-5.
26. Seizure of stolen articles from the possession of the accused is an important factor to be established by the prosecution side to prove the ingredients of the offence of dacoity. In this case, even though police officers who had participation in the investigation deposed in support of the case of the prosecution, corroborative evidence of pancha witnesses present at the time of such recovery is necessary. Cw-9/Pw-10 Mehaboobkhan and Cw-10/Pw-11 Rehamathullakhan are two pancha witnesses signed Ex.P.22 seizure mahazar drawn at the time of seizing cash and gold ornaments from the house of accused No.3 Sunny slim. However it is pertinent to note that, during cross examination, both Pw-10 and Pw-11 have admitted that they do not know the contents of Ex.P.22 seizure mahazar. Further seized ornaments as well as cash is not produced before the court. Admissions elicited in the cross examination of Pw-10 and 11 14 S.C.No.327/2018 proved fatal to establish the fact of recovery of gold ornaments and cash from the accused No.3 Sunnyslim. In addition to the above, seized cash is not produced before the court.
27. Discrepancy in respect of contents mention at Ex.P.7 complaint lodged by Cw-1/Pw-5 Gopi and his version before the court in the form of improved version of dacoity creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.
28. In order to prove the offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C., prosecution is expected to prove the main ingredient of the offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C. While considering the version of Pw.5 and contents of Ex.P.7 complaint, there is no corroboration. Contents of complaint discloses that, an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) which is kept in the cash box was missing. Evidence projected by prosecution during trial is altogether different because, Pw.5 gone to the extent of saying that, on that day, accused gave life threat with an intention to commit dacoity, but this material fact is neither contained in the report marked at Ex.P.7, nor there is conclusive proof that during course of investigation, Investigating Officer has conducted Test Identification Parade, which is vital in this case, since offence committed during night. Explanation for not conducting Test Identification Parade by the Investigating Officer remained unexplained. Mere statement of Pw.5 that, accused gave life threat and they have snatched and taken away the amount in cash of Rs.25,000/- from the cash draw of the wine shop, appears to 15 S.C.No.327/2018 be untrue. Thus, there is complete doubt about truthfulness of the case as put forth by the prosecution.
29. For the reasons and discussion made herein above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
30. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on the above point No.1, accused No.1 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. Being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No.1 and 3 are acquitted U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., of the offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) each as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is directed to take fresh bail bonds of accused No.1 and 3 for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) each as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.16
S.C.No.327/2018 Office is hereby directed to issue release intimation to the jail authorities to release accused No.1 and 3 after obtaining fresh bail bonds as required U/s.437 of Cr.P.C.
Jail authorities are hereby directed to release accused No.1 and 3 after obtaining fresh bail bonds as required U/s.437 of Cr.P.C.
This entire file and material objects shall be preserved till conclusion of trial against split up accused.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
Intimate pronouncement of judgment to Learned Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused through VC/Telephone/ notice.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 27 th day of January 2022.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.17
S.C.No.327/2018 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Sampangirama Pw.2 Nandhakumar Pw.3 B.B. Ashok Kumar Pw.4 Bhadrinatha S Pw.5 Gopi Pw.6 K. Mallesha Pw.7 Mohan Kumar Pw.8 Giriraja Pw.9 Ravi P Pw.10 Mehboob Khan Pw.11 Rahmathulla Khan Pw.12 Manjunatha S.R. Pw.13 Ashwathaiah Pw.14 Nazir Ulla Khan Pw.15 Rangaswamaiah Pw.16 Kiran Raj Pw.17 Vinodha II. For Defence:- -Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Seizure panchanama Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2 Report Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.3 Panchanama Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.3 Ex.P.3(c) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.4 Voluntary Statement of Accused No.3 18 S.C.No.327/2018 Ex.P5 Voluntary Statement of Accused No.1 Ex.P6 Panchanama Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P7 Panchanama Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P7 Complainant Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P8 Spot Mahazar Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P9 Property Form No.56/11 Ex.P10 FIR No.529/2010 Ex.P11 Property Form No.42/11 Ex.P12 and 13 Notices Ex.P14 Sample Seal Ex.P15 and 16 Property Form No.45/11 and 46/11 Ex.P17 Seizer Mahazer Ex.P18 and 19 Property Form No.47/11 and 48/11 Ex.P20 Seizer Mahazer dated 16.04.2011 Ex.P21 Property Form No.49/11 Ex.P22 Seizer Mahazer Ex.P23 FIR Ex.P24 Statement of PW.17 Ex.P25 Memo (Gnapana) Dated 15.04.2011 IV. For Defence side:- -Nil- V. List of material objects marked:- Mo.1 2 1/2 ft. Sword (Khadga) Mo.2 Brown Colour Purse 19 S.C.No.327/2018 Mo.3 Reliance ID Card Mo.4 Hakey Stick Mo.5 Lighter Mo.6 Block Colour Purse Mo.7 DL in the name of Chandrappa Mo.8 One dragon knife (Baku) Mo.9 Iron Long Mo.10 Block Colour Purse Mo.11 Iron Long (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 20 S.C.No.327/2018 27.01.2022 Accused No.1 and 3 are produced from J.C. through V.C. Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Accused No.1 and 3 are acquitted U/s.
235(1) of Cr.P.C., of the offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) each as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is directed to take fresh bail bonds of accused No.1 and 3 for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) each as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to issue release intimation to the jail authorities to release 21 S.C.No.327/2018 accused No.1 and 3 after obtaining fresh bail bonds as required U/s.437 of Cr.P.C.
Jail authorities are hereby directed to release accused No.1 and 3 after obtaining fresh bail bonds as required U/s.437 of Cr.P.C.
This entire file and material objects shall be preserved till conclusion of trial against split up accused.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
Intimate pronouncement of judgment to Learned Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused through VC/Telephone/ notice.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.