Bangalore District Court
Manjunatha Babu H, Acp vs Narayanaswamy P on 9 July, 2025
1
C.C.No.1719/2020
KABC030066172020
Presented on : 27-01-2020
Registered on : 27-01-2020
Decided on : 09-07-2025
Duration : 5 years, 5 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT.
SRI. SIDDARAMA.S. M.A, LL.M.
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.1719/2020
Complainant State by Vidhana Soudha Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused Persons 1. Sri.P.Narayanaswamy
S/o Puttaswamygowda,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.10, 2nd Floor,
2nd Block,
Police Residential Quarters,
4th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
2
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. Sri.A.V.Manjunatha
S/o Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.56, Basaveshwaranagara,
Arishinakunte,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(Reptd., by Sri.R.K., and Sri.K.B.K.,
Advs)
Name of the Sri.Manjunatha Babu.H
Complainant : Assistant Police Commissioner.
Date of offence 01.01.2019 to 15.03.2019
Date of offence reported 15.03.2019
Date of Commence of 25.07.2023
Evidence
Date of Closure of 21.05.2025
Evidence
Offence Committed Under section 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
Opinion of Judge Found not guilty.
Complainant by Learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor.
Accused by By Sri.R.K./KBK, Advocate.
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
3
C.C.No.1719/2020
JUDGMENT
The PI of Vidhana Soudha Police Station submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 and 2 were working in the office of the Police Commissioner as a computer operator and PVC Department. and in fact they were joined together created the fraudulent PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the said certificates were genuine certificates to the complainant and took the signature from him by misusing their position and thereby the accused have committed the above offences. After completion of the investigation the PI of Vidhana Soudha Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged the complaint in Vidhana soudha Police station. In turn they have 4 C.C.No.1719/2020 registered the case under Crime No.0023/2019. Thereafter, police visited the spot, drew the mahazar, secured in the presence of the accused persons subsequently were enlarged on bail. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet, Court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused persons and issued summons to them.
4. The accused have appeared before the court through their counsel. Copy of the prosecution papers were furnished under Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure. Thereafter, heard both side, the charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC. Read over and explained to the accused persons were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined the eleven witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked the twenty one documents as Ex.P-1 to 5 C.C.No.1719/2020 Ex.P-21. The accused persons did not choose to lead defense evidence. The Hard Disc is marked as MO.1. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded.
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the deposition and documents.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the following points arose for my consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 were working in the office of the Police Commissioner as a computer operator and PVC Department and in fact they were joined together created the fraudulent PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the said certificates were genuine certificates to the complainant and took the signature from him by misusing their position 6 C.C.No.1719/2020 and thereby the accused persons have committed the criminal breach of trust and committed the offence punishable under section 409 read with section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said place, date and time the accused person for the purpose of cheating they were joined together created the fraudulent PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the said certificates were genuine certificates to the complainant and took the signature from him by misusing their position tarnished the reputation of the department and cheated the department and thereby the accused persons have committed 7 C.C.No.1719/2020 the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said place, date and time the accused person for the purpose of wrongful gain they were joined together created the 153 forged computerized PVC Certificates in the name of ACP Sri.Manjunath Babu and 10 PVC Certificates in the name ACP Sri.Narayanaswamy in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries by using the title of the department, the accused persons totally forged 163 PVC certificates and took the signature from the complainant on the said forged documents and thereby the accused persons have committed 8 C.C.No.1719/2020 the offence punishable under section 465 read with section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said place, date and time the accused No.1 and 2 were joined together forged the PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 467 read with section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said place, date and time the accused No.1 and 2 for purpose of cheating joined together forged the PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries with intention to cheat the complainant 9 C.C.No.1719/2020 and thereby the accusedpersons have committed the offence punishable under section 468 read with section 34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said place, date and time the accused No.1 and 2 for purpose of cheating joined together forged the PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the said PVC Certificates as genuine to the complainant and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 471 read with section 34 of IPC?
7. What order?
10
C.C.No.1719/2020
8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on records.
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.2 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.3 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.4 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.5 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.6 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.7 : As per final order, for the
following:-
REASONS
10. Point Nos.1 to 6: These above points are inter-
linked with each others and required similar type of
appreciation of evidence, Hence, they are taken together for common discussion.
11. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses, the PW-1 is the complainant/DCP, PW-2 is the Mahazar witness, PW-3 is the Mahzar witness, PW-4 and 5 are the Mahzar witness, PW-6 is the spot mahzar witness 11 C.C.No.1719/2020 (Scientific Officer), PW-7 is the Investigation officer, PW-8 is the Retired Police Inspector, PW-9 is the other witness, PW-10 is the Investigation officer, PW-11 is the Manager of Wipro Technology out of them PW-4 and PW-5 fully turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-2 and PW-9 are the turned partly hostile witness to the prosecution and got marked the Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-21 i.e., Ex.P-1 is the Complaint, Ex.P-2 is the Spot Mahazar. Ex.P-3 is the Notice to Panchas, Ex.P-4 is the Reminder Letter, Ex.P-5 is the Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P-6 is the Police Notice, Ex.P-7 is the Statement of Sri.Manjegowda K.B., Ex.P-8 to 11 are the Letters, Ex.P-12 is the Submission letter, Ex.P-13 is the Police Verification Certificate, Ex.P-14 are the 40 Police Verification Certificates, Ex.P-15 to 17 are the Letters, Ex.P-18 is the Statement under section 164 of Cr.PC, Ex.P-19 is the Statement of Sri.Mohammed Asifulla, Ex.P-20 is the Truth Lab Forensic Lab Report and Ex.P-21 is the Certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 and 2 were working in the office of the Police Commissioner as a computer operator and PVC Department. and in fact they 12 C.C.No.1719/2020 were joined together created the fraudulent PVC Certificates in the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the said certificates were genuine certificates to the complainant and took the signature from him by misusing their position and thereby the accused have committed the above offences. After completion of the investigation the PI of Vidhana Soudha Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
13. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 406 of IPC.
Sec. 409 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 409 : Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, 13 C.C.No.1719/2020 factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Essential ingredients:- an offence under this section has following essential ingredients ;
1. Accused is a public servant, merchant, agent, a factor, broker or an attorney.
2. In his such capacity he was entrusted with some property or he gained dominion over such property.
3. He committed criminal breach of trust.
14. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 420 of IPC.
Sec. 420 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- 14
C.C.No.1719/2020 Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
1. Essential ingredients are as follows;
1. Accused cheated the complainant.
2. Accused did so dishonestly.
3. Thereby induced the complainant:
(i) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person.
(ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed, sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security. 15
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. One of the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is existence of an intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract. S.V.L. Murthy v. State Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad, 2009 (4) Supreme 399 : 2009 (7) JT 385 : (2009) 6 SCC 77 : (2009) 2 SCC (Crl) 941 : AIR 2009 SC 2717.
3. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly include the person deceived (I) to delivery any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being coverted into a valuable security). Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, 2009 (6) Supreme 470 : 2009 (11) JT 533 : 2009 (4) Crimes 13 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 929.
15. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 465 of IPC.
Sec. 465 of I P C Reads as follows:
16
C.C.No.1719/2020 Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
16. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 467 of IPC.
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging 17 C.C.No.1719/2020 the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
17. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 468 of IPC.
Sec. 468 of I P C Reads as follows:
Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.18
C.C.No.1719/2020 Essential ingredients are as follows;
(i) Document in question is forged
(ii) Accused forged it.
(iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for cheating.
18. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 471 of IPC.
Sec. 471 of I P C Reads as follows:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
19. PW-1 is the investigation officer in this case, who has deposed in his chief examination that during the year 2018-2019, he was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Special Branch, Administration, Bangalore City The 19 C.C.No.1719/2020 accused No.1 was working in the DCP Intelligence Division and the accused No.2 was working in his office. On 15.03.2019, it was confirmed message that the accused were bringing bad reputation to the department by producing fake Police Verification Certificates and giving them to the concerned persons for money. Later, when he questioned their administrative staff and checked the computers, no information was found against the accused persons. Later, he took permission from DCP Shantaraju and checked the computer of the accused No.1 with the help of their staff Chennamallappa and found about 163 Police Verification Certificates on the hard disk of the computer. When the said PVC were checked, it was found that the original PVC serial number was on the said 163 PVC and the fee of Rs.450/- each payable on the said PVC had not been paid. Out of the said 163 PVC, 153 PVC were created in his name and 10 PVC in the name of ACP Sri.Narayana Swamy. When he questioned the accused No.1, he said that he needed money because his mother was not well. The accused No.1 and 2 with the common intention of earning money 163 PVC were created and out of them 153 PVC were sent to his office by the accused No.2 and his signature were obtained. 20
C.C.No.1719/2020 The said PVC were issued to the concerned persons and they received from them Rs.700/- to Rs.1,000/- each. Out of the said money he has paid Rs.200/- to the accused No.2 for each PVC. When he questioned, the accused No.2 stated that he had obtained signatures on fake PVC between January and March while obtaining signatures on real PVC. The accused were Government Employees who were misused their positions to create fraudulent PVC and not pay the amount of Rs.450/- X 163 = Rs. 73,350/- to the Government Treasury, causing loss to the Government and bring the bad reputation to the department. Hence, he has filed a complaint against the accused persons at Vidhana Soudha Police Station. He identified the complaint marked as Ex.P-1 and identified his signature marked as Ex.P-1(a). On 19.03.2019, the investigating officer went to the DCP Intelligence Office and inspected the spot and the computer that he had shown him in the presence of five witnesses. The FSL experts were removed the computer hard disk, covered the hard disk in a white cloth, sealed it and obtained his signature. Thereafter, they were prepared the detailed panchanama in between 01.00 PM to 05.45 P.M and obtained his signature on the panchanama. He 21 C.C.No.1719/2020 identified the Panchanama marked as per Ex.P-2 and he identified his signature marked as per Ex.P-2(a). On 22.03.2019 the investigating officers of Vidhana Soudha, wrote a letter to him, asking for details about the accused persons in the said letter. He has also replied to the said letter on 26.03.2019. Similarly another letter came from the investigating officers in which they seized 101 PVC certificates and requested them to verify their authenticity and submit a report. He has instructed to Gloria Christina of their department to review the 101 PVC certificates and submit a report. He has given reply to the investigation officer that out of the 101 PVC certificates 61 were fake certificates and only 40 were genuine. He identified the documents marked as Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-14 and he identified his signature marked as Ex.P-8(a) to Ex.P-14(a). He identified one Hard disc which is marked as MO.1. He identified the accused persons who were present before the court.
20. PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that there is no written order on what specific work was assigned to the accused No.1 and 2. He admitted that the office where he work 22 C.C.No.1719/2020 and the DCP office or different. It is true that the 2nd accused was working under his direction and supervision. He admitted that at about 40 to 50 staffs are working under his jurisdiction. He admitted that the Sakala counter is a single window count that all the application come through the said counter. If the application come to the counter No.1 then the application documents are checked at the 2nd counter and sent to the next counter. He admitted that the 2 nd counter checks whether application has been paid or not, in the said DCP office there are also ASI, Head Constable, Police Constable and Home Guards. In the year 2019 there is no CC TV at DCP office, corridor and cabin. He admitted that did not mentioned in the Mahazar how many certificates are original and how much duplicate. He admitted that as per the Ex.P-2 the accused No.1 did not used the computer. He admitted that entire Bengaluru City their office only issued the PVC Certificate. He admitted that in their office issued the PVC Certificate, job verification certificate. He admitted that the department inquiry was conducted about the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he lodged the false complaint against the accused.
23
C.C.No.1719/2020
21. PW-2 is the Mahzar witness he deposed in his chief examination that he is DCP Admin Anuchetha IPS gave the memo to him and to attend during the mahzar time. Accordingly, they agreed and went to Police Commissioner Office, Bengaluru at Infantry Road, 3rd Floor. Further he deposed that for the purpose of investigation they seized the one shut down computer. Further deposed that the FSL department opened it and seized the hard disk in his presence. Later he put the signature to the mahazar. The above said computer belongs to DELL. He did not know the serial number of internal hard disk. The said disk covered by the cloth and sealed it with respect to that he gave the statement. The witness identified the notice marked as Ex.P-3, the signature is marked as Ex.P-3(a). The witness identified his signature in the Ex.P-2, the signature is marked as Ex.P-2(b).
22. During the course of cross examination by the learned APP pw2 admitted that the said computer DELL Optiplex990, the said service tax No.G4BNWQ1, Express Service Tax No.35089973353 and manufacture date No.2012/01/07. He admitted that the said seized internal hard 24 C.C.No.1719/2020 disk belongs to Seagate company. The said serial No.Z2AHFL81. He admitted that the capacity 500 GB . He admitted that the experts used the hard disk serial No.Z2AHFL81 through the software right blocker they submit the Hash report.
23. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused pw2 deposed that the said notice issued at office at the time he was working he residing at Nelamangala. Usually he came to office at 10.00 am. He admitted that for the purpose of mahazar their higher officer called him. He admitted that he obey the higher officer order and also he put the signature. He don't know about the case in personally. He denied the suggestion that the mahzar prepared at Police station and not seized any articles in his presence. He don't remember serial number and hard disk belongs to which company. He don't know the Laptop belongs to which company.
24. PW-3 is the mahazar witness who has deposed in his chief examination that on 18.03.2019 the DCP passed an order to attend the mahzar in the presence of investigation officer in Crime No.23/2019 of Vidhana Soudha Police station. 25
C.C.No.1719/2020 That on 19.03.2019 the investigation officer of this case instructed him to attend the DCP Office of intelligence. At the time the investigation officer shown the system, the said system was shut down, at that time the system admin, investigation officer, complainant he himself, PW-4 and experts of FSL were present. He further deposed that they intimated to him that the accused persons created forged Police verification certificates and they used as genuine with respect to that the expert opened hard disk in the CPU. After the investigation officer covered in the cloth and sealed the letters in V.S. After the investigation officer pasted the slip along with the signature. The witness identified the signature in the hard disk marked as MO.1 and his signature marked as MO.1(a). The witness identified his signature in the mahazar marked as Ex.P-2(c). The witness identified signature in Ex.P-3 as his signature is marked as Ex.P-3(b). The witness identified the order copy marked as Ex.P-4.
25. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused pw3 deposed that he has no complete knowledge regarding the computer hardware and 26 C.C.No.1719/2020 software. The MO-1 is hard disk obtained belongs to Government. He further deposed that the investigation officer not told him the system purchased when and did not shown the stock register at the time of mahazar. He admitted that the investigation officer did not shown before taken the hard disk in the computer. He admitted that the investigation officer did not shown what is there in the hard disk. He admitted that at the time of mahazar the accused persons were not present.
26. The PW-6 is the scientific officer FSL. He deposed in his examination that on 19.03.2019 the Vidhana Soudha PSI sent the requisition in the said requisition stated that for seize the computer in the Commissioner Office building. On the same day in the office the mahazar witness Ravi and Ravikumar and ACP Manjunatha Babu were present. He verified the computer the said computer was switched off. After he took the hard disk in the said computer, the said hard disk 500 seagate hard disk. He further deposed that he connected the hard disk to his department Laptop and generated the same and gave the investigation officer. Accordingly, he gave 27 C.C.No.1719/2020 statement to the investigation officer. He identified the signature in Ex.P-2, as his signature is marked as Ex.P-2(d).
27. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused pw6 deposed that the computers usually called as system. He further deposed that who use the computers are called as system administrators, the witness called as user. He further deposed that seize the MO.1 there was no procedure made. He denied that the said system admin had took out MO.1 outside when he and Christopher went to the place. He had not put his signature in the MO.1. He further deposed that he himself and CW-1 put the signature in the office to the Ex.P-2.
28. The PW-7 is the Police Inspector who has deposed in his chief examination that on 16.03.2019 he received the case records from PSI Bheemappa for the investigation, that on 18.03.2019 he sent the letter to the DCP Administration to provide mahazar witness, the witnesses has seen the letter dated 18.03.2019 and marked as Ex.P-15 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-15(a). On the same day he given the request letter to the Director FSL Expert's. He identified the requisition 28 C.C.No.1719/2020 letter marked as Ex.P-16 his signature marked as Ex.P-16(a). That on 19.03.2019 he visited the place of crime and conduct mahazar in the presence of the CW-4 and 5 and the place indicated by the CW-1. He received the one sea gate computer hard disc in the presence of the CW-1 and 7 the said mahazar was conducted from 01.00 pm to 05.40 pm. The witness signature marked as Ex.P-2(e), the witnesses identified his signature in MO-1 his signature is marked as MO-1(b) and he adopted in PF No.25/2019. The same day he received the statement of CW-4 to 17. That on 21.03.2019 he visited the Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels Institute and received the 101 PVC Certificates from CW-10 and 11. He identified the signature in Ex.P-5 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-5(c). That on 22.03.2019 sent the request to the ACP Branch for explain the nature of the accused duty and other details. He identified the signature in Ex.P-9 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-9(b). The witnesses identified his signature in Ex.P-11 his signature marked as Ex.P-11(b). That on 26.03.2019 as per the Ex.P-8 he received the report from the ACP Office. 29
C.C.No.1719/2020
29. The PW-7 admitted in his cross examination that the Commissioner Office is one kilo meter from their station. He admitted that there was a no problem inspecting the place on the day of visited the place. There was no entry for any password for the computer shown in Ex.P-2. He has not made any entry in the final report about giving notice to the FSL Inspector. He has not submitted the final report. He denied that signature put in the Ex.P-5 mahazar witness they are not local persons. He admitted that not mentioned in the Ex.P-10 who were doing the work along with the accused persons. He admitted that not received the any statement from Roopadevi working at DCP office and he admitted that he did not received any statement from Glory Christina.
30. The PW-8 is the Retired Police Inspector who has deposed in his chief examination that on 20.12.2019 he received the hard disc and some records from the CW-14 with respect to this case and he continued the investigation and send the hard disc and documents for examination purpose to the director FSL. That on 24.12.2019 he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons due to not came to the FSL report. 30
C.C.No.1719/2020 He identified the letter dated 20.12.2019 marked as Ex.P-17 signature marked as Ex.P-17(a).
31. The PW-8 he denied in his cross examination that when the complainant is our senior office he take their advise and guidance and conduct the investigation, in this case it is correct to say that the complainant is senior officer than to me. All their reports and the letters in the investigation file indicate that authority, position and rank of the complainant used. He admitted that in all Districts our State have FSL and RFS. He admitted that according to Police manual and standing order usually send the records to the RFS for the investigation. After received the report. He admitted that if the case is serious or highly specialized it is send to FSL in Hyderabad. He denied the suggestion that generally when the Police persons or accused the case is considered sensitively. He admitted that the truth lab is a private organization. He don't know the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the integrity of the Truth Lab in a case. Generally any person can pay money and get report in Truth Lab. He denied the suggestion that they have sent a false report against the accused in Truth Lab. 31
C.C.No.1719/2020
32. The PW-9 is the private company employee who has deposed in his chief examination that he don't know CW-1 as well as the accused person. He was working at Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels as a computer operator from 2017 to 2020. The accused No.1 did not came to his office with regard to that he gave the statement to the Police. He deposed that he received the information from the Police and this owner the accused persons created the documents. He further deposed that the Police have said that you have to say as I have told you, so I have given statement in the court under section 164of Crpc as they told may, I have given a statement to the Police with regard to this case, apart from this matter I have not told the Police anything else.
33. During the course of cross examination by the learned APP he denied that he has told the Police that was working as a computer operator, diesel indent and PVC Certificate makers at Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels. But the witnesses says that I was not working as a PVC Certificate make similarly in my statement in April 2018 I had collected 32 C.C.No.1719/2020 the service charges of Rs.450/- from the Bengaluru One Center in MS Building to get the PVC Certificates for 42 Drivers.
34. He denied the suggestion that after one month he received the 42 application, PVC Certificates from Commissioner Office single window counter. He denied the suggestion that after 10 months he called the P.Narayanaswamy and inquired him regarding PVC Certificate. He denied the suggestion that he paid the 13,400/- to the Narayanaswamy and received the 26 applications PVC Certificates. He denied the suggestion that he knew the all the facts but deposed the false evidence before the court. He denied the suggestion that even though given the statement to the Police on 21.03.2019 he deposed the false evidence.
35. During the course of cross examination by the accused counsel the PW-9 admitted that Ravi Kiran is the owner of the Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels. He admitted that there are more than 100 Drivers and office staff working at Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels. He admitted that the said Ravikiran went to Police station and he called me. He admitted that at about till 11.00 am he was in Police station. He 33 C.C.No.1719/2020 admitted that Inspector Manjunath V.S received his statement at 20th SCH Court. He admitted that first time he seen the accused persons at Commissioner office when during the departmental inquiry otherwise he did not seen the accused person at any point of time.
36. The PW-10 is the Police Inspector who has deposed in his chief examination that on 19.06.2019 he received the case records from CW-13 for the purpose of investigation. That on 12.08.2019 he received the anticipatory bail from the accused persons, Later he received the voluntary statement of accused persons. After he obtained the surety he released the accused persons. That on 20.09.2019 he was transferred to the Siddapura Police Station for that reason he transferred the case record to the CW-15 and he identified the accused before the court.
37. The PW-10 deposed in his cross examination that it is not correct to say that after obtaining voluntary statements from the accused persons, it found the accused persons have not committed any crime. He admitted that he has taken the voluntary statement of accused persons before him. He 34 C.C.No.1719/2020 admitted that at the time of voluntary statement the DCP and ACP were forced the accused persons. He admitted that in their voluntary statements the DCP told them to accept otherwise the department would get a bad name, if they accept they would take care of them without any trouble. He admitted that he has not taken statement from ACP and DCP. He admitted that he transferred on 20.09.2019. He denied the suggestion that he has giving false evidence after listening the words of ACP and DCP.
38. The PW-11 is the Deputy Director of Truth Lab who has deposed in his chief examination that he worked as a Scientific Office since 2010 to 2020. On 26.12.2019 the Vidhana Soudha Police Station sent a cover with requisition letter along with hard disc and 61 pages. In the said letter they want to know if the 61 pages are there or not in hard disc. He marked the said Hard disc in the letter Q and also marked the said 61 pages as T-1 to T-61. The investigation officer to imagine the Q Hard disc image and analysis they were given another hard disc. The said Hard disc marked in the letter S and they were saved Q Hard disc and image in the S letter hard 35 C.C.No.1719/2020 disc. He has given hash value report of both the hard disc. After analyzing of T-39, 44, 51, 52, 55 to 61 were there in Hard disc Q. Page No.38 was saved in the hard disc as T-51 and also saved in T-5 and T-53 in the hard disc. T-59 is there in serial No.Q Hard disc but there is found that name and other details is were in different. They also found one excel document in Hard disc Q. In the said hard disc Q they found T-1 to T-61 document details. He forward the report by sealed cover to the investigation officer on 06.06.2020. In his report T-1 to T-61 documents were created in the said hard disc. He identified the MO-1 and he identified his signature marked as MO.1(a). He identified the FSL Report marked as Ex.P-20 and he identified his signature marked as Ex.P-20(a). He identified the certificate under section 65(B) of indian evidence Act as Ex.P-21 and he identified his signature marked as Ex.P-21(a).
39. In the cross examination the PW-11 admitted that Truth Lab Forensic Company is a private company. She admitted that anyone can submit a request to their institution and get a report. She admitted that in her institution they entered an application the purpose for which this request has 36 C.C.No.1719/2020 been submitted. She further admitted that they charge a fee for providing the said report. She can't say who will bear the fee for the report in this case. She admitted that anyone can copy, paste, edit and replace on the hard disc. She could not say about the hard disc of remaining data. She admitted that did not mentioned in the Ex.P-1 certificate in which system collect the information and transfer.
40. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the following decisions;-
1. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 623 in the case of Mustafikhan V/s State of Maharashtra, In Page No.625 and Para No.9 it is held that;- In order to sustain a conviction under section 409 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that (a) the accused, a public servant was entrusted with property of which he was duty-bound to account for, and (b) the accused had misappropriated the property.
37
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. (1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 630 in the case of Dadarao V/s State of Maharashtra In Page No.632 and Para No.7 it is held that;- In the vague state of the record it seems to us impossible to dismiss the explanation of the appellant as unreasonable. There is no evidence of entrustment, no evidence in regard to the mode and manner of keeping the accounts and not even a suggestion that the cash on hand was at any time tallied or checked either at Chikhli or at Buldana. The High Court observes in its Judgment that "the prosecution has conducted this case without placing before the Court the detailed information as to how the working of the Head office and the branch office goes on. No effort is made to ask questions, if not to an employee in service, at least to the auditor about the nature of business 38 C.C.No.1719/2020 conducted and the method of maintaining accounts. That would have facilitated the understanding as to why certain credits and debits are made". Absence of evidence on a material and important aspect renders it unsafe to hold that the charge of breach of trust is brought home to the appellant.
3. (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 70 in the case of N.Raghavender V/s State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI. In Page No.78 it is held that;- The appellant also contended that the charges under Section 409 and Section 420 IPC cannot go together since the essential ingredients of the two offences are conflicting in nature. Section 409 (or 405) IPC deals with offences where the accused has been "entrusted" with the property and Section 420 IPC deals with offences where the accused has "dishonestly induced" the victim/complainant to depart with the 39 C.C.No.1719/2020 property in question. It was, therefore, argued that an accused cannot be charged under both the sections simultaneously.
This contention, however, has been rendered academic in the light of the aforesaid discussion and conclusion(s). The question is left open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
I have perused the above decisions relied by the advocate for accused persons which are applicable to the present facts of the case on hand.
41. In the instant case the PW-4 and PW-5 are turned fully hostile witness to the prosecution. PW-2 and PW-9 are turned partly hostile witness to the prosecution case.
42. The PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mentioned in the Mahazar how many certificates are original and how many duplicate. He admitted that as per the Ex.P-2 the accused No.1 did not used the computer. He admitted that in the entire Bengaluru City their office only 40 C.C.No.1719/2020 issued the PVC Certificate. The PW-2 admitted in the cross examination that for the purpose of mahazar their higher officer called him. He admitted that he obey the higher officer order and also he put the signature. He don't know about the case in personally. The PW-3 admitted in his cross examination that the investigation officer did not shown before taken the hard disk in the computer. The PW-7 in his cross examination he admitted that there was a no problem inspecting the place on the day of visited the place. The PW-8 in his cross examination he admitted that according to Police manual and standing order usually send the records to the RFS for the investigation. The PW-10 admitted in his cross examination that at the time of voluntary statement the DCP and ACP were forced the accused persons. He admitted that in their voluntary statements the DCP told them to accept otherwise the department would get a bad name. The PW-11 admitted in his cross examination that the Truth Lab Forensic Company is a private company. She admitted that anyone can submit a request to their institution and get a report.
41
C.C.No.1719/2020
43. In this case, the prosecution has failed to elicit from PW-1 to PW-11 anything favorable to it to prove the allegations under section 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC against the accused persons. When these being the facts, I am of the opinion that in total the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the same, this court hold Point Nos.1 to 6 in the Negative.
44. Point No.7: For the reasons stated and finding given to point No. 1 to 6, the following is made.
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under section 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
Acting under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences 42 C.C.No.1719/2020 Punishable under section 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by them stand canceled.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer on computer, typed by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of July, 2025).
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1: Sri.H.Manjunath Babu S/o Azeez; PW-2: Sri.Ravi.S S/o M.T.Sundara; PW-3: Sri.Ravikumar G.S S/o G.S.Swamy; PW-4: Sri.Manjegowda K.V. S/o Beeregowda; PW-5: Sri.Prabhakar S/o Lakshman Gowda; PW-6: Sri.Vedamurthy S/o Rudrappa; PW-7: Sri.Manjunath B.S. S/o Shivaramaiah; PW-8: Sri.K.T.Nagaraju S/o Late.Thimmappa; PW-9: Sri.Mohammed Asifulla S/o Mohammed Shafiulla; PW-10: Sri.B.Shankarachar S/o Late.Basavalingachar; PW-11: Sri.S.Neeru S/o V.Sridhar. 43
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. List of witnesses examined for the defense:
- NIL -
3. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint dated 15.03.2019; Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-2 : Spot Mahzar;
Ex.P-2(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-2(b) : Signature of PW-2; Ex.P-2(c) : Signature of PW-3; Ex.P-2(d) : Signature of PW-6; Ex.P-2(e) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-3 : Notice to Panchas;
Ex.P-3(a) : Signature of PW-2; Ex.P-3(b) : Signature of PW-3; Ex.P-4 : Reminder Letter dated 18.03.2019; Ex.P-5 :Seizure mahazar;
Ex.P-5(a) : Signature of PW-4. Ex.P-5(b) : Signature of PW-5; Ex.P-5(c) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-6 : Police Notice;
Ex.P-6(a) : Signature of PW-5; Ex.P-7 : Statement of Sri.Manjegowda K.B.; Ex.P-7(a) : Part of the statement; Ex.P-8 : Letter dated 26.03.2019; Ex.P-8(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-8(b) : Signature of PW-7; 44
C.C.No.1719/2020 Ex.P-9 : Letter dated 22.03.2019; Ex.P-9(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-9(b) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-10 : Letter dated 26.03.2019; Ex.P-10(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-10(b) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-11 : Letter dated 22.03.2019; Ex.P-11(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-11(b) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-12: Submission letter dated 26.03.2019; Ex.P-12(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-12(b) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-13 : Police Verification Certificate; Ex.P-13(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-14 : 40 Police Verification Certificates; Ex.P-14(a) : Signature of PW-1; Ex.P-15 : Letter dated 18.03.2019; Ex.P-15(a) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-16 : Letter dated 18.03.2019; Ex.P-16(a) : Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-17 : Letter dated 20.12.2019; Ex.P-17(a) : Signature of PW-8; Ex.P-18 Statement under section 164 of Cr.PC; Ex.P-18(a) : Signature of PW-9; Ex.P-19 : Statement of Sri.Mohammed Asifulla; Ex.P-20 : Truth Lab Forensic Lab Report; Ex.P-20(a) : Signature of PW-11; 45
C.C.No.1719/2020 Ex.P-21 : Certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act and Ex.P-21(a) : Signature of PW-11.
4. List of documents exhibited for the defense:
- NIL -
5. List of Materials objects exhibited for the prosecution:
MO.1 : Hard disk;
MO.1(a): Signature of PW-11 and MO.1(b): Signature of PW-7.
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.