State Of Karnataka vs G.C. Anil Kumar on 4 November, 2022

[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State Of Karnataka vs G.C. Anil Kumar on 4 November, 2022

KABC010228182011




    IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
   SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act),
             BENGALURU (CCH No.77)
    Present:         Smt. Vineetha P. Shetty,
                     B.Sc., M.A. (Sanskrit, English), LL.M.,
                     C/c. LXXVI Addl. City Civil &
                     Sessions Judge & Special Judge
                     (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru
               Dated: 4th November 2022
                    Spl.C.C.No.128/2011
Complainant:        State of Karnataka,
                    Represented by Police Inspector,
                    Karnataka Lokayuktha,
                    Bengaluru.
                    (By Public Prosecutor)
                    V/s.
Accused:       1.   G.C. Anil Kumar
                    S/o. G.Chennaiah
                    Aged about 55 years,
                    the then SLAO, KIADB,
                    Gandhinagar, Bengaluru.
                    (By Sri. C.G. Sundar, Advocate)
               2.   T. Shankarappa,
                    S/o. Thimmaiah,
                    Aged about 64 years,
                    the then Manager, KIADB,
                    Occ:Retd.
                    R/at Bangarapete.
                    (By Sri. S.K. Venkata Reddy, Advocate)
                                   2     Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

                 3.   M.R. Prathap Simha,
                      S/o. M.V. Ramrao,
                      R/at. No.113A, 5th 'C' Cross,
                      Vishwabharathi Housing
                      Cooperative Layout,
                      Girinagar, Bengaluru.
                      (By Sri. K.G. Sadashivaiah, Advocate)


Date of commission of            From 26.03.2009 to
                             :
offence                          15.06.2009
Date of report of
                             : 21.09.2010
occurrence
Date of commencement
                             : 13.11.2018
of evidence
Date of closing of
                             : 15.02.2020
evidence
Name of the                    K.C. Lakshminarayana, the
complainant                  : Police Inspector of Karnataka
                               Lokayukta
Offences complained of         Under Sec.7, 8 and Sec.13(1)
                               (c), 13(1)(d), R/w. Sec.13(2)
                             : of the PC Act, 1988, and
                               Sec.120B and 420 R/w.
                               Sec.34 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge         : Accused No.1 to 3 are not
                               found guilty

                       JUDGMENT

The Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has submitted the Charge Sheet, against the accused persons No.1 to 3, for the offences punishable under Sec.7, 8 and Sec.13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 3 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is that: On 28.06.2010, the complainant one Rukmangada lodged a Complaint, before CW1 - K.C. Lakshminarayana, the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, alleging that, some of the KIADB officials were demanding bribe, to disburse the compensation amount. He received the Complaint and registered a case in Crime No.24/2010 and conducted investigation.

3. During investigation in Crime No.24/2010, CW1 learnt that, the KIADB officials have made illegal payments, and hence, he has sent the files seized from the KIADB office for scrutiny. Based on the Scrutiny Report, CW1 has conducted preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, he submitted his Report, to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, who in turn has 4 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 instructed CW1, to lodge a Complaint, against the accused persons. Accordingly, CW1 has lodged the Complaint, before CW43 - H.S. Manjunath, the then Dy.S.P. of Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City Division, and the said Complaint, has been registered in Crime No.42/2010.

4. CW43 wrote a letter to Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB, to send the details of disbursement of compensation amount, and secured the details accordingly, along with a Gazette Notification. One of the beneficiaries of the compensation amount was CW2 - Rathnamma, who had 4 acres and 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.6 of Singanahalli Village. According to CW2, the said land originally belonged to her Late husband, and subsequent to his death, transferred to her name, but, the Gazette Notification did not reflect the name of Rathnamma.

5. During investigation, CW43 seized the case records pertaining to Rathnamma, and recorded the 5 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Statement of the officials of KIADB. He secured the details of compensation amount, deposited in the bank account of Rathnamma, from CW26 Bank Manager, SBI, Hoskote. He learnt that, the accused No.1 - G.C. Anil Kumar, was then working as a Special Land Acquisition Officer, in KIADB, from 26.03.2009 to 15.06.2009, and during that period, accused No.1, had disbursed a total amount of Rs.56,00,00,000/. CW43 also secured the original cheque, from Corporation Bank, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, which was allegedly issued by accused No.1, in favour of Rathnamma.

6. The investigation conducted by CW43 revealed that, the accused No.1 had granted compensation amount of Rs.2,51,00,000/ to Rathnamma, without there being any acquisition of her land, the accused No.2 - T. Shankarappa, who was working as a Manager, in the office of accused No.1, had recommended for disbursement of compensation to 6 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Rathnamma, and that based on the Tippani of accused No.2, the accused No.1 had disbursed the amount to Rathnamma. The said grant of compensation was made by the said accused persons, by conniving with a private person/ accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha.

7. After receiving the sanction to prosecute the accused No.1, CW43 Sri. H.S. Manjunatha, Dy.S.P., filed the Charge Sheet against accused No.1 G.C. Anil Kumar and accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha. Later, by receiving the sanction to prosecute the accused No.2, he filed an additional Charge Sheet against accused No.2 T. Shankarappa.

8. It is alleged in the Charge Sheets that, the accused No.1 G.C. Anil Kumar, and accused No.2 - T. Shankarappa, being the public servants, working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Manager respectively at KIADB, paid compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/, to CW2 Rathnamma, though the land in Sy.No.6/P25 measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas 7 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 of Singanahalli, was not acquired by the KIADB, as per the provisions of KIADB Act and Rules. It is alleged that, the accused No.1 and 2, have dishonestly and fraudulently, pressurized and induced CW5 - Ramachandra, a Case Worker at KIADB, to put up a favourable note to facilitate release of compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/ to CW2, to make a wrongful gain to themselves, to accused No.3 and CW2. Accused No.3 M.R. Prathap Simha, being a private person, connived with them, and paid the bribe amount of Rs.10,00,000/ on 16.05.2009, and Rs.7,00,000/ on 26.05.2009 to accused No.1, and induced to accused No.1 and 2, to pay compensation to CW2, and thereby the accused persons committed the offences punishable under Sec.7, 8, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and also under Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.

9. Initially the Charge Sheet was filed only against accused No.1 - G.C. Anil Kumar and 3 - M.R. Prathap 8 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Simha, before the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court (CCH24), and the said accused No.1 and 3 entered appearance before the said Court, through their Counsel. Copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to them. Vide Notification RSB No.87/2016 of the Hon'ble Registrar General of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, this case is transferred from XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court (CCH

24), to this Court.

10. After hearing both sides, the Charge was framed against accused No.1 - G.C. Anil Kumar, for the offences under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Sec.13(2) of the PC Act, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC, and against accused No.3 M.R. Prathap Simha, for the offences under Sec.8 of the PC Act, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC, by the then learned Predecessorinoffice of this Court on 04.07.2018. After filing of additional Charge Sheet, the 9 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 additional charge under Sec.13(1)(c) punishable under Sec.13(2) of the PC Act against accused No.1 and charge under Sec.420 R/w. 120B of IPC, and Sec.13(1)

(c) and (d) punishable under Sec.13(2) of the PC Act against accused No.2, were framed, by the then learned predecessorinoffice of this Court on 09.10.2019. The accused No.1 to 3 have denied the charges against them, and claimed to be tried.

11. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, as PW1 to PW11 and produced documents at Ex.P.1 to P.55. Ex.D.1 to D.5 are marked on the defence side.

12. After closure of the evidence on prosecution side, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined, as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence, which appeared against them, and the accused No.1 G.C. Anil Kumar stated that, he had not committed any offence and that he has been falsely implicated. Similarly, accused No.2 - T. Shankarappa stated that, he had not committed any offence and that 10 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 he has been falsely implicated, was pending with him. Accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha stated that, he had not committed any offence and that he has been falsely implicated. The accused persons have not chosen to lead any defence evidence.

13. Heard the arguments of learned PP for the State, and Sri. C.G. Sundar, Sri. S.K. Venkata Reddy and Sri. K.G. Sadashivaiah, Advocates, the learned counsels for the accused No.1 to 3 respectively. The learned counsel for accused No.1, also filed written arguments. The learned counsel for accused No.1 has relied upon the citations in 2021(1) Kar. L.J. 130 in Lakshman Rao Peshwe v/s. Karnataka Lokayukta, AIR 2016 SC 298 in Kishen Chander v/s. State of Delhi, 2015 AIR SCW 5263 in P.Satyanarayan Murthy v/s. Dist. Inspector Anr, 2012 SCC Online Kar 8923 in Shankarmurthy & Others v/s. Lokayukta Police, order in Writ Petition No.33661/2017 in M. Srinivas v/s. State of Karnataka, and in Writ Petition No.61305/2016 in B.T. Ramesh v/s. C.I.D. 11 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

14. Now, the following points would arise for my consideration:

1) Does the prosecution prove that, a valid sanction, to prosecute the accused persons, has been duly obtained?

2) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that the accused No.1 - G.C.Anil Kumar, being the public servant, working as Special Land Acquisition Officer of KIADB, dishonestly and fraudulently, along with accused No.2 -

T.Shankarappa, Manager of KIADB, and CW29 - Venkatesh, pressurized and induced CW5 - M.S. Ramachandra, to put up a favourable note to facilitate release of compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/ to CW2 - Rathnamma, without there being any acquisition of her land, as per the provisions of the KIADB Act and Rules, so as to make a wrongful gain to himself, accused No.2, accused No.3 and to CW2 Rathnamma, and thereby committed criminal misconduct under Sec.13(1)

3) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that, the accused No.1 along with accused No.2, obtained bribe of Rs.10,00,000/ on 16.05.2009, and Rs.7,00,000/ on 26.05.2009, from 12 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 accused No.3 - Prathap Simha, for falsely acquiring 4 acres and2 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/P25 in Singanahalli Village, Bengaluru, and paid compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/ to CW2 -

Rathnamma, by conspiring and creating false documents, of acquisition and thereby committed the offences under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code?

4) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that accused No.2 being a public servant, working as Manager at KIADB, criminally and dishonestly, conspiring with the accused No.1 and 3, made Tippani No.6 in the file relating to CW2 Rathnamma, for release of compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/, without there being any acquisition of her land in Sy.No.6/P25 measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas situated at Singanahalli, and made the said Tippani, in violation of Tippani No.4 of accused No.1, and thereby cheated the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.2,51,10,000/ and caused a wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to himself, accused No.1, accused No.3, and to CW2, and thereby committed the offences under Sec.420 and 120B R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?

13 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

5) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that accused No.2 being a public servant, by corrupt and illegal means pressurized CW5 - M.S. Ramachandra, along with accused No.1 to put up a favourable note, to facilitate release of compensation to CW2 - Rathnamma, and thereby committed criminal misconduct under Sec.13(1)(d) punishable under Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

6) Does the prosecution further prove beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.2 being the public servant, induced CW5 along with accused No.1, to put up a note favourable to CW2 - Rathnamma, to facilitate release of compensation to her, and on the strength of Tippani No.5 of CW5, made Tippani No.6, ignoring Tippani No.4 of accused No.1, and thereby committed criminal misconduct under Sec.13(1)(c) punishable under Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

7) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that, the accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha, has paid bribe of Rs.10,00,000/ on 16.05.2009, and Rs.7,00,000/ on 26.05.2009, to accused No.1 and 2, for falsely acquiring 4 acres and 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/P25 in Singanahalli Village, Bengaluru, and induced them to pay compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/ to CW2 -

14 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

Rathnamma, by conspiring and creating false documents, of acquisition, and thereby committed the offences under Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code?

8) What order?

15. My findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: in the Affirmative; 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: in the Negative; Point No.8: as per the final order [ for the following REASONS

16. Point No.1: As per the provision under Sec.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is mandatory to secure the previous sanction of the Competent 15 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Authority, to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13 of the said Act, against a public servant. As per Sec.197 of Cr.P.C. it is mandatory to secure previous sanction of the Competent Authority to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, against a public servant. Therefore, it is necessary for the Prosecution, to establish that a valid Sanction Order was obtained in respect of accused No.1 and 2 Public Servants, from the Competent Authority.

17. The Prosecution Sanction Order in respect of accused No.1 is as per Ex.P.45, and that in respect of accused No.2 is Ex.P.53. The Ex.P.45 dated 21.06.2011, has been issued by PW3, the then Deputy Secretary of DPAR. PW5 the Investigating Officer during his evidence has referred to Ex.P.45 and Ex.P.53 - Sanction Orders, received by him, on 22.06.2011 and 10.08.2021 respectively. PW5 during 16 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 cross examination has admitted that, he had not obtained separate sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for I.P.C. offences.

18. Ex.P.45 Sanction Order in respect of accused No.1, has been challenged on behalf of accused No.1, at the earlier stage itself, by filing an application under Sec.227 R/w. Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, on the ground that the said Sanction is not valid,. But the said application was dismissed by my learned predecessorinoffice on 25.06.2018 itself, holding that the order of Sanction was valid. The said order has not been challenged, on behalf of the accused No.1. Hence, this Court cannot now take a different view, to hold that the sanction is not proper.

19. PW5 deposed that, since he could not obtain Prosecution Sanction Order against accused no.2, when the Charge Sheet was about to be filed, he had filed the Charge Sheet initially only against accused no.1 and 3, and later, when he obtained the sanction 17 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 as per Ex.P.53, against the said accused no.2 on 10.08.2011, he had filed the additional Charge Sheet.

20. PW9 M. Ramachandra, is the Under Secretary to the Government, in the Revenue Department. He has deposed that, on the basis of the letters and proposal of The Regional Commissioner, Mysuru and ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, he had issued the Sanction Order in the name and on behalf of His Excellency, The Governor, The State of Karnataka. It is in his evidence that, after receiving the said communications, case worker had put up the file, before the Section Officer, from there it moved to Under Secretary, then to Deputy Secretary, Principle Secretary and thereafter, to the Minister for approval.

21. According to PW9, it was the then Revenue Minister, who gave approval for prosecution of the accused no.2, for the offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) & (d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.420 R/w.120B of Indian 18 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Penal Code. Thereafter, draft Sanction Order was prepared by Case Worker, put up before Section Officer and then before PW9. He had forwarded it to Deputy Secretary and Principle Secretary. After approval by the Principle Secretary, he had issued the Sanction Order at Ex.P.53.

22. During cross examination, PW9 admitted that, in Ex.P.53, there is no indication about the file movement, from the Case Worker to Revenue Minister, and that, both Sanction U/s.197 of Cr.P.C. and sanction U/s.19(1) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are different, but denied the suggestion that, he ought to have issued two separate sanction orders, one under the provisions of Cr.P.C., and the other under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

23. To a suggestion that, as per Ex.D.1, land of Rathnamma was part of the land notified for acquisition, and as per the IO Report, the said land was not acquired, PW9 answered that, they did not 19 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 receive the documents shown at Ex.D.1, and the Joint Measurement Check Report, at the time of issuance of Sanction Order. According to PW9, except the letters/communications cited in Ex.P.53 - Sanction Order, which were processed in their office, they did not receive any other document. PW9 further admitted that, had the Ex.D.1 been brought to their notice, they would not have issued the Sanction Order, and volunteered that, he would have sought the opinion of the Regional Commissioner and ADGP, Lokayukta. PW9 admitted that, he had not issued sanction for the offence P/U/S.13(1)(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but denied the suggestion that, Ex.P.53 was blindly issued, without any application of mind.

24. In Ex.P.45 - Sanction Order, it is clearly stated that, the Sanctioning Authority after perusing the investigation materials, came to the conclusion that, there was a primafacie case for grant of sanction, against the accused No.1 - G.C. Anil Kumar, for the 20 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 offences punishable under Sec.7, 13(1)(d), R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. In Ex.P.53 - Sanction Order, it is clearly stated that, the Sanctioning Authority after perusing the investigation materials, had come to the conclusion that, there was a primafacie case for grant of sanction, against the accused No.2 T. Shankarappa, for the offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

25. It is worthy to mention that, the then learned predecessorinoffice of this Court, by order dated 25.06.2018, has already held that, the sanction in respect of accused No.1, is valid, and the said order dated 25.06.2018, has not been challenged so far by accused No.1. Hence, the contention of accused No.1 that, the prosecution should have obtained two separate sanction orders, cannot be accepted. Further, 21 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 while passing the order on application under Sec.216 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution, the then learned predecessorinoffice of this Court has observed that, in Ex.P.45 there is an indication that, the Sanctioning Authority had noticed about the criminal misconduct of accused No.1, though there is no specific mention of the provision as Sec.13(1)(c) of the Act, and thereafter took cognizance of the said offence. The said order has also not been challenged by the accused persons. Therefore, this Court cannot now take a different view, also to hold that the orders of sanction, are bad, for not mentioning the offence under Sec.13(1)(c) of the Act.

26. In the circumstances, it has to be held that, valid Sanction Orders as per Ex.P.45, and Ex.P.53, have been duly obtained, by the Investigating Officer, to proceed against the accused No.1 and 2. As accused No.3 is not a public servant, the question of obtaining Sanction against him, does not arise. Hence, point No.1 22 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 is answered accordingly, in favour of the prosecution and in the Affirmative.

27. Point No.2 to 7: As these two points are inter related, and to avoid repetition of discussion, these points are taken up together for consideration.

28. It is for the Prosecution to prove that, the accused No.1 - G.C. Anil Kumar, being the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the accused No.2 - T. Shankarappa, being the Manager, both working with KIADB, along with accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha, conspired to release the compensation amount of Rs.2,51,10,000/ in favour of CW2 - Rathnamma, in respect of land in Sy.No.6/P25 measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas situated at Singanahalli, without there being any acquisition of the said land by the KIADB, and accordingly released the said amount in her favour, to make a wrongful gain to themselves, and to cause a wrongful loss to the State. Further, for the said purpose, the accused No.2, even pressurized CW5 - 23 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 M.S. Ramachandra, a Case Worker, to put up a favourable note, as per Tippani No.6, in the case file, facilitating the release of compensation to CW2 - Rathnamma, and made use of the said note of CW5, to ignore and violate earlier Tippani No.4 of accused No.1, which was put up by him, in the capacity as a SLAO. Accused No.3 M.R. Prathap Simha, being a private person, connived with them, and paid the bribe amount of Rs.10,00,000/ on 16.05.2009, and Rs.7,00,000/ on 26.05.2009 to accused No.1, and induced to accused No.1 and 2, to pay compensation to CW2.

29. Out of the 11 witnesses examined by the Prosecution, to establish its case. PW1 Lakshminarayana is the Complainant, PW2 - Rathnamma is the alleged beneficiary, PW3 - Mohan Raj is the Deputy Secretary, DPAR, who has given Sanction Order in respect of accused No.1, PW4 - Ramachandra is the Case worker at KIADB, PW5 - H.S. 24 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Manjunath, Dy.S.P. is the Investigating Officer, PW6 - Abdul Khayum is the Spl. DC, KIADB, PW7 - Lingaraju is the Surveyor, PW8 - Sham Bhat is the CEO and Executive Member KIADB, PW9 - N. Ramachandra is the Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services) who has given the Sanction Order in respect of accused No.2, PW10 - Danalakshmi is the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka SubDivision, Bengaluru, and PW11 M.R. Hiremath is the Special Deputy Commissioner at KIADB.

30. PW1 K.C. Lakshminarayan, Dy.S.P., is the Complainant, and IO in another case in Cr.No.24/2010. According to PW1, one Rukmangada had lodged a Complaint in that Cr.No.24/2010, and that, he was investigating the said matter. During investigation, he learnt that, the KIADB officials had made illegal payments. He sent the files seized from the office of KIADB, for scrutiny. Based on the Scrutiny Report, he has conducted a preliminary enquiry, and 25 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 submitted his Report to SP Lokayukta. He was instructed by the said SP to lodge a Complaint against the accused persons. Accordingly, PW1 lodged a Complaint before CW43 - Sri. H.S. Manjunatha, Dy.S.P.

31. PW1 has referred to Ex.P.1, which is the certified copy of the Complaint in Spl.CC.No.127/2011, and Ex.P.3 which is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.42/2010. According to PW1, he had handed over 8 files to CW43 - K.V. Srinivas, the then Police Inspector, and Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the Mahazar, under which said eight files were received by CW43. Among them, Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the file with pages at No.1 to 153, pertaining to CW2 - Rathnamma.

32. During crossexamination, PW1 admitted that, this is a suo moto Complaint filed by him, as an Inspector of Lokayukta, and that, no other person had lodged any Complaint in this case. PW1 also admitted 26 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 that, the accused No.1 was not an accused in Cr.No.24/2010. It is elicited from PW1 that, the compensation was given to 3 persons, and 3 separate Charge Sheets have been filed, but, there is only one FIR, which is submitted only in Spl.CC. No.127/2011. It is worthy to mention here itself that, there is no separate Complaint, nor separate FIR in this case, and only one FIR has been submitted in Cr. No.42/2010 (Spl.CC. No.127/2011), the certified copy of which is Ex.P.3.

33. The file movement as suggested by the learned counsel for accused No.1 that, the case worker first prepares the file, then the same would be forwarded to the Manager, and then to the SLAO, is admitted by PW1. PW1 pleaded ignorance over a suggestion, as to if any Officer from KIADB had given any Complaint, in this case. Suggestions that, PW1 had no authority to give a suo moto Complaint, and that the Dy.S.P. also had no authority to instruct PW1 to register a case, have been denied by PW1. During further cross 27 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 examination of PW1, the Final Notification in respect of land in Sy.No.6 of Singanahalli Village, has been marked as Ex.D.3. PW1 has also admitted that, out of total extent of 256.18 acres, Sy.No.6 is also shown as per Ex.D.3(a).

34. PW2 - Rathnamma is the alleged beneficiary, in respect of the land in Sy.No.6 in Singanahalli Village, measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas. According to PW2, her husband Narayana Swamy, was the original owner of the said land, and after his death, she succeeded to the said property, and her name was also entered in the Revenue records. She cultivated ragi and horse gram in the said land. PW2 deposed that, one Venkatesh had approached her, with an assurance that, he would secure her a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/ in respect of her land, and when she declined, he had assured her of Rs.30,00,000/ more. It is he who had accompanied her to KIADB office, and took her signatures on some documents. She received a compensation amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/ through 28 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 said Venkatesh. Out of the said compensation amount, she purchased a land in Battarahalli village, to construct a residential house.

35. It is found in the evidence of PW2 that, KIADB had given her a notice stating that, she had illegally received the compensation. According to PW2, the compensation amount was Rs.2,51,10,000/, but she was given only Rs.1,30,00,000/. PW2 further deposed that, Venkatesh had introduced her to accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha. Two application forms as per Ex.P.8 were obtained from her, for opening of a bank account. 35 cheques containing her signatures, are marked during her evidence, as Ex.P.9 to P.43. Copy of Agreement dated 20.05.2009 entered by her with the KIADB along with her Affidavit, Possession Certificate, and Indemnity Bond, is marked as per Ex.P.44.

36. During her crossexamination on behalf of accused No.1, PW2 admitted that, the cost of her land as on the date of her evidence would be Rs.10 to 12 29 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 crores. During crossexamination on behalf of accused No.3, PW2 admitted that, she had furnished all the documents, pertaining to her land, in order to receive the compensation, and that she never had challenged the said payment. It is in her evidence that, KIADB officials had released the compensation amount, only after ascertaining her ownership. It is seen that, according to the beneficiary PW2, the compensation was paid to her only subsequent to taking possession of her land by the KIADB, and Ex.P.44 contains Possession Certificate.

37. PW3 - Mohanraj, the Deputy Secretary attached to DPAR services, has deposed that, accused No.1 had released compensation amount of Rs.2,51,00,000/ to PW2 - Rathnamma, without acquiring the land. During crossexamination, PW3 pleaded ignorance over the suggestion that SLAO, namely T.P. Muninarayanappa, the predecessor of accused No.1, had processed the entire acquisition proceedings, and that, in fact it was 30 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 he who had prepared the cheques. The suggestion that, the land of Rathnamma, was part of the notified area, as per Ex.D.1, is not denied by PW3. However, PW3 pleaded ignorance over a suggestion that, only after taking possession of the land from Rathnamma, the compensation amount was disbursed to her.

38. PW4 - Ramachandra, being the Case Worker of the Land Acquisition Office, his evidence assumes much importance. He has deposed that, PW2 - Rathnamma had filed a claim petition in respect of her land, and accordingly received the compensation. It is in his evidence that, the land of Rathnamma, has been situated in Sy. No.6, and it was he, who had written the Note Sheets at Sl. No.1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 14 and 16, of the file at Ex.P.46. He had affixed his signature to all the writings, except to the writings at Sl. No.5. It is in his evidence that, in Sl. No.2, he has mentioned about the oral instructions of S.L.A.O.II, and in Sl. No.5, he has mentioned that, in Final Notification U/s.28(4), the 31 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 land i.e., Sy. No.6 has not been shown. Further, he has mentioned that, there was no suit pending in respect of the said land, and that, the Tahsildar, Yelahanka, has granted no objection to disburse the compensation. PW4 deposed that, as he had not seen the Final Notification, he had not signed Sl. No.5 of the note sheet.

39. During further examination in chief, PW4 deposed that, a receipt was given by Rathnamma, for having received the compensation. According to PW4, the receipt was signed by him and Rathnamma. She was identified by accused no.3. PW4 further deposed that, in Ex.P.44 the Possession Certificate, his signature is at Ex.P.44(d), and that, he had signed the Possession Certificate, in the capacity as a Revenue Inspector. The claim petition of Rathnamma, as found in Ex.D.1, has been identified by PW4. The certified copy of the statement given by him before the Magistrate, is at Ex.P.54.

32 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

40. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW4 admitted that, his duty was only to put up the files for orders, and he had no authority to pass any order or to give any opinion, in the case files. PW4 further admitted that, in Sl. No.2, he has mentioned about compensation amount to be disbursed, and in Sl. No.5, he has mentioned that, the orders have to be passed, in respect of 4 acres and 2 guntas of land of PW2 for Rs.2,51,10,000/, and in Sl. No.4, he has mentioned that, the Surveyor's Report has to be secured. Suggestion that, PW4 had seen the copies of the Report of the Tahsildar, the Report of the S.L.A.O., and a Map, while dealing with the case file of Rathnamma, has been admitted by PW4. He has also admitted that, Ex.P.7 - Receipt was given by PW2, and that in the said receipt, he has also affixed his signature.

41. During further cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW4 admitted that, he was not 33 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 acquainted with the procedure of giving a Statement before the Magistrate voluntarily, and it was the Lokayukta police, who had called him and instructed him, to give a statement as per Ex.P.54, before the Magistrate. PW4 denied the suggestion that, he gave a statement before the Magistrate that, accused no.1 had given him oral instructions, during the year 2010, though accused no.1 was not working during the calender year 2010, and there is no occasion for the said accused No.1 to give any instruction to PW4, either oral or otherwise, in relation to the Rathnamma's file. PW4 admitted the suggestion that, as a Case Worker, it was his duty to look into the documents and put up the office notes, and that, in page no.1 of Ex.P.46, at the end note at Sl.No.2, he has made an endorsement to the effect that, the compensation may be paid to Rathnamma, once it is released by the State.

42. It is elicited from PW4 that, in page no.77 of Ex.P.44, it is mentioned that, as per the Gazette 34 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Notification issued u/S.28(4) of KIADB Act, the possession of the land, was already taken over by the Acquiring Authority, and in the said document, the compensation amount, the cheque number and its date, are mentioned. It is elicited from PW4 that, in page No.97 of Ex.D.1, it is endorsed that land belonging to the applicant/Smt. Rathnamma, fell within the land covered by Joint Measurement Check. PW4 deposed that, authenticity of the documents would be verified, only by the revenue officials, and that his office would only put up the notes, based on the said verified revenue documents.

43. Thus, it is seen that, the case worker PW4 Ramachandra had made a clear recommendation, for the payment of compensation in favour of PW2 - Rathnamma. He is also the one, who had identified her, at the time of release of compensation as per Ex.P.7. He has specifically admitted of taking of possession of 4.2 acres of land from PW2. Nothing is 35 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 found in his evidence that, he had put up the notes due to the pressure by either accused No.1 or accused No.2. Instead it is his clear evidence, during the examinationinchief by the prosecution, that he had not signed the note at Sl.No.5, as he had not seen the Final Notification. No doubt, Ex.P.54 statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. of PW4, has been marked during his evidence, but, it is worthy to note that, the prosecution has not elicited anything during his evidence, about the alleged pressure on PW4, to put up any such favourable note.

44. PW5 H.S. Manjunath, Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has deposed that, on 21.09.2010, he had received Ex.P.1 Complaint from PW1. He registered the case in Cr. No.42/2010. PW5 has referred to Ex.P.3, which is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.24/2010. PW5 deposed that, on 23.09.2010, he wrote a letter to Special D.C. KIADB, 36 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 and secured the details of disbursement of compensation, as per Ex.P.47.

45. It is in the evidence of PW5 that, Ex.P.47 contained a Gazette Notification, but the name and survey number of land of PW2 - Rathnamma, was not mentioned in the said Gazette Notification. PW5 has further deposed that, the previous C.E.O. of KIADB, had referred the matter to the Government, by recommending action, since compensation was paid to PW2, in respect of a land, which was not notified. The particulars of land, which was not notified, has not been spelt out, in the evidence of PW5.

46. Ex.P.48 is the bank account details secured by PW5 from Manager, SBM, Hosakote. Ex.P.49 is the statement of PW4 recorded by him. PW5 has further deposed that, during investigation, he had seized Ex.P.5 case file, pertaining to PW2 Rathnamma. On 12.11.2010, he had received the bank account details of PW2 from Manager, SBM, Hosakote, as per Ex.P.9 to 37 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 P.43, along with a covering letter at Ex.P.50. Ex.P.6 is the original cheque issued by accused No.1 in favour of PW2, and the same has been secured by PW5, from the Corporation Bank.

47. PW5 further deposed that, the accused no.1 had worked as S.L.A.O. in KIADB, from 26.03.2009 to 15.06.2009, and during that period, he had disbursed, a total amount of Rs.56,00,00,000/ as compensation, and Rs.2,51,10,000/ was disbursed to PW2. It is in his evidence that, though the land of Rathnamma, was not acquired by KIADB, and was not notified, the accused no.1, had disbursed the said compensation amount to her. PW5 also deposed that, the accused no.1 did not even secure the Survey Report from the Surveyors, and by conniving with accused No.3 M.R. Prathap Simha, he had disbursed the compensation amount to PW2. The manner in which accused No.1 and 3 connived with each other, to disburse the amount to PW2, is not spelt out in the evidence of PW5. 38 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 What was the investigation conducted by him in this behalf, is also not spelt out in his evidence.

48. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW5 admitted that, the accused No.1 had worked as SLAOII, for a very short duration, i.e., less than 3 months, from 26.03.2009 to 15.06.2009, and that the accused No.1 had not even participated in the entire acquisition proceedings, which took more than 3 years for completion. PW5 also admitted that, the land of PW2 / Rathnamma, in Sy.No.6 of Singanahalli village, was a part of acquisition proceedings, and that, there were no rival claimants in respect of said land. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as "It is true that, the land of Smt. Rathnamma/PW2, Sy.No.6 in Singanahalli Village was part of acquisition procedure. It is true that, there were no rival claimants".

49. It is elicited that, in Ex.P.47, Final Notification, there is a mention that, 256 acres and 18 guntas of land, was to be acquired from Sy.No.6, but, however, PW5 has not secured the names of the persons, whose 39 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 names were missing in the said Final Notification. It is also elicited that, in Ex.D.1, it is mentioned that, 4 acres 2 guntas of land, has been granted to PW2 / Rathnamma, and the Tahsildar also had given a Report that 4 acres and 2 guntas of land of PW2, came well within the acquired area, and accordingly, the said area has been identified and shown in the Map, pertaining to the acquisition. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as "It is true that, in page No.101 of volume3, Ex.D.1, it is mentioned that 4 acres 2 guntas has been granted to Smt. Rathnamma/ PW2. It is true that, in page No.97 of said Ex.D.1, the Tahsildar has given the report that 4 acres 2 guntas of PW2 comes within the acquisition area. It is also true that, in page No.99 and 100 of Ex.D.1, the said area has been identified and shown in map as necessary for acquisition".

50. PW5 further admitted that, in Ex.P.46, order sheet of KIADB, which is also a part of Ex.P.5 - file of 40 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 KIADB, the particulars of the documents furnished by PW2/Rathnamma, are mentioned at Sl. No.1 and 2, with an observation that, she is entitled for compensation. PW5 further admitted that, the possession of land was taken by KIADB, and further, the KIADB officials have not given any Complaint, stating that they had incurred a loss, in the matter of acquisition.

51. It is found in the evidence of PW5 that, the compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.57,00,000/ per acre, but, PW5 is not aware, as to if the land of Rathnamma fetched Rs.2 crores per acre at the time of his evidence. It is elicited from PW5 that, he had not come across a situation, where KIADB had come forward to return the acquired land, and to receive the compensation amount back. PW5 admitted that, other than the CEO Report at Ex.P.47, he had not produced any document, to show that financial loss has been caused to KIADB. It is elicited that, same quantum of 41 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 compensation, as given to other beneficiaries of the same area, was given to PW2. PW5 pleaded ignorance over a suggestion that, accused No.1/ SLAO did not visit the spot, but only acted on the Report of the Tahsildar.

52. During Cross Examination on behalf of accused No.3, it is elicited that, in the FIR/Ex.P.3, the name of accused no.3 is not found. PW5 admitted that, he has not filed any document, to show that, the accused no.3 had concocted any document. Suggestion that, receipt of compensation by PW2 - Rathnamma, was not either by cheating or by impersonation, is categorically admitted by PW5. Further, suggestion that, PW2 / Rathnamma has not been arrayed as an accused, for causing any loss to KIADB, is also admitted.

53. It is found in the further examination in chief of PW5 that, the accused no.2 was working as a Manager in the office of SLAO at KIADB, and as a Manager he was obliged to verify the file thoroughly, whenever case 42 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 files pertaining to land acquisition, were put up by the Case Worker. PW5 deposed that, after going through Ex.P.46, he had noticed that, though as per Tippani no.1, an applicant was expected to furnish nearly 16 different documents, to get the compensation, in the case of Rathnamma, only a few documents were produced, and despite Tippani no.4 calling for survey of her land, the accused no.2 had put up Tippani no.6, recommending the disbursal of compensation to Rathnamma, and that the accused no.1 had acted upon the said Tippani of accused No.2. PW5 further deposed that, during investigation, PW4 gave a statement that, he had put up Tippani for release of compensation, only under the pressure of accused no.1 and 2, and hence, he did not put his initial or signature to the said Tippani.

54. It is in the further examination in chief of PW5 that, by taking advantage of illiteracy of Rathnamma, CW29/S. Venkatesh S/o. Shambaiah had induced her, to apply for compensation, though her land was not 43 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 acquired, and she was totally unaware of the contents of Gazette Notification, and hence, he has neither proceeded against her, nor arrayed her as a co accused. Further, as CW29 - S. Venkatesh, had agreed to act as a prosecution witness, he was also not arrayed as an accused.

55. During further cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW5 admitted that, Rathnamma had furnished nearly 16 documents as described in Ex.P.46, and Tippani no.2 of the said Ex.P.46 was put up by PW4/M.S. Ramachandra. PW5 also admitted that, only after going through the revenue documents, PW4 had put up the said Tippani. It is elicited from PW5 that, as per Report of Tahsildar, Report of the SLAO and the map, the land of Rathnamma fell within the limits of Joint Measurement Check sketch.

56. It is further elicited from PW5 that, in the letter dated 08.05.2009 of Addl. Tahsildar, Bengaluru North, which is at page no.99 of Ex.D.1, it is recited that as 44 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 per the office order at LND/RUC/CR:124/199192, 4 acres 2 guntas was granted to Rathnamma and she was in possession of the said land and said extent is shown in green ink.

57. It is also elicited from PW5 that, as per letter dated 15.04.2009 of Addl. Tahsildar Bengaluru North, which is at page No.101 of Ex.D.1, authenticity of grant to Rathnamma, is affirmed and as per the Certificate, which is at page no.103 of Ex.P.5, the issuance of Saguvali Chit to her, is also affirmed. Further, as per Ex.P.5(a), a Survey Sketch was prepared at the time of Grant, and that, in Ex.P.5(d)/ the list of grantees, Rathnamma's husband's name has been duly shown, as per Ex.P.5(e). The relevant portion in his evidence reads as "It is true that, Ex.P.5(a) reveals that survey sketch was prepared at the time of grant. It is also true that Ex.P.5(d) reveals the list of grantees and husband's name of said Rathnamma is shown there at Ex.P.5(e)" 45 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

58. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.2, PW5 admitted that, in Ex.P.5(c), the accused no.2 had put up a Tippani on 15.05.2009, stating that the Report of the Surveyor was required, and that, four days later, a letter dated 19.05.2009 was received, and thereafter, Tippani no.5 was put up, followed by Tippani no.6 by accused no.2. It is elicited that, PW4 gave his statement before PW5 on 25.10.2010 as per Ex.P.49, and in the said statement, he has stated nothing about the accused no.2, putting pressure on him, to release the compensation. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW5/ IO reads as "It is true that, PW4 gave his statement before me on 25.10.2010 (Ex.P.49). It is true that, in his said statement nowhere the said PW4 stated that accused no.2 put pressure on him to release the compensation".

59. PW5 admitted that, even in Ex.P.54 Certified copy of statement of PW4 under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C, there is no mention that, the accused no.2 had put 46 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 pressure on him. PW5 admitted the suggestion that, he did not summon and enquire accused no.2, during investigation. PW5 pleaded ignorance over a suggestion, as to if Rathnamma had filed a Writ Petition, when he was investigating this case.

60. During further cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW5 admitted that, there is no indication in Ex.P.44 that, PW4 had signed it, under pressure by accused no.1, and that in the Tippani sheet at Ex.P.5, PW4 has not made any endorsement to the effect that, he was putting Tippani no.5 under such pressure. It is elicited that, there is a gap of one year and 5 months, from the date of Tippani no.5 and the statement at Ex.P.49 of PW4. PW5 is not aware, as to if during that intervening period, PW4 had submitted any Complaint to his higher ups. PW5 admitted that, there is no document to show that, PW4 was put under pressure, to write the Tippani, and that, he did not examine the coemployees of PW4, to show that he was under pressure, as alleged.

47 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

61. PW6 Abdul Kayum, is the incharge Spl. D.C. of KIADB, who had worked as such from 18.10.2010 till February 2011. He has deposed that, in February 2011, he was called by the Lokayukta Police, for giving a Report, with regard to false payments, and with regard to the lacunas, noticed in the land acquisition proceedings. The files pertaining to Land Acquisition of JalahoHolli, Bangalore North were handed over to him. Further, a file pertaining to land in survey No.6 of Singanahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, was also handed over to him.

62. On perusing the file, PW6 found that, P.W.2/ Rathnamma was paid compensation of Rs.2,51,10,000/, and on verification of the Notification, her name was not found. According to PW6, the payment was made on the basis of Grant Certificate in her favour, to an extent of 4 acres 2 guntas. PW6 deposed that, the compensation was granted on the basis of Report of Tahsildar, Bangalore 48 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 North Taluk, wherein it is stated that, the land of Rathnamma fell within the acquired portion. The Tahsildar had also given a Report stating that, the land was granted to P.W.2/ Rathnamma, but, the acquisition proceedings were not followed.

63. It is found in the evidence of PW6 that, S.L.A.O., Chikkabettaiah, had conducted a Joint Measurement Check, and prepared a sketch indicating that, 30 guntas of P.W.2's land fell within the acquired area, but the said Joint Measurement Check was done, only after the payment. The said S.L.A.O., also gave a notice to P.W.2. to return the compensation amount to K.I.A.D.B. Hence, PW6 gave an opinion that, a loss to the tune of Rs.2,51,10,000/ was caused to K.I.A.D.B. Ex.P.51 is the opinion/Report of PW6, marked subject to objection on behalf of accused.

64. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW6 denied the suggestion that, the land of Rathnamma was acquired, but however, admitted the 49 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 suggestion that, he had not come across any document except Gazette Notification, to show that, the land of P.W.2 was not acquired. Ex.D.2 sketch was shown to PW6, during his cross examination, and PW6 admitted that, the said sketch at Ex.D.2 bears the signature of Survey Supervisor, signed on 09.03.2007, signature of First Grade Surveyor signed on 07.03.2007, signature of S.L.A.O. signed on 27.01.2007, and the signature of Tahsildar, but with no date. PW6 further admitted that, the total land acquired was 274 acres as per Preliminary Notification at Ex.D.2, but, denied that, Rathnamma's land was notified for acquisition.

65. To a pointed question, about the document relied upon by PW6, to speak about the loss caused to KIADB, PW6 answered that, it was only the Notification. PW6 admitted that, he had not participated in the land acquisition proceedings, and that, he has no personal knowledge, about the acquisition proceedings. PW6 also admitted that, he 50 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 had not gone to the K.I.A.D.B. Office, to verify the documents given by Lokayukta Police. PW6 further admitted that, he had not given any Complaint, with regard to the loss caused to K.I.A.D.B.

66. PW6 admitted that, in his opinion/ Report at Ex.P.51, he has not mentioned the description of documents, he had examined. It is stated by PW6 that, Ex.P.51 was typed by the Lokayukta Police, on his dictation, and it is elicited from him that, Ex.P.51 does not contain the signature of the said Police. PW6 pleaded ignorance to state, as to if K.I.A.D.B. would incur loss of about Rs.4,00,00,000/, if the land is returned to P.W.2. PW6 admitted that, in Ex.P.51, he has not stated the specific provision of law, that has been violated, and that he has not mentioned the role of the each Officer of KIADB. PW6 denied the suggestion that, only on the say of Lokayukta Police, he had given Ex.P.51 - Report, without even looking into the original documents.

51 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

67. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.3, PW6 admitted that, before disbursing the compensation, the documents were checked by the concerned authorities. PW6 further admitted that, Joint Measurement Check, would be prepared before disbursing the compensation. PW6 admitted that, PW2's land came within the acquired area, though, denied the suggestion that, a proper procedure was followed, prior to disbursement of compensation to her.

68. During further examination in chief, PW6 deposed that, he had verified Ex.P.5 file relating to PW2, and before disbursing the compensation, accused No.1 had gone through two letters of Tahsildar Bengaluru North dated 15.04.2009 and 19.05.2009, and also had relied on another letter dated 08.05.2009 of Tahsildar Bengaluru North Taluk. It is admitted by PW6 that, the said three letters are part of the Ex.P.5 file relating to PW2.

52 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

69. PW6 further admitted that, the letters dated 15.04.2009 and 08.05.2009 of Tahsildar Bengaluru North Taluk, revealed that requisitions were filed by Rathnamma, and the replies in respect of her requisitions, were sent to SLAO, KIADB, Bengaluru, and that, in the reference portion of the said replies, name of Rathnamma has been duly shown, along with date of her requisitions. Further, the letter dated 19.05.2009, was in response to the letter KIADB/LAQ/238/200910 dated 18.05.2009 of SLAO, KIADB, Bengaluru. PW6 further admitted that, compensation was disbursed to Rathnamma, only on 20.05.2009 i.e., subsequent to the above letter dated 19.05.2009.

70. PW6 admitted that, along with the letter dated 08.05.2009, a Map was also enclosed by the Bengaluru North Taluk Tahsildar, and the said Map is at Ex.D.1(a). It is elicited that, if one compares the Ex.D.1(a) Map with Ex.D.5(a) Map, it is seen that, in 53 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 the Ex.D.1(a) some portion is shown in dark ink as per Ex.D.1(b) with a note at Ex.D.1(c) that the said portion measures 4 acres 2 guntas and it is part of block no.11 of Sy. No.6. It is also endorsed that, the said extent is under the cultivation of Rathnamma.

71. PW6 in his further examination in chief deposed that, the successor of accused no.1 had issued a notice dated 06.10.2009 as per Ex.P.5(b), to Rathnamma to refund Rs.2,51,10,000/, which was disbursed to her. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.2, PW6 admitted that, in the Gazette Notification dated 25.09.2008, there is a reference to Singanahalli village, Jalahobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is elicited that, in all 256.18 acres was acquired, and excluding the karab land, 247.37 acres were acquired vide said Notification. PW6 has admitted that, as per Ex.P.5, out of total extent of 376.12 acres, 256.18 acres were acquired, and for ascertaining as to if the land of Rathnamma, was a part of the acquired portion or not, 54 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 survey was not done. PW6 further admitted that, there is a note that for want of Survey, the Compensation was not released to Rathnamma, and that the said Tippani at Ex.P.5(c) was made, only by accused no.2.

72. PW6 further admitted that, whenever letters were received from the Tahsildar Bengaluru North Taluk, the sum and substance of the said letters, would be entered in the Tippani file. It is also elicited from PW6 that, in case of land acquisition proceedings, whenever letters or correspondences are received from the office of Tahsildar, the substance of those letters or correspondences, would be noted in the Tippani file, and since the previous letters sent by the Tahsildar Bengaluru North Taluk, were not brought to his notice, he did not take any action against the concerned, for sending such letters, when he took charge on 18.10.2010.

73. PW6 pleaded ignorance to state if the genuinity of Ex.D.1 is challenged before any court. During 55 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 further cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW6 admitted that, when he was called by the Lokayukta police, he was not serving in KIADB, and he was not aware of what had transpired at the relevant time, but after going through the file shown by the police, he had given his opinion thereon, only as a witness.

74. PW6 further admitted that, Tippani no.2 in Ex.P.46 the written note sheets of PW4, which formed part of Ex.P.5 - the file pertaining to land in Sy.No.6/B1 of Rathnamma, was put up by the case worker, and that, in the said Tippani, it is mentioned that only after verifying the documents at Sl. No.1 to 16, and finding them in order, the note was made for releasing of the compensation amount. PW6 also admitted that, at note no.5 of that Tippani sheet, the Case Worker has put up a note, for releasing Rs.2,51,10,000/ to Rathnamma W/o.

Narayanaswamy, for her 4 acres and 2 guntas of land. 56 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

75. PW6 further admitted that, in the letter at Ex.D.1 dated 19.05.2009, it is mentioned that, the land of Rathnamma measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas, fell within the acquired land, as per Joint Measurement Check Sketch. Admission is also found in the evidence of PW6 that, in the letter dated 08.05.2009, it is stated that the said extent of land, is shown as block no.11 in the annexed sketch, and that, in the letter dated 15.04.2009, the Tahsildar Bengaluru North, has reported that in the RTC, the name of Rathnamma and grant of 4 acres and 2 guntas of land to her, are mentioned.

76. During further cross examination on behalf of the accused No.2, PW6 admitted that, in the event, if the acquisition proceedings are legally and regularly concluded, then a possession letter would be issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to the acquiring body, and Ex.P.44(d) is a Possession Certificate in respect of land of Rathnamma. It is 57 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 elicited that, there is a computerized RTC in the name of Rathnamma and others in Ex.P.5. It is elicited from PW6 that, while giving his opinion, he had gone through her RTC and mutation.

77. PW7 Ningaraju C.L., is the Surveyor of Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka, who has worked as such from 2010 to 2015. He has deposed that, on the direction of Tahsildar, Bangalore North and Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban, he had gone to the Lokayukta PS, in October 2010. He was given files pertaining to land acquisition proceedings, and an enquiry was made by the said Police, with regard to the extent of land acquired. Accordingly, he had examined 8 files pertaining to Bagaluru, Singanahalli and Mahadevakodigehalli. According to PW7, in the file pertaining to P.W.2/ Rathnamma, a sketch in respect of 30 guntas in survey No.6 in Singanahalli Village was found. In Joint Measurement Check sketch too, there was a map of said 30 guntas, but, there was a claim for more than 30 guntas. PW7 further deposed that, the 58 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 compensation amount was paid to P.W.2, prior to J.M.C.

78. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW7 admitted that, Ex.D.2. was not the Joint Measurement Check, but it was a map of total area acquired by K.I.A.D.B, and that, Ex.D.2 pertaining to survey No.6 was prepared by the Surveyor, and certified by both the S.L.A.O. and the Tahsildar. PW7 also admitted that, in Ex.D.2, 4 acres 2 guntas of P.W.2 was not shown, and that, the names of owners of the land were not mentioned. To a pointed question as to how PW7 could say that Ex.D.2 did not pertain to land of P.W.2, when the names were not mentioned, PW7 answered that, he could say it based on the map, that was shown to him in Lokayukta PS. PW7 admitted that, he had not gone to the K.I.A.D.B. office to verify the documents, shown by Lokayukta Police. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.3, PW7 59 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 denied the suggestion that, he had not verified any document, before giving his Report.

79. During further examination in chief, PW7 deposed that, Ex.P.55 is the Report given by him, and other three surveyors. After going through the Ex.D.1(a) map and the Report at Ex.P.55, PW7 could state that, portion of the land in Sy. No.6 was alloted to a person and after surveying of that alloted portion, it was numbered as Sy. No.128, but the land claimed by Rathnamma, overlapped the land in Sy. No.128, and it was therefore noted in the letter at Ex.P.5, that the procedure followed, in showing 4 acres 2 guntas of Rathnamma was not proper.

80. It is elicited during the cross examination of PW7 that, Ex.P.5(a) is the sketch showing the unauthorized cultivation by several persons in Sy. no.6 of Singanahalli village and names of those unauthorized cultivators have been shown in page no.153 of Ex.P.5, and the list containing the names is 60 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 marked as Ex.P.5(d). It is also elicited that, in Ex.P.5(d), at Sl. No.11 name of one Narayanaswamy S/o. Muniswamappa, has been shown in respect of 4 acres 2 guntas, and thereafter name of Rathnamma has also been shown, stating that she is the wife of the said allotee, as per the relevant entry at Ex.P.5(e).

81. During further cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW7 admitted that, he had not worked in the KIADB at any point of time, and in the year 2009 and 2010, he was working only as a Surveyor. It is admitted by PW7 that, he was summoned by the Lokayukta police, and that he had prepared Ex.P.55 - Report, and the Report of CW23, CW24 and CW25 in the Lokayukta office. He did not remember, as to who had typed Ex.P.55 Report. PW7 admitted that, Ex.D.1(a) sketch was not prepared by him.

82. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.2, PW7 stated that, based on the Joint Measurement Check map shown on that day, he had 61 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 stated that in Ex.P.55, block no.44 reflects 30 guntas, but however, the said Joint Measurement Check map has not been available in the file no.2 to 5 submitted by the IO, in this case. It is elicited that, Ex.P.55(a) and Ex.P.55(d) were prepared by Akrama Sakrama Committee, and in Ex.D.1(c) as well as in Ex.P.5(a), block no.11 has been shown.

83. PW8 T. Sham Bhatt, is the C.E.O. and Executive Member of K.I.A.D.B., Bangalore, who had worked as such from June 2008 to December 2011. He has deposed that, about 1209 acres of land, was proposed for acquisition, for the formation of Information Technology Park, and about 12 villages were identified for the said purpose. Final notification was issued U/s. 28(4) of K.I.A.D.B. Act in 2008 or 2009. In the process, compensation was approved for payment of Rs.62,00,000/ per acre. It is in his evidence that, complaints were received by him, alleging irregularities in the matter of payment of 62 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 compensation amount, and hence, he had formed a team of Account Officers, to look into the matter and report about the irregularities. A team of 3 members, gave him a Report, stating that P.W.2 was paid compensation, though her name was not in the Final Notification. He submitted a Report to the Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries as per Ex.P.47, stating that compensation was disbursed to PW2, in respect of 4 acres of Gomala, prior to J.M.C., though the rules said that, J.M.C. should be done prior to such payment. P.W.2 was entitled to receive the compensation only for 30 guntas, and the entire 4 acres and 2 guntas of Gomala land, was with the K.I.A.D.B.

84. It is in the evidence of PW8 that, a case was registered by the Lokayukta Police, subsequent to his Report, and on 23.09.2010, the concerned police enquired him, for an Audit Report, and for the files, pertaining to acquisition. Accordingly, he furnished the 63 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 files, along with a covering letter on 25.09.2010, as per Ex.P.52. PW8 also deposed that, he had directed the Spl. D.C. to recover the excess amount paid to P.W.2/ Rathnamma.

85. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW8 deposed that, he had verified the documents pertaining to ownership of P.W.2., and that, in the Notification under Sec.28(4) of K.I.A.D.B. Act, name of PW2 was not found. PW8 admitted that, as per Ex.D.1, P.W.2 was entitled for compensation for 4 acres 2 guntas land. PW8 also admitted that, he had not lodged any Complaint before the police, and that he had not seen the original title documents of P.W.2.

86. PW9 M. Ramachandra, Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka in the Revenue Department, deposed that he had worked as such from 09.05.2011 to 30.11.2011. He is made as a witness in view of filing of additional charge sheet against accused no.2 and framing of additional charge against accused 64 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 no.1. He has deposed that, on the basis of the letters and proposal of The Regional Commissioner, Mysuru and ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, he had issued a Sanction Order in the name and on behalf of His Excellency, the Governor of the State.

87. PW10 Smt. Danalakshmi, is the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka Sub Division, who has worked as such from 11.11.2008 till 26.08.2009. She has deposed that, in the year 2009, she had sent a letter to SLAO, KIADB, regarding payment of compensation to Rathnamma. Ex.D.1 letter dated 15.04.2009, is identified by PW10. According to her, she had written Ex.D.1 letter, based on the requisition dated 12.04.2009, of Rathnamma W/o. Late Narayanaswamy, and through the said letter, she had communicated that, the land measuring 4 acre 2 guntas in Sy. No.6, was granted to Rathnamma.

88. PW10 further deposed that, instead of replying to the requisition of Rathnamma, she had directly sent 65 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 the reply, to SLAO, KIADB, as per her oral request. PW10 further deposed that, she had also written another letter, along with a Sketch to SLAO, KIADB on 08.05.2009, confirming the Block no.11 of the Sketch. It is found in her evidence that, in response to the letter of KIADB dated 18.05.2009, a reply letter was sent by her on 19.05.2009.

89. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, PW10 admitted that, she had sent the Report for having gone through the Sketch, and that, the concerned case worker had put up the note, only after verifying the documents. Further, PW10 also verified the concerned documents once again. A copy of the proceedings, obtained under RTI Act, has been shown to PW10, and it is the order of Spl. Dy. Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in relation to the land of Rathnamma W/o. Narayanaswamy, and the same has been marked as Ex.D.5, subject to objection.

90. PW11 Maheshwaraswamy Hiremath, the Special DC, KIADB, who had worked as such in the 66 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 year 2010, has deposed that, during that period, the accused no.1 was working as SLAO, and the accused no.2 was working as Manager, both at KIADB. PW11 wrote Ex.P.47 letter dated 24.09.2010, in response to the letter dated 23.09.2010 of Lokayukta Dy.S.P.1.

91. During cross examination on behalf of accused No.2, PW11 denied the suggestion that, in the three letters dated 15.12.2009, 12.03.2010 and 26.05.2010 referred at Sl. No.1 to 3 of his letter at Ex.P.47, dated 24.09.2010, there is no whisper either regarding Rathnamma, or regarding her 4 acres 2 guntas of land in Sy. No.6 of Singanahalli, but, stated that, it has been written as different survey numbers of several villages, and the said different lands also included Sy.No.6. However, the suggestion that, the said reference of different survey numbers of several villages, has been in respect of orders passed U/s.138(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is admitted by PW11. PW11 also admitted that, the subject of letter 67 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 dated 15.12.2009, is in relation to acquisition of land, for hardware park at Bandikodegehalli, and there has been no specific information, with regard to acquisition of land and disbursement of compensation, in respect of land of Rathnamma.

92. Thus, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, it is seen that accused No.1 was working as SLAO, Accused No.2 was working as a Manager in the office of SLAO, and accused No.3 is a private person. It is also seen that, the KIADB had acquired 256 acres and 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.6 of Singanahalli village, Jalahobli of North Addl. Taluk, vide Final Notification dated 26.09.2008. All these aspects are not in dispute..

93. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the compensation amount was disbursed without acquisition, the date of relevant Notification under which the other lands were acquired, is not spelt out during the examinationinchief of the Complainant/ 68 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 PW1. Prosecution has neither got marked the very crucial Notifications i.e., Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification in respect of the land acquired by the KIADB, though the allegation against accused No.1 is that compensation amount was disbursed to PW2, in the absence of acquisition of her land for KIADB. On the other hand, the Final Notification dated 26.09.2008 found in the Charge Sheet has been marked on behalf of accused No.1 as Ex.D.3.

94. It is worthy to note that, it is not the case of the prosecution that, Sy.No.6 was not acquired for KIADB, but, it is its case that, the land of PW2 Rathnamma was not acquired. However, no material evidence is placed by PW1, or the IO, to show that Rathnamma's land was not situated in Sy.No.6. Though it is the contention of the prosecution that, Rathnamma's land was not acquired, the prosecution has not placed convincing evidence to show, as to who actually are the owners of the land in Sy.No.6 of 69 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Singanahalli Village. Ex.D.2 JMC sketch is marked on behalf of accused No.1, to show that land of PW2 fell well within the land acquired for KIADB. Ex.D.1(a) is the Survey Sketch relied upon, by the accused No.1, to show that, the land of Rathnamma is within the notified extent, and is acquired for KIADB. No convincing evidence is placed by the prosecution, to conclude that, Rathnamma is not the owner of the land acquired. The alleged incident has taken place in the year 2011, but, till the stage of arguments in the year 2022, no material is placed before the Court, with regard to the action taken by KIADB for recovering the amount, and with regard to redepositing of the amount by Rathnamma, in pursuance of alleged notice issued to her, by the KIADB.

95. Admittedly, Rathnamma is not an accused in this case. According to PW2 - Rathnamma, she was taken to the office of KIADB, by one Venkatesh. Said Venkatesh is cited as a witness i.e., CW29 in this case. 70 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 During trial however, the evidence of CW29 - Venkatesh could not be made available, by the prosecution, as he was reported dead. The copy of Death Certificate of CW29 however would indicate that, his date of death is 30.10.2016. Therefore, he was very much available for the IO, during investigation. However, no material is placed by the prosecution to show that, IO has collected sufficient material evidence from CW29, in support of its case. There is absolutely no evidence even to show that, there were possibilities, that Rathnamma might have influenced by said Venkatesh, to bribe any of the accused persons. Though said Venkatesh had taken her to the office of KIADB, admittedly, Venkatesh is also not an accused in this case.

96. Prosecution has produced Ex.P.54 - the statement of PW4 recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. On a careful perusal of the said statement also, there is nothing indicating that, there was any inducement to 71 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Rathnamma, to deliver any cash amount to the accused persons, for grant of compensation in her favour. Hence, the said statement is also of no help to the case of prosecution.

97. There is no whisper in the evidence of the Complainant/ PW1, and in the evidence of PW5/IO with regard to the particulars of entire land acquisition process, starting from identification of land for acquisition, preparation of draft Preliminary Notification, issuance of Preliminary Notification, issuance of notice to Kathedars calling for their objections to proposed acquisition, hearing of their objection, preparation of Final Draft Notification, Issuance of Final Notification, issuance of notice to Kathedars intimating Final Notification, Fixation of value for the acquired land, preparation of Award, and approval of Award, to show that, it was only the accused no.1, who had participated in all these proceedings.

72 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

98. It is pertinent to note that, the alleged incident has taken place in the year 2010. Prosecution has not elicited from its witnesses, about the period in which accused No.1 had worked as SLAO in KIADB. PW5 / IO has admitted during his crossexamination that, accused No.1 had worked only for the period, from 26.03.2009 to 15.06.2009. That being the case, as to how accused No.1 could give oral instructions to PW4, to put up a note in the year 2010, has not been clarified by the prosecution, either through PW4 or through the IO. To a pointed question in this regard, PW4 has only answered that, at the time of seizure of the files, he had put up such a note, and this aspect has not been clarified during evidence of IO.

99. On the other hand, PW5/IO has admitted that, accused No.1 had worked as SLAO in KIADB, only for 3months i.e., 26.03.2009 to 15.06.2009. It is also elicited from PW5 that, the entire acquisition process lasted for nearly about 3 years. However, in these 3 73 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 years, and more particularly from 26.03.2009 to 15.06.2009, the part played by the accused no.1, is also not satisfactorily brought out, during the prosecution evidence.

100. Ex.P.5 is the application submitted by PW2 - Rathnamma to accused No.1 - SLAO, seeking compensation in respect of her land. It is seen that, she had submitted necessary documents, along with her application. It is also seen that, as per Ex.D.1, a Field Report was called for, from the Tahsildar, North Addl. Taluk (Yelahanka). The Report of the Tahsildar/ PW10, and the Revenue Records examined by the said Tahsildar, showed that PW2 had both title and possession over 4.2 acres of land granted in favour of her Late husband namely Narayanaswamy. The land so granted has been reflected at Ex.P.5(a).

101. PW4 has clearly admitted that, it was his duty to look into the documents, and to put up office notes. He has admitted that, at the end of Tippani No.2 74 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 of Ex.P.46, he had put up an endorsement stating that, compensation may be paid to Rathnamma, once it is released by the State. PW4 also admitted that, his office would be putting up the notes, based on the Revenue documents, and the responsibility to verify the authenticity of the documents, is on the revenue officials.

102. PW5 / IO has specifically admitted that, the land of PW2 - Rathnamma in Sy.No.6 of Singanahalli Village, has been a part of acquisition proceedings. It is in his evidence that, in Ex.P.47 - Final Notification, it is mentioned that, 256 acres and 18 guntas of land has to be acquired from Sy.No.6. The grant of 4 acres and 2 guntas of land in favour of PW2 - Rathnamma as per Ex.D.1, is also admitted by PW5. PW5 further admitted that, Tahsildar had given a Report that, 4 acres and 2 guntas of land of PW2 fell within the acquired area. PW5 further admitted that, possession of PW2's land was taken by KIADB, and that the officials of KIADB 75 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 have not given any Complaint, stating that, they have incurred a loss in the process.

103. PW6 - Special DC of KIADB, has also admitted that, he had not given any Complaint alleging that, loss has been caused to KIADB. In the evidence of PW7 - Surveyor, he has deposed that, if the compensation amount was paid to PW2 after Joint Measurement Check, then there would be no procedural lapse. Ex.P.47 is the Report of CEO of KIADB. On a careful perusal of the Report, there is no indication that, accused No.1 has caused financial loss to KIADB or the State. Moreover, he has admitted that, he was neither shown Ex.D.1 nor the original Title Deeds of PW2 - Rathnamma, at the time of sending his Report at Ex.P.47.

104. PW8 has categorically stated that, his Report at Ex.P.47 was only on procedural lapse on the part of the accused, and not on any criminality. The only report at Ex.P.47 of PW8 - T. Sham Bhat, submitted to 76 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 the Prl. Secretary, Commerce and Industries, only shows that, compensation was disbursed to PW2 - Rathnamma, in respect of 4 acres of Gomala land, prior to JMC, though the rules said that JMC should be done prior to such disbursement.

105. The evidence of PW8 would only indicate that, there is a procedural lapse, for not following the rules. The criminal intention of the accused persons, to contribute for the said procedural lapse, however is not spelt out in the evidence of PW8. It is in the evidence of PW8 that, excess amount was disbursed to Rathnamma, and the steps have been taken to recover the said amount. However, the fact of recovery if any, till the date of evidence of PW8, is also not spelt out, either in the evidence of PW8 or in the evidence of the IO. Thus, it is seen that, even in the evidence of immediate higher ups of accused No.1 and accused No.2, there is no such allegation of any criminal intention, to cheat or cause wrongful loss to the acquiring body i.e., the KIADB or the State. 77 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

106. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, a lawful payment was made to PW2, and she was given Rs.2,51,10,000/ in the year 2010, and the same fetched about Rs.10 to 12 crores subsequently, and as such there is no monetary loss to the KIADB or the State. Further, there is no such action taken by KIADB, against its officials, alleging that they have caused it a financial loss. It is thus seen that, allegation that the accused persons have caused loss to the KIADB, is not supported by the evidence of its own officials. It is also pertinent to note that, this is a case registered by the Lokayukta Police suo moto, while investigating another case in Cr.No.24/2010, and there is no complaint by any other person including KIADB.

107. It is also worthy to mention that, it is an undisputed fact that, Rs.2,51,10,000/ was released in favour of PW2 - Rathnamma. PW2 has deposed that, she was paid only Rs.1,30,00,000/, and not paid the remaining amount. The material evidence placed by the 78 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 prosecution would indicate that, entire Rs.2,51,10,000/ has been paid to PW2. There is no investigation with regard to, as to how the entire Rs.2,51,10,000/ was spent by PW2.

108. There is no material evidence placed by the Investigating Officer, to show that, the accused persons had demanded bribe from PW2, and received the bribe from her. No doubt PW2 has deposed that she had received only Rs.1,30,00,000/ out of Rs.2,51,00,000/, but she has also not deposed anything that, on account of the act of the accused persons, she was cheated or induced to deliver either the remaining amount of Rs.1,21,00,000/ to them, or the alleged bribe amount of Rs.10,00,000/ to Accused No.1 and Rs.7,00,000/ to Accused No.3, as projected by the prosecution. There is absolutely no investigation, as to how PW2 had spent the total amount of Rs.2,51,00,000/, allegedly received by her, as compensation.

79 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

109. Prosecution has contended that, a notice has been issued to PW2 - Rathnamma, to return the amount received by her, and the said action on the part of the KIADB itself is an indication, that the compensation was illegally paid to her. In this regard, the learned counsel for accused No.1 argued that, PW2

- Rathnamma has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.34316/2009 challenging the very issuance of notice to her, and as the compensation was paid to her, subsequent to the grant of land in her favour, there is no procedural lapse also, on the part of the accused.

110. From the evidence of the prosecution, both oral and documentary, it is seen that, there is no concrete and convincing evidence, with regard to involvement of accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.3, in the commission of aforesaid offences.

111. From the totality of all these aspects, the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn in the 80 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 circumstances is that, the prosecution has not established the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Sec.120B, and cheating under Sec.420. It is needless to mention that, in a case of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution has to establish that, there is a an agreement between two or three persons, and the agreement should relate to doing or causing to be done, either (a) an illegal act or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself, but is done by illegal means. But, however, none of these aspects have been established by the prosecution.

112. Further, PW2 has not stated anything, regarding payment of Rs.10,00,000/ and Rs.7,00,000/ lakhs as illegal gratification to Accused No.1 or Accused No.3, as alleged by the prosecution. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 had any criminal intention to receive illegal gratification from PW2. Most importantly, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by 81 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 the accused persons itself, has not been established by the prosecution.

113. The prosecution has not placed any evidence to prove the meeting of minds, in so far as acts of accused No.1 to 3 are concerned. The role of each accused, in the disbursement of compensation to PW2

- Rathnamma, as alleged by the prosecution, and the criminal intention attached to the said act, are also not proved by the prosecution. The fact that, the FIR at Ex.P.3, was registered for the offences under Sec.465, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code also, in addition to the offences for which charges have been framed, against the accused persons, and that, the said offences have not been included in the Charge Sheet, also cannot be lost sight of. This itself, is an indication that, there was no such false acquisition, as contended by the prosecution.

114. No doubt, to attract a charge under Sec.8 of PC Act, it is not necessary that the person who received 82 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 gratification, should have succeeded in inducing the public servant, but there is absolutely no evidence, touching even illegal gratification to accused No.1 and 2, through accused No.3. Further, there is no evidence to show that, there was passing of amount by Rathnamma, to any of the accused persons. Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, or the intention to receive such gratification, itself is not proved. Further, there is absolutely no evidence with regard to the recovery of the bribe amount, from the accused persons.

115. In the circumstances therefore, it cannot be held that the charge against accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, and charge against accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, are 83 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.2 to 7, in the Negative.

116. Point No.8: In view of my findings on the points No.2 to 7 therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 - G.C. Anil Kumar, and accused No.2 - T. Shankarappa are acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No.3 - M.R. Prathap Simha, is acquitted of the offences under Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.

84 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

The bail bonds executed by accused No.1 to 3, and that of their sureties, shall stand cancelled.

Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/ each, as per Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., for their due appearance before the Appellate Court, in case, if any Appeal is preferred against this Judgment. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 4th November 2022).

Sd/ 04.11.2022 (Vineetha P. Shetty) C/c. LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru (CCH77).

ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:

P.W.1     : K.C. Lakshminarayan
P.W.2     : Rathnamma
P.W.3     : K.P. Mohan Raj
P.W.4     : M.S. Ramachandra
P.W.5     : H.S. Manjunath
P.W.6     : Abdul Kayum
                                85    Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

P.W.7       : Ningaraju C.L.
P.W.8       : T. Sham Bhatt
P.W.9       : M. Ramachandra
P.W.10      : Danalakshmi
P.W.11      : Maheshwaraswamy Hiremath

List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Complaint Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the copy application Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the FIR Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the Mahazar Ex.P.5 Case file pertaining to PW2 Ex.P.5(a) Map Ex.P.5(b) Letter of SLAO dated 06.10.2009 Ex.P.5(c) Tippani of accused No.2 Ex.P.5(d) List of Unauthorised cultivators Ex.P.5(e) Name of Narayanaswamy in Ex.P.5(d) list Ex.P.6 Cheque of Corporation Bank Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.7 Receipt of PW2 Ex.P.8 Account opening forms and Voter ID of PW2 Ex.P.9 to Cheques (35 in Nos) P.43 Ex.P.9(a) to Signature of PW2 P.43(a) Ex.P.44 Attested copies of a Agreement, Affidavit, Possession Certificate, and Indemnity Bond 86 Spl.C.C.No.128/2011 Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.44(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.44(c) Signature of accused No.3 Ex.P.44(d) Signature of PW4 on Possession Certificate Ex.P.45 Sanction Order Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.46 Written note sheets of PW4 Ex.P.47 Letter of Special D.C. KIADB Ex.P.48 Bank Account details Ex.P.49 Statement of PW4 Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.50 Letter of Manager, State Bank of Mysore Ex.P.51 Report of PW6 Ex.P.51(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.52 Audit Report along with covering letter Ex.P.53 Sanction Order Ex.P.54 Copy of statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.55 Report of PW7, CW23, CW24 and CW25 Ex.P.55(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.55(b) Observation No.2 in Ex.P.5 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:

NIL List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defence:

Ex.D.1        Report of Tahsildar, and SLAO
Ex.D.1(a)     Map
Ex.D.1(b)     Portion in the Map
Ex.D.1(c)     Note in the Map
Ex.D.2        Sketch
                          87       Spl.C.C.No.128/2011

Ex.D.3      Copy of the Final Notification

Ex.D.3(a) Relevant portion in Ex.D.3 Ex.D.4 Notice Office proceedings before Deputy Ex.D.5 Commissioner, Bengaluru City Sd/ 04.11.2022 (Vineetha P. Shetty) C/c. LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru (CCH77).

****

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

State Of Karnataka vs G.C. Anil Kumar on 4 November, 2022