Bangalore District Court
State By Tilak Nagar Police Station vs No.1 To 3 As Required U/S.313 Of Cr.P.C on 8 April, 2022
1
CC.No.17636/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2022.
Present Sri B.MOHAN BABU, B.A., L.L.B.,
XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
C.C. No.17636/2015
1. Complainant: State by Tilak Nagar Police Station.
2. Accused: A1 Kiran Kumar,
S/o Sathyanarayana,
Aged 35 years,
R/at No.1980, 26th Main,
South End Main Road,
Jayanagar, Bangalore city.
A2 Gangaraju,
S/o Ramappa,
Aged 35 years,
R/at No.35, Krishnareddy
layout, Near Anjaneya swamy
temple, Bangalore.
A3 Shaik Altaf Ahamed,
S/o Sekh Basha Moyinuddin,
Aged 39 years,
R/at No.21/24, 4th Main,
Bismilla nagar,
Bangalore city.
3.Date of offence: 29092014.
2
CC.No.17636/2015
4. Offences complained of: U/s. U/s.420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 473,
120(b) R/w/s 34 of IPC..
5. Plea : Accused No. 1 to 3 Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final Order: Accused No.1 to 3 are ACQUITTED.
7. Date of Order: 08042022.
*****
The PoliceSubInspector, Basavanagudi Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 for
the offences punishable U/s.420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 473, 120(b)
R/w/s 34 of IPC..
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that;
On 29092014 at 600 p.m., when CW1 was in his office as
per credible information received by him stating that the accused No.1
running an office by name M/s.Tarangi Informatics Consultancy
Services along with accused No.2 and 3 made criminal conspiracy in
order to commit offence with dishonest intention created bogus
documents under different company names and had land line
telephone number in the name of different company, created letter
heads and seal, the accused were used to collect amounts under the
pretext of getting job to students created and mentioned that those
3
CC.No.17636/2015
students are working with their company and created false I.D.Cards
and Experience Certificate as if the students are working since 2 to 3
years and also giving relieving letters to unemployed students under
the pretext of getting job to them and found that the accused were
collecting money with dishonest intention for their wrongful gain
thereby committed the offences p/u/s. 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 473,
120(b) and R/w 34 of IPC.
3. The Accused No.1 to 3 were on bail. On receipt of charge
sheet, this court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and
furnished copy of the prosecution papers to the Accused persons. After
hearing on charge, my predecessor has framed charge for the offences
punishable U/s.420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 473, 120(b) and R/w 34 of
IPC.. and questioned the Accused No.1 to 3 regarding the charge
made against them, Accused No.1 to 3 denied the charge and claimed
to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, out of 10 charge
sheeted witnesses has examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to 7 and got
documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. This Court examined the
Accused No.1 to 3 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1
4
CC.No.17636/2015
to 3 denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and
submitted that they have no defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP., for the
prosecution and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the
materials available on record.
6. On the basis of the above said facts, the following point arise
for my consideration are that:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that On 29092014 at 600
p.m., the accused No.1 running an office by name
M/s.Tarangi Informatics Consultancy Services
along with accused No.2 and 3 made criminal
conspiracy in order to commit offence with
dishonest intention created bogus documents
under different company names and had land
line telephone number in the name of respective
company, created letter heads and seal, the
accused were used to collect amounts under the
pretext of getting job to students created and
mentioned that those students are working with
their company and created false I.D.Cards and
were giving Experience Certificate as if the
students are working since 2 to 3 years and also
giving relieving letters to unemployed students
under the pretext of getting job to them and
found that the accused were collecting money
with dishonest intention for their wrongful gain
and thereby committed the offences p/u/s. 420,
465, 468, 467, 471, 473, 120(b) and R/w 34 of
IPC.?
2) What Order?
5
CC.No.17636/2015
My finding on the above Points are as under:
Point No.1.......In the
Point No.2.......As per final Order for the
following:
REASONS
7. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt alleged
against the accused. Though the accused have not adduced any
evidence in this matter, it does not mean that it will absolve the
burden present on the prosecution to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. The points aforementioned are hereby taken up one
by one for discussion.
8. Prosecution is duty bound to prove the case alleged against
the accused persons as above. It is appropriate at this juncture
to examine as to how far the prosecution is successful in proving
the case alleged against the accused.
9. Point No.1 The prosecution has alleged that the accused No.1
to 3 are guilty of the offence punishable U/s.420, 465, 468, 467, 471,
473, 120(b) and R/w 34 of IPC. It is the specific case of the
6
CC.No.17636/2015
prosecution that the accused No.1 to 3 have made criminal conspiracy
in order to commit offence with dishonest intention created bogus
documents under different company names and had land line
telephone number in the name of different company, created letter
heads and seal, the accused were used to collect amounts under the
pretext of getting job to students created and mentioned that those
students are working with their company and created false ID Cards
and Experience Certificate as if the students are working since 2 to 3
years and also giving relieving letters to unemployed students under
the pretext of getting job to them and found that the accused were
collecting money with dishonest intention for their wrongful gain. The
Prosecution is duty bound to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the aforementioned
offence .
10. The witnesses PW1 to 07 have deposed with supporting the
case of the prosecution. It is appropriate at this juncture to say that,
after recording of the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C,
the accused did not choose to adduce evidence and he has submitted
7
CC.No.17636/2015
that he has no evidence to adduce. Therefore this court went further
to post the matter for arguments.
11. Learned Sr.APP has argued that the accused is
guilty of the aforementioned offences specifically they shall be
punished for the offence contemplated U/s.420, 465, 468, 467,
471, 473, 120(b) and R/w 34 of IPC. Further it is argued by the
learned Sr.APP that in the case of present nature, if the
accused are given a benefit of acquittal, it would send a wrong
message to the society. With the above arguments the learned
Sr.APP has requested the court to take a very strict view of the matter
against the accused and to punish them.
12. Learned advocate appearing for the accused has
argued that the prosecution has failed to examine independent
witnesses to prove the case against the accused No.1 to 3. With the
above arguments the learned advocate requested the court to acquit
the accused of the offences to which they have been charge
sheeted.
13. The prosecution to prove the guilty of the Accused No.1 to
3 has examined 07 witnesses as PW1 to 7. In the course of evidence
8
CC.No.17636/2015
the PW1 Chandrashekar, DYSP has deposed that on 29092014
when he was in his office, he received credible information that one
Kiran had opened an office by name M/s. Tarangi Informatic
Consultancy Service at Jayangar 9th block, Prasiddhi Hotel, 2nd floor,
and he was the owner, he was having 25 phone number in the name
of different company and created false letter heads, students I.D. card
and they were also giving duplicate experience certificate and reliving
orders to the unemployed students by collecting money from them.
The PW1 further deposed he informed the matter to the S.P., and by
receiving oral orders he went to the spot along with CW4 and 5 and
also informed the same to the Jurisdictional P.I. and called him along
with CW6 to 8 and CW2 and 3 as panchas and visited the spot, there
the accused No.1 to 3 were present, on enquiry, the accused No.1 told
that they will create false letter heads, I.D. card, duplicate experience
certificate and relivingorders to the students who ever come to him
by collecting money from them. The CW10 prepared Panchanama,
seized certain documents, seal and computer under seizure
Panchanama and lodged complaint with Tilaknagar P.S.
9
CC.No.17636/2015
14. The PW2 and 3 are the police constables working in CCB,
Banglore, they categorically deposed that, on 29092014, the CW1
received the credible information that one Kiran had an office in the
name of M/s. Tarangi Informatics Consultancy service at Jayanagara
9th block, Prasiddi Hotel, 2nd floor, he had 25 different phone numbers
in the name of duplicate companies and fake letter heads and was
preparing employees ID Card and was issuing duplicate Experience
certificate with relieving orders to the unemployed students by
collecting amount from them. The PW2 and 3 further deposed that,
they visited the spot along with CW1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 10 and found
that accused No.1 along with accused No.2 and 3 were present, on
enquiry they revealed that they create and fabricate the duplicate
documents to the unemployed students whoever comes to them. Later
the CW10 prepared a detailed Panchanama and seized certain
documents, seal and computer through seizure Panchanama and the
CW1 lodged complaint with Tilak nagar police.
15. The PW4 and 5 are the police constable and ASI working in
Thilaknagara PS, they categorically deposed that, on 29092014
when he was in Station as per the instruction of CW1, the CW10
10
CC.No.17636/2015
took themselves and CW8 to Jayanagara 9 block, Prasiddi Hotel, 2nd
th
floor wherein they noticed that one Kiran had an office by name M/s.
Tarangi Informatics Consultancy service and he was the owner, he
had 25 different phone numbers in the name of duplicate companies
and fake letter heads and was preparing employees ID Card and he
was also issuing duplicate Experience certificate with relieving orders
to the unemployed students by collecting amount from them. Later
CW10 prepared a detailed Panchanama and seized certain
documents, seal and computer through seizure Panchanama and the
CW1 lodged complaint with Tilak nagar police.
16. The PW6 Sadiq Pasha, Police Inspector has deposed in his
chief examination that on 29092014 the CW1 had received credible
information that the accused were creating fake letter heads, ID cards
and issuing duplicate Experience certificate with relieving orders to
the unemployed students by collecting amount from them hence the
CW1 called himself and his staff to the spot to conduct ride,
accordingly he took CW 6 to 8 to Jayanagar 9 th block, Prasiddi Hotel,
2nd floor, wherein they found one Kiran had an office in the name and
style as M/s.Tarangi Informatics Consultancy service, and he was the
11
CC.No.17636/2015
owner, he had 25 different phone numbers in the name of duplicate
companies and fake letter heads and was preparing employees ID
Card and was issuing duplicate Experience certificate with relieving
orders to the unemployed students by collecting amount from them.
Later the CW10 prepared a detailed Panchanama and seized certain
documents, seal and computer through seizure Panchanama, on the
same day, they arrested the accused and produced before the court,
recorded the statement of CW2 to 8, obtained the rental agreement,
on 14032015 sent requisition to the Labour Inspector about
registration of company owned by accused. That on 17032015 the
Labour Inspector sent document through letter, thereafter completion
of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused.
17. The PW7 Janardhan Shetty has deposed in his chief
examination that he owned three stories complex at Jayanagar 9 th
block and he let out 2nd floor office N.12165/38 to accused No.1 for
the purpose of Computer training center on rent basis. He has given
statement to the police in this regard and he has given rental
agreement to the Investigating officer.
12
CC.No.17636/2015
18. As could be seen from the crossexamination of PW
1 who is none other than a Police Inspector CCB who conducted the
ride as on the date and time of alleged incident, has answered that,
the informants have orally given information to him, he did not
recoded the said information in writing. He answered that at the time
of ride, except the accused persons none was present there. He further
answered that the the students who are received the documents from
the accused have not given any information. None of the company
have not given any information. The PW1 denied the suggestion that,
in the place of incident, accused have teaching Java course to the
students. It is further denied that at the time of alleged ride number
of students were present there. Is is specifically denied that the
present case was registered for the purpose of statistics.
19. Further as could be seen from the cross
examination of PW2 and 3 who are the police constables, in their
cross examination they have answered that, at the time of ride, except
the accused none was present there. They further answered that the
the students who are received the documents from the accused have
not given any information. None of the company have not given any
13
CC.No.17636/2015
information. The PW1 denied the suggestion that, in the place of
incident, accused have teaching Java course to the students. It is
further denied that at the time of alleged ride number of students
were present there. Is is specifically denied that the present case was
registered for the purpose of statistics.
20. As could be seen from the cross examination of PW
4 and 5 in their cross examination have answered that, before
registering the present complaint, they have not received any other
complaint. They have further answered that they came to about the
incident through CW10. It is specifically denied that, though the
accused have teaching Java course, as per the instruction of higher
police officials, they have falsely booked in the present case. It is
specifically denied that they have put their signatures to Ex.P2 in the
police station itself.
21. As could be seen from the cross examination of PW
6 is the investigation officer, in his cross examination, he answered
that, before registering the present complaint, he has not received any
other complaint, he came to about the incident through CW1. He
specifically denied that at the time of ride students were also present
14
CC.No.17636/2015
there. It is further denied that the accused have obtained the license
from Labour department. He admitted that he has not obtained the
signatures of panchas on the MOs
22. On perusal of the evidence of prosecution, the entire case is
depending on the official witnesses they are the police witnesses. The
PW1 in his examinationinchief, he deposed that at Jayangar 9 th
block, Prasiddhi Hotel, 2nd floor, the accused No.1 Kiran had opened
an office by name M/s. Tarangi Informatic Consultancy Service and he
was the owner, when he visited the spot with his staff he found that
the accused No.1 was having 25 phone number in the name of
different company and created false letter heads, students ID card and
they were also giving duplicate experience certificate and reliving
orders to the unemployed students by collecting money from them. At
the time of ride accused No.1 to 3 were present. He seized the
computers, fake letter heads, employees ID Cards, duplicate
Experience certificate and relieving letters from the office of accused,
but the said documents were not sent to the scientific laboratory to
check the genuineness of those documents. Even the said documents
are not marked from the side of prosecution. During the cross
15
CC.No.17636/2015
examination the PW6 admitted that, the the students who are
received the documents from the accused have not given any
information. None of the company have not given any information.
Therefore, it is clear that the IO has not examined any one of the
companies in whose name the accused have created the false
certificates.
23. The entire case of the prosecution is only based on the oral
evidence of police witnesses. Though the prosecution has not
examined any of the independent witnesses to prove the case, for the
said reason it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to
prove the case. For want of examination of independent
witnesses it cannot be said that the accused are innocent of
the charges leveled against them. The court is duty bound
to examine whether the evidence available on record would prove
the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt.
24. It is settled in law that the case cannot be
disbelieved for the reason that the witnesses are official
witness. As aforesaid, there is no dispute in this case regarding the
presence of both PW1 and the accused and other police men
16
CC.No.17636/2015
as on the date and time of the alleged incident. It is a fault of the IO
to show the proper witnesses in the charge sheet. Because of the
mistakes of an IO it cannot be said that the accused is entitled
for acquittal. It is settled in law that faulty investigation and flaws
forthcoming from the investigation report shall not be the reasons to
acquit the accused.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the judgment
quoted below that there is no legal position to say that evidence
produced by police officials is unworthy of acceptance
without the support of an independent witness. Hence,
merely the witnesses are official witnesses; their evidence
cannot be believed if their evidence would inspire the
confidence of the court regarding the alleged incident.
Kripal Singh V/s The State Of Rajasthan
There is no legal position to say that evidence produced
by police officials is unworthy of acceptance without the
support of an independent witness.
26. Further, in this case, there is no allegation of any enmity
between police witnesses and the accused. No such defense has
17
CC.No.17636/2015
been put forward also. There is no law to the effect that the
evidence of police officials unless supported by independent
evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance. For
want of corroboration as to evidence of police/official
witnesses from independent witness, the testimony of official
witness cannot be disbelieved. Above position of law has been
made clear in the judgment quoted below. Although the case
quoted below has been delivered in respect of a crime contemplated
in NDPS Act, the ratio regarding appreciation of evidence of official
witness only has
been considered......
Rizwan Khan V/S The State Of Chhattisgarh
It has been held that.........
There is no allegation of any enmity betweenthe police witnesses
and the accused. Nosuch defence has been taken in
thestatement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Thereis no law that the
evidence of police officials,unless supported by independent
evidence,is to be discarded and/or unworthy ofacceptance.
18
CC.No.17636/2015
27. It is settled law that the testimony of the official
witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of noncorroboration
by independent witness. Therefore considering the ratios' laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of INDIA in above cases, it is
clear that there is no bar on this court to accept the evidence
adduced by the witnesses who belong to police department.
28. Hence, if their evidence inspires the confidence as to
truthfulness of evidence, in the opinion of this court in the light of
above judgments, there is no bar to consider their evidence despite
the prosecution being failed to examine independent witnesses.
As aforesaid the witnesses aforementioned although belong to
police department, but their evidence is very in consistent regarding
the seizer Panchanama. The PW1 has not deposed on what time he
has received the information and what time he has entered the office
of accused. Even the PW2 to 6 have also not deposed on what time
Panchanama was prepared. The are lots of omission in the evidence of
PW1 to 6. Therefore based on the evidence of PW1 to 7 the accused
persons can not be held guilty for the alleged offences. The
prosecution fails to prove the guilty of accused for the offence
19
CC.No.17636/2015
punishable U/S.420, 465, 468, 471, 511, 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the benefit of doubt has to be
extended in favour of accused. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 to 4 in the
Negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
29. Point No.5: For the above said reasons and discussion, I
proceed to pass the following
ORDER
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 473, 120(b) and R/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of Accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 08042022.) ( B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: PW1 : Chandrashekar PW2 : Hayathu Jama PW3 : Vinay 20 CC.No.17636/2015 PW4 : Shiva kumar PW5 : Krishnegowda PW6 : Sadiq Pasha PW7 : Janardhan Shetty.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Panchaname Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1, Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW2.
Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.3(a)& (b) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P.4 : Letter of companies Ex.P.5 & Ex.P.6 : Documents given by Labour Inspector. Ex.P.7 : Rental Agreements.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: NIl LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL XXXVII ACMM., BANGALORE. 21 CC.No.17636/2015 22 CC.No.17636/2015 08042022.
Judgment. Judgment pronounced in Open Court ( vide separately) ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 473, 120(b) and R/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of Accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled.
XXXVII ACMM., B'lore.
23 CC.No.17636/2015