Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sri B.Chandrashekhar on 21 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES (CCH-47) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2015.
PRESENT:
Shri K.H.MALLAPPA, B.A.,LL.B.,
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.231/2013
COMPLAINANT : Central Bureau of Investigation,
A.C.B.,Bengaluru
(By Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED : Sri B.Chandrashekhar,
S/o.B.Chinna Subbanna,
Aged about 42 years,
Project Manager,
M/s.GMR OSE HHHPL,
M/s.Hungund-Hospet Highways
Pvt.Ltd.,
N.H.13, HOHHHPL Toll Plaza,
Shahapur,
Hungund,
Koppal District.
1. Date of Commission of : During the period
Offence from 21.1.2013 to
30.1.2013.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 29.1.2013
-2- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
3. Name of the complainant : B.R.Hanumesh
4. Date of recording of : 7.10.2014
Evidence
5. Date of closing Evidence : 10.4.2015
6. Offences complained of : u/S.420 IPC and
Sec.8 Prevention of
Corruption
Act,1988.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is convicted
u/S.235(2) Cr.P.C.
for the offence
punishable u/S.420
IPC and u/S.8 of
Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
8. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
9. Accused defended by By Sri C.N.A., Adv.
JUDGMENT
This is charge sheet filed by the CBI/ACB/Bengaluru against the accused for the
offence punishable u/S.420 IPC and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
Accused B.Chandrashekar, working as Project Manager of M/s.GMR OSE HHHPL between the period 1.12.2010 to 28.2.2013 was incharge of duty as a
-3- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Project Manager to maintain 100% availability of lines, incident management, proper safety measures, toll operations, co-ordination with clients etc. It is alleged that in respect of movement of a vehicle of unusual dimension was to pass through a Toll Plaza at Hospet and in that regard, the transporter viz., Sri Vinayaka Translines was required to deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- to meet the contingent damages as security deposit.
Further it is alleged that, after the safe movement of the unusual dimension vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AA- 9657 through the Toll Plaza, complainant was informed by the accused Chandrakeshkar that he can take back the security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- but he would refund only Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,50,000/- as balance of Rs.50,000/- is to be paid to Project Director and other NHAI Officials, thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/S420 IPC r/w. Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. After filing charge-sheet Court took cognizance of the offences alleged against accused and the accused appeared before the Court through his counsel and got enlarged on bail and contested the prosecution case. The provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied by furnishing copy of charge- sheet and concerned documents to accused.
-4- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
4. My learned predecessor in office, after hearing both sides and on going through the charge- sheet material, framed charge against accused for the offence punishable u/S.420 of IPC and further under section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the accused has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Then this Court called upon the prosecution to adduce evidence of its witnesses to prove the guilt against accused.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked 126 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.126 and material objects as MO1 and MO2, and closed its side.
6. Thereafter, statement of the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. recorded, wherein the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances which goes against him. The defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution case, he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
7. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 are marked.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for accused, apart from filing written argument by the learned
-5- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel for accused.
9. The points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused has collected Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant as security deposit and he has only repaid Rs.2,00,000/- and he has utilized the amount of Rs.50,000/- on the pretext of being paid to Officers of NHAI, as alleged by prosecution?
(2) What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point-1: In the Affirmative Point-2: As per final Order.
For the following:-
REASONS
11. Point No.1 :- In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined the complainant, who has been examined as PW12. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 14.1.2013, the ODC belonging to their Company
-6- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 reached Hunagunda National Highway Toll Plaza. Their driver and other staff informed their Company about demand of Security Deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- from GMR Company, for passage of ODC through that Plaza. On 21.1.2013, he received Rs.3-lakhs from their Office and went to that Toll Plaza. The accused told him to go to Hospete Project Director's Office of National Highway and to obtain permission there for passage of the ODC through toll plaza. On 22.1.2013, he went to Project Director's Office at Hospete and met Sri Prasada Reddy, who was the Project Director. Said Prasada Reddy called the accused to that place. Prasada Reddy and the accused discussed with each other and then the accused told him to execute an Agreement and to keep Security Deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- to give permission for passage of the ODC. The accused told that said Rs.2,50,000/- would be refunded after passage of the ODC without causing any damage to the National Highway. The accused gave him a draft Agreement of similar case for preparing Agreement and accordingly he got prepared the Agreement.
12. Further PW12 has deposed in his evidence that Bhaskar Chowhan, who is the Proprietor of CVR Trailers, Pune, for passage of his vehicle, had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with the accused. On 1.1.2013, his vehicle had passed through that toll plaza and he had also come at that time for taking refund of his Security Deposit. On 24.1.2013, himself
-7- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 and Bhaskar Chowhan went to Project Director's Office at Hospete, he gave Agreement to Prasada Reddy, he verified the same and then handed over it to Sri Anil Bharaskar, Manager of that office. Sri Anil Bharaskar verified that Agreement and told him to hand over cash of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the accused and this witness paid the said amount to the accused and the accused issued him a receipt as per Ex.P3 for the same. Himself and Prasada Reddy signed on the Agreement as executants. Sri Bhaskar Chowhan and Sri Anil Bharaskar signed on Ex.P32 Agreement as witnesses. Subsequently, Sri Prasada Reddy issued permission for passage of ODC. He has identified the permission letter as per Ex.P48. He has handed over that Permission Letter to their driver and returned back to Mysore.
13. PW12 has further deposed in his evidence that on 26.1.2013, their driver telephoned to Sri Nagaraj Gupta about safe passage of the ODC through toll plaza. He had also informed that the accused had told that out of Rs.2.5 lakhs, only Rs.2-lakhs would be refunded and that remaining Rs.50,000/- had to be paid to the Officials of Project Director's Office of Nationial Highway at Hospete. Sri Nagaraj Gupta informed him about the said facts through telephone and on his call, he went to Bengaluru Office on 28.1.2013 and in that Office Sri Nagaraja Gupta and Sri Krishnamurthy told him to lodge complaint as the accused was not repaying entire Rs.2.5 lakhs. On
-8- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 29.1.2013, he went near the gate of CBI Office at Bengaluru. For getting confirmation about not repaying entire Rs.2.5 lakhs by the accused, he telephoned to accused at about 10 or 10.30 am from his mobile No.9343547479. At that time, the accused told him that Rs.50,000/- had to be paid to higher officers' of Project Director's Office of National Highway and directed him to come to Project Director's Office at Hosapete on 30.1.2013 along with Sri Bhaskar Chowhan. At that time, the accused had also told him that he had to execute a receipt for Rs.2.5 lakhs. At about 11 am on that day, he went to CBI Office, met the SP and narrated the incident, SP told him to lodge a complaint. He narrated the complaint to SP in Kannada language, who in turn dictated the complaint to his subordinate in English language and that complaint was taken down in Computer. He read over the complaint, contents of that complaint were true and correct, he affixed his signature to that complaint and he identified the complaint as Ex.P49.
14. Further PW12 has deposed in his evidence that SP of CBI Office told him to meet Sri Ramesh, Inspector at Bellary, CBI Camp Office. On the next day at 6 am., himself and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan met Ramesh at Bellary Camp Office. There were three other Officers and two independent witnesses Sri Krishnamurthy and Sri Banda Nawaz Mulla. Sri
-9- Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ramesh informed all of them as to what to do at Project Director's office. He also gave voice recorder to him and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan by telling to switch on the same in the Project Director's Office. He also told that if the accused repaid entire Rs.2.5 lakhs, take the same and come back and, to give a miss call to him, if the accused pays any lesser amount. At about 8.00 am himself, Bhaskar Chowhan and 2 witnesses left Bellary Office in their Office Vehicle to go to Project Director's Office. CBI Officers followed their vehicle in two vehicles. They reached Hosapete at about 10 am. From a distance of 3 KMs. for the Project Director's Office, he telephoned to the accused that they were going to Project Director's Office and also told him to come over to that Office, but he told that he was unable to come to Project Director's Office and directed them to come to Hosapete toll plaza. At about 11.30 am, they reached Hosapete toll plaza. CBI officers were waiting at a distance of 2 Kms. from that place. They went to the chamber of the accused, which was in the 1st floor of the office. He and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan handed over their receipts to the accused. The accused wrote in those receipts about receipt of entire Rs.2.5 lakhs each by them from him. They both put their signatures at the said writings i.e. Ex.P3(d) which is made by the accused and it bears signature of accused as per Ex.P3(h). Ex.P1 is the receipt pertaining to Sri Bhaskar Chowhan, Ex.P1(d) is the writing made by the accused. It bears the
- 10 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 signature of Bhaskar Chowhan, which is marked at EX.P1(h). He put his signature as witness to that document as per Ex.P1(i). Thereafter, the accused secured money from his staff - Sri Dinesh Patil. The accused paid money to him and also to Sri Bhaskar Chowhan. They both counted, it was only Rs.2-lakh each. He questioned the accused that he had paid Rs.2.5 lakhs, but the money repaid by him was only Rs.2-lakhs and that there was still balance of Rs.50,000/-. Sri Bhaskar Chowhan also questioned the accused similarly, then the accused told that remaining Rs.50,000/- had been spent by paying to the Officials at Project Director's Office for getting permission. Then he gave miss call to Sri Ramesh.
15. Further he has deposed that within five minutes thereafter, Sri Ramesh and other Officers came there, they disclosed their identity to the accused and asked him as to what was happening there. At that time, the accused told that he was refunding security deposit amount. Himself and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan told the CBI Officers that the accused was paying less Rs.50,000/- to them, they showed that cash, which was on the table at that place to the CBI Officers. On counting the said money by the CBI Officers and witnesses, it was found that there was only Rs.2-lakhs each. Witness Sri Krishna Murthy wrote denomination of the said notes on the back portion of the receipts. He identifies the said
- 11 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 writings at Ex.P1(e) and Ex.P3(e). He put his signatures to the said writings as per Ex.P1(j) and Ex.P3(i). Further he deposed that CBI Officers checked their pockets, they did not get any other amount from them. CBI Officers questioned the accused about payment of less Rs.50,000/- to the witness and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan. Then the accused told that he had already paid Rs.50,000/- to him and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan and that he was paying balance of Rs.2- lakhs each to them at that time. CBI Officers asked the accused about receipt for payment of the said Rs.50,000/-, the accused did not show any receipt, CBI Officers checked for that receipt, but it was not found.
16. Further he has deposed that CBI Officers recorded the entire proceedings in Laptop. Himself and Sri Bhaskar Chowhan handed over the voice recorders to CBI Officers. Contents of that voice recorder were converted into CD. The said CD was sealed. MO1 is the sealed cover containing the said CD and the CD kept in that cover is marked as MO2. Further he states that CBI Officers took signatures of them. He identifies the proceedings prepared by the CBI Officers at Ex.P5 and one of the signatures of the witness is marked at Ex.P5(d). This evidence of PW12 that Sri Bhaskar Chowhan has also received Rs.2-lakh on that day along with him is fully corroborated by the evidence of Sri Bhaskar Chowhan, who has been examined as PW16.
- 12 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
17. PW16 - Bhaskar Venkatarao Chowhan, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the month of December-2012, his ODC was going from Baroda to Bellary. On 1.12.2012, that ODC was stopped on the National Highway near Hunagund Tollgate. As directed by the accused, who was an Official of GMR Company, he obtained permission from National Highway Authority Office, Dharwad. He showed that permission to the accused. On seeing the same, he told him that by obtaining clarification from Bengaluru Office, he would release the ODC. Though 7-8 days lapsed, there was no response from the accused. Subsequently, he sent E-mail to the accused. Then he told him to put signature on the Company Letterhead and that to leave the same with his Driver and that he would do the needful. He did accordingly.
18. Further he has deposed in his evidence that later accused told him that Rs.20,000/- had to be paid to Sri Anil Bharskar and Rs.30,000/- had to be paid to the Project Director of National Highway. He was also told to deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs and that out of that amount, only Rs.2-lakhs would be refunded. His driver intimated the same to him through phone. On 1.1.2013, he went to National Highway Office at Hospet. The accused had also come there at that time, the accused showed him the records pertaining to Sri Resham Singh regarding the procedure to be followed for releasing the ODC and from those
- 13 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 records, he noticed furnishing the Bank Guarantee by the Transporter. He told the accused that he would also furnish the Bank guarantee, but the accused told him that Bank Guarantee was not necessary and he asked him to pay the deposit in cash. Then he paid Rs.2.5 lakhs cash to the accused, accused gave him a receipt as per Ex.P1. Accused told that, after passage of the ODC through Tollgate on the National Highway, the said amount would be refunded. An agreement as per Ex.P31 was also prepared in this regard. It bears his signature as per Ex.P31(b). At that time also accused told him that only Rs.2-lakhs would be refunded and that remaining amount had to be paid to Officers of National Highway Authorities. After complying with all these procedures, permission was given for passing of their ODC through National Highway. Meanwhile, ODC of Vinayaka Translines also met with same situation in that Tollgate. The driver Ramanchandra of that ODC consulted him about passage of that ODC. Then he went to Project Director's Office at Hospet, Driver-Ramachandra also came there. In that Office, he asked Sri Anil Bharaskar to refund his deposit or to adjust that deposit towards the deposit of ODC of Vinayaka Translines. Sri Anil Bharaskar told him that his deposit amount was with the accused, the accused was on leave and that deposit would be refunded after his arrival. He also told that his deposit could not be adjusted towards the deposit of Vinayaka Translines
- 14 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 and that fresh procedure had to be followed as it was done in his case. Subsequently, he learnt that by following that procedure, the ODC of Vinayaka Translines was allowed to pass on that National Highway. As he and Sri Hanumesh were told that entire deposit amount would not be refunded, Sri Hanumesh lodged complaint to CBI Office on 30.1.2013 and he had accompanied Sri Hanumesh at that time.
19. Further this witness has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.1.2013, he went to Toll Office to meet the accused for obtaining refund of his deposit. Sri Hanumesh had also come on that day to that place. CBI Officers and also witnesses accompanied them. Himself, Sri Hanumesh and two witnesses met the accused, the accused told them to come one by one. They told the accused that the witnesses were also having ODC problem and that they were also required to solve their problem. Then the accused allowed all of them to meet him. The accused told the witnesses that Rs.50,000/- was required to pay to the Officers of National Highway. In the presence of those witnesses, the accused paid Rs.2-lakhs each to him and Sri Hanumesh. He also told that he had paid already Rs.50,000/- each to the Officers of National Highway Office. But he took their signatures to the acknowledgment to the effect that they received Rs.2-lakhs from him. He identifies the acknowledgments as per Ex.P1(d), Ex.P2(b) and
- 15 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ex.P3(d). This witness put his signature as a witness to the acknowledgement of Sri Hanumesh and Sri Hanumesh put his signature as a witness to his acknowledgment and he identifies those signatures as Ex.P1(h), Ex.P1(i) and Ex.P3(h) and his signature on Ex.P3 is marked at Ex.P3(j).
20. Further this witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that CBI Officers instructed him and Sri Hanumesh to give missed call to them, if the accused pays less than Rs.2.5 lakhs to them. Accordingly, he gave missed call to the CBI Officers. Then CBI Officers entered the Office of the accused, they asked the witnesses, who were with them. Those witnesses told the CBI Officers that the accused paid only Rs.2-lakhs each to him and Sri Hanumesh. The CBI Officers checked the said amount paid by the accused and found that the said amount was only Rs.4-lakhs in all. They made writings as per Ex.P1(e) & Ex.P3(e). He identifies Ex.P5 and it bears his signature as per Ex.P5(e).
21. This evidence of PW12 and PW16 i.e. CBI Officers conducted trap and found amount of refund of Rs.2-lakhs each which was paid by the accused to PW12 and PW16 has been deposed by PW2. PW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 29.1.2013, he received a call at about 12.30 p.m. from the Divisional Office asking him to report before CBI Officials. On that day at 7.00 p.m. he received a
- 16 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 call from the CBI Officer asking him to report in the CBI, Camp Office situated near City Municipal Hospital on the next day at about 6.00 a.m. On the next day at 6.00 a.m., he went to that CBI Camp Office. At that time, CBI Officer introduced his team and one more witness. CBI Officers also introduced the complainants to him. After 10-15 minutes, CBI Officer read over a complaint before him said to have been given by two transporters. He also told that there was a difference of quantum of refund amount and that it required an investigation and he also told that he would inform as to what had to be done subsequently. There were about 3 vehicles at that time. CBI Officials directed him and Sri Mulla to go in the complainant's vehicle to the Toll Plaza Office situated near Shanur. Accordingly, they left from CBI Camp Office at 7.00 a.m. and reached Toll Plaza Office at about 11.30 a.m. CBI Officers had told them to give a Miss call from the mobile, in case the accused does not pay Rs.2,50,000/- each to the complainants. They had also told them that, in case, the accused pays full amount of Rs.2,50,000/- it was not necessary go give miss call. CBI Officers had given a voice recorder to the complainants and they had told to switch on that voice recorder before starting conversation between them and the accused. After reaching the Toll Plaza Office, they were standing near the security gate, on enquiry; they were told that the accused had not yet come to the Office. After 10
- 17 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 minutes, the accused came to the Office. He asked the complainants-Transporters as to why they were standing there. Those Transporters are Hanumesh and Chowhan. Those Transporters told the accused that they wanted to refund the Security amount. At that time, the accused asked those Transporters by point him and Sri Mulla as 'who are they?' They had told those Transporters to tell that they are also the Transporters, in case the accused asks about them. Accordingly, the Transporters told the accused that they are also the Transporters. When the accused asked him as to where was his vehicle, he told that the vehicle was on the way. He also told that there should not be any problem as it had occurred in case of the complainants. Then, the accused took them to his Cabin.
22. Further this witness has stated that accused told the complainants that he had already given Rs.50,000/- to them and that he had to pay balance amount of Rs.2-lakh only. The accused prepared vouchers in this regard and asked the Transporters to put their signatures. In those Vouchers, it was mentioned about receipt of Rs.2,50,000/-. At that time, the complainants told the accused that they had not received Rs.50,000/- and that how it was possible for them to put signatures for receipt of Rs.2,50,000/-. Meanwhile, the accused secured money by using intercom. The accused, then paid Rs.2,00,000/- each to the
- 18 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Transporters. Those Transporters counted that money and found that the said amount was Rs.2-lakh each only. The Transporters told the accused that they would not put signatures to the Vouchers. An argument took place in this regard between them for about 5 minutes. On observing that conversation, he and Sri Mulla came to conclusion that the accused would not pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the Transporters and that the Transporters would not put their signatures and then they gave a miss call to the CBI Officers. Immediately, CBI Officer Sri Ramesh came to that Cabin, Cash was on the table of the accused at that time. Sri Ramesh, CBI Officers, asked the accused as to what was he doing by keeping such cash on his table, at that time, the accused told that he had to pay cash to that Transporters and that he was repaying the same to them. When that CBI Officer enquired Transporters, they told that the accused was asking them to sign receipt for Rs.2,50,000/- but by paying only Rs.2-lakh. At that time, that Officer introduced himself to the accused and also the purpose of his visit. The CBI Officer enquired the accused, accused told at that time that he had already paid Rs.50,000/- to the Transporters and that he was paying the balance amount of Rs.2-lakh to them. When the CBI Officer asked the accused to show receipt for having paid Rs.50,000/-, the accused told that he had no receipt, but he had made a note in a white sheet in this regard. The CBI Officer asked the
- 19 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 accused to produce the Ledger regarding receipt of Rs.2,50,000/-. The accused called the Cashier at that time. The Cashier came there and told that the accused had told him 'there is cash in the Bag, you keep the same with you and return whenever I ask". When the CBI Officer questioned that Cashier as to why he kept that cash without any entry, the Cashier kept silent and told that he followed the instructions of the accused. Then, himself and Sri Mulla went to Toll Office and asked the Officials there about the Registers kept for noting Toll collections. But, there was no entry regarding the Security Deposit pertaining to this case. They told the CBI Officers that the Toll Office is maintaining entries regarding Receipt and Payment of Toll collections, but not regarding Security Deposit. When the CBI Officer questioned the accused, he was telling that he did not commit any lapses. However, at last, at about 4.30-5.00 pm, the accused told the CBI Officers that he would pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the Transporters. The CBI Officers got counted the amount which was on the Table of the accused from him and Sri Mulla. Then, they found that the said amount was Rs.2-lakh only. The said proceedings were recorded by the CBI Officials. Ex.P1 contains the said proceedings. Himself and Sri Mulla put their signatures to that record. Ex.P3 also contains the signatures of himself and Sri Mulla.
- 20 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
23. Further this witness has deposed in his evidence that except the said amount of Rs.2-lakh, which was on the Table of the accused, there was no other money at that place. After completing the proceedings, they asked the accused to check them for any other amount, but the accused did not check them, then they themselves showed their pockets to the accused. After they returned from the Cash Branch after checking the registers, the accused paid Rs.2-lakh to the complainants. At that time, the accused made endorsements as per Ex.P1(c) & Ex.P3(c). A search was also made in the Cabin. A search list was prepared by the CBI Officers in their presence. Search list is marked at Ex.P4. During the said proceedings, voice recorder was played. The contents so played was transferred to a CD there itself. The said CD was sealed in their presence. Himself, Sri Mulla and Sri Ramesh signed on that sealed CD. All the proceedings were reduced to writing as per Ex.P5. A sample wax seal was prepared and his signature and the signature of Mulla were taken to that document as per Ex.P6. The specimen handwritings and also the specimen signatures of the accused were taken by the CBI Officials. Those documents bear his signatures and also the signatures of Sri Mulla. He identifies specimen handwritings of the accused as well as witnesses as per Exs.P7 to P18. The specimen signatures of the witnesses are marked as per Exs.P19 to P21, P23 and P24.
- 21 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
24. This evidence of PWs.12, 16 and 2 is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW21, Sri Ramesh, who has conducted trap. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.1.2013 at 6.00 a.m., PW12 and PW16 came to their Camp Office. At the same time, witness PW2 - Krishnamurthy and CW10- Bandanwaj R Mulla also came there. He briefed the CBI Team and the witnesses in the presence of PW12 and PW16 about the complaint given by PW12. He instructed PW12, PW16 and the witnesses to give a miss call to him in case the accused pays only Rs.2- lakhs, but obtained signature on the receipt for Rs.2.5 lakhs. He also instructed them not to give miss call, if the accused pays entire Rs.2.5 lakhs. He gave a voice recorder also to PW12 instructing him about its operation and to switch on before entering the office of the accused and to record the conversation between him and the accused.
25. Further he has deposed in his evidence that himself, PW12, PW16, witnesses and his team left their Office by 8 am to go to office of the accused in 3 vehicles. He asked PW2 and PW16 to accompany PW12, rest of witnesses and their team followed PW12 and his team in 2 vehicles. Before leaving the Office, they all checked themselves and they did not carry any cash except ID card and keys with them. After reaching a place near Hospet, PW2 informed them
- 22 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 through phone that he and his team were proceeding towards Shahapur Tollgate No.2. After some time, again PW2 informed him through phone that they were at a distance of two k.m. from that tollgate. At that time, he instructed PW2 to inform PW12 to switch on the voice recorder before entering the Office of the accused and also give miss call only if the accused pays Rs.2-lakhs by taking receipt for Rs.2.5 lakhs and that in case, if the accused pays entire amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs, there was no need to give a miss call. Their team was waiting by the side of Highway for the miss call of PW12 and his team. At about 12.35 pm, they received miss call from PW12, he informed the same to his team and he directed them to follow him. They all went to Toll Office and enquired with the person, who was in the gate, about the Office of the accused. They were told by that person that the accused was in the first floor of the Office. They all went to the Cabin of the accused. PW12 and PW16 were found sitting in front of one person and PW2 and witness Mulla were sitting behind PW12 and PW16. On enquiry, PW12 told him that the said person was the accused. He asked the accused as to what was going on in that Office at that time. Then the accused told that PW12, PW16 and others were the Transporters and that they had come to take back refund of the deposit. He introduced himself and his team to the accused. He questioned the accused as to how much he repaid to PW12. He told that he paid
- 23 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Rs.2.5 lakhs each to PW12 and also to PW16. He asked PW12 as to how much amount he received from the accused, for which, PW12 told that, the accused refunded him only Rs.2-lakhs to him and PW16 and that he obtained their signatures on the receipts, which were given to them earlier by the accused, showing that they had received Rs.2.5 lakhs each from him. He asked PW2 and witness Mulla as to what conspired in that Office between PW12, PW16 and the accused. Then they told that PW12 and P16 received Rs.2-lakhs each from the accused and that when PW12 and PW16 questioned the accused about remaining Rs.50,000/- each, the accused told that the said Rs.50,000/- each was paid to NHAI Officials- P.D. and Sri Anil Bhaskar. He enquired the accused to name those officials, to whom he paid Rs.50,000/- each. Then the accused told him that he had already refunded Rs.50,000/- each to PW12 and PW16. Then he asked the accused to show the receipts for such payment, for which, the accused told that he had no receipts. PW12 and PW16 were holding cash with them. He asked them to count the same. On counting, it was found that the said cash was Rs.2- lakh each only. The denomination of notes of that cash was reduced into writing by the witnesses on the back portion of the receipts. Ex.P1 and P3 are identified as receipts. PWs.2, 12, 16 and the witnesses put their signatures to the said records.
- 24 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
26. Further this witness in examination-in-chief has stated that PW12 returned voice recorder to him. The said recorder was played in his laptop and contents of that recorder were transferred to a CD. CD was sealed in the presence of the accused. Witnesses, PW12 and PW16, they all put their signatures on that seal. He identifies the MO1 cover containing CD and also identifies said CD as MO2. Further he deposed that they started to prepare the proceedings of the incident through his laptop. Print out of that proceedings was taken in the Printer of the accused as per Ex.P5. After completion of the above proceedings, he left for conducting searches in the Office premises of NHAI and authorized Inspector Sri A.Inbazhagan to conduct search of Office premises of the accused.
27. In the cross-examination of PWs.12, 16, 2 and 21, nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony. And the evidence of PW1 discloses that on 12.1.2013, Finance Manager - Sri Dinesh Patil - CW12 of their Company was on leave. Himself and CW14 were on Additional charge of the work of CW12. On that day, in the afternoon, the accused handed over a cover to him in the presence of CW14. At that time, the accused told that the said cover contained Security Deposit money and requested him to hand over it to Sri Dinesh Patil. He kept that cover containing consisting of money in the locker and informed about the same to Sri Dinesh Patil through
- 25 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 phone. He did not check as to how much money was in that cover.
28. PW3 has deposed that from 12.1.2013 to 15.1.2013, he was on leave. PW1 Thanraj and Sri Sandeep Chowdhary were in charge of his duties. On 12.1.2013, when he was going in a Train, he received a phone call from Thanraj. He informed that accused had given Rs.2-lakh to him. He also told him that the accused had informed him to hand over that money to him after his return from leave. On 16.1.2013, when he returned, Sri Thanaraj handed over Rs.2-lakh to him, which was said to given to him by the accused. He had kept that amount in the Office Cash Chest. From 13.1.2013 to 20.1.2013, the accused was also on leave. After his return on 21.1.2013, he handed over Rs.2,00,000/- to him. On 24.1.2013, accused gave Rs.4-lakh to him. He had kept that amount in his Office Cash Chest. On 30.1.2013 at about 11- 11.30 a.m., the accused called him through intercom and asked to return the amount of Rs.4-lakh to him. Then, he handed over that amount to the accused.
29. PW4 - Sandeep Choudari, has deposed in his evidence that on 12.1.2013 at about 10.30 or 11 a.m., he had been to Cash Branch of their Toll Plaza. On that day, Sri Dinesh Patil was on leave. Sri Thanraj was in-charge of the work of Sri Dinesh Patil. At that time, the accused handed over a cover consisting of cash of Rs.2-lakh to Sri Thanraj. The accused told Sri Thanjraj to hand over the cash to
- 26 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Dinesh Patil after his return from leave. He learnt that the said amount was deposit amount relating to ODC Vehicle.
30. PW5 deposes regarding Agreement from the owner of ODC regarding his liability to compensate for damage, if any occurred, due to passing of ODC, i.e. as per Ex.P27 and he identifies Ex.P28 file in respect of said Agreement.
31. PW6 - Anil Ramachandra Baraskar, who has deposed with respect to procedure to be followed in respect of passing of ODC.
32. PW7 - Rajesh K. deposed with respect to Call Details Register Extract pertaining to telephone No.9964478520.
33. PW8 - Subhash Chand Jindal, Official of NHAI, has deposed that there was no procedure or guidelines at the relevant of time for collecting Security Deposit by way of cash for the purpose of transporting ODC on National Highways, but there was a procedure to collect Security Deposit by way of Bank Guarantee.
34. PW9 - Vishal Gupta also deposed that there was no provision for collecting Security Deposit by the Concessionaries for passing ODC on National Highways.
35. PW10 - Kiran Babu, has deposed that he has handed over a letter to CBI Officers stating that there were no prescribed guidelines regarding
- 27 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 collection of Deposit from Over Dimensional Carriages and Over Weight Carriages, as per Ex.P44
36. PW11 - Krishnamurthy, is the Proprietor of Vinayaka Translines and he has fully supported the evidence of PW12.
37. PW13 - D.Shridhar, is the Sub-Inspector, CBI,ACB. He has deposed with respect to preparing of complaint of Sri Hanumesh as per Ex.P49.
38. PW14 - K.V.Nagaraj Gupta is the Manager of Vinayaka Translines. His evidence is fully corroborated with the evidence of PW12.
39. PW15 - Venugopal is the Clerk, Vinayaka Translines and he has deposed with respect to handing over Ex.P50 - letter.
40. PW17 - Sebastin Edassery, he is the person who has handed over personal particulars form containing handwriting of accused as per Exs.P51 and P52.
41. PW18 - Venkatasubba Rao, has deposed with respect to E-mail and Attachment as per Exs.P53 and P54 and the said reply and attachment as per Exs.P55 and P56 and in the said reply request has been made to deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs in their account.
42. PW19 - K.Ramachandran was Driver of the Vehicle, who has deposed with respect to insisting for depositing Rs.2.5 lakh as Security for passing of ODC.
43. PW20 - T.Rajashekara, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, has deposed with respect
- 28 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 to further investigation done by him after taken up further investigation from Sri Ramesh.
44. PW22 - K.V.Ravi Kumar is the Assistant Director at CFSL, Hyderabad. He has deposed with respect to examination of the questioned documents.
45. In the cross-examination of the above said witnesses, nothing has been elicited to discard their testimony. On perusal of the above said oral evidence and documents produced by the prosecution, it is evident that accused, who has collected Rs.2.5 lakhs each from PWs.12 and 16 as Security Deposit for passing ODC and after said vehicles were passed through National Highway, when he has to return Rs.2.5 lakh each to PWs.12 and 16 he has repaid Rs.2,00,000/- each to them and thereby accused has not refunded entire amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs, which was collected as Security Deposit from PWs.12 and 16 and the evidence of PWs.12 and 16 clearly goes to show that accused has retained amount of Rs.50,000/- from each of them stating that this has to be paid to Highway officials of NHAI. Though accused has collected Rs.2.5 lakh each from PWs.12 and 16, he has not refunded the said amount and it has been brought out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents that though accused has taken signatures of PWs.12 and 16 that Rs.2.5 lakh each was paid to them, in fact, he has refunded only Rs.2-lakh to them and this fact has been established
- 29 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 by the evidence of PW2 as well as PW21. As such prosecution has proved that accused has not refunded the entire amount of Rs.2.5 lakh collected from PWs.12 and 16 and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/S.420 IPC. Since it has been brought out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that accused has told that said amount of Rs.50,000/- each will have to be paid to Highway Officials of NHAI, accused has committed the offence u/S.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and I am unable to accept the argument of learned Counsel for accused and I am constrained to accept the argument of learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the 'affirmative'.
46. Point No.2 :- In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :-
: ORDER :
Accused found guilty u/S.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/S.420 IPC r/w. Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Sentence will be passed on hearing the accused.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in the open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2015.) (K.H.MALLAPPA) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
- 30 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 : HEARD REGARDING QUESTION OF SENTENCE : The learned Counsel for accused drew the attention of the Court to the offence of the prosecution that accused has utilized Rs.50,000/- and he prays to impose minimum sentence by taking lenient view.
The leaned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that since accused has committed the offence punishable u/S.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, maximum sentence is to be imposed.
Taking into consideration of the offence committed by the accused and the nature in which he has committed the offence and taking into consideration of the age of the accused, it is just and proper to impose reasonable sentence for both the offences and I proceed to pass the following:-
: ORDER :
I found accused guilty u/S.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/S.420 IPC r/w. Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence u/S.420 I.P.C.
Further accused is convicted for a period of one year for the offence punishable u/S.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of both the counts, accused is to
- 31 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months each.
Both the sentences shall run
concurrently.
M.Os.1 and 2 are ordered to be
destroyed being worthless, after the appeal time.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in the open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2015.) (K.H.MALLAPPA) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE DATES OF EXAMINATION:
P.W.1 Sri.R.Thanaraj C.W.11
P.W.2 Sri.Krishna Murthy C.W.9
P.W.3 Sri.Dinesh Patil C.W.12
P.W.4 Sri.Sandeep C.W.14
Chowdary
P.W.5 Sri.Samunder Singh C.W.16
P.W.6 Sri.Anil R.Barakan C.W.17
P.W.7 Sri.Rajesh K. C.W.18
P.W.8 Sri.Subhash Chand C.W.19
- 32 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
Jindal
P.W.9 Sri.Vishal Gupta C.W.20
P.W.10 Sri.G.V.M.Kiran C.W.22
Babu
P.W.11 Sri.Krishna Murthy C.W.6
P.W.12 Sri.B.R.Hanumesh C.W.24
P.W.13 Sri.Sridhar C.W.28
P.W.14 Sri.K.V.Nagaraja C.W.33
Gupta
P.W.15 Sri.Venugopal C.W.7
P.W.16 Sri.Bhaskar Venkata C.W.33
Rao Chawan
P.W.17 Sri.Sebastian C.W.30
P.W.18 Sri.Venkata Subba C.W.25
Rao
P.W.19 Sri.K.Ramachandran C.W.32
P.W.20 Sri.T.Rajashekar C.W.27
2. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
- Nil -
3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex. Description of Marked
No. Document through
07-10-2014
Ex.P.1 Receipt dated 01-01- P.W.1
2013.
- 33 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the P.W.1
Accused.
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of the P.W.1
Accused.
Ex.P.1(c) Endorsement of the P.W.1
Accused in his
handwriting on Ex.P.1.
Ex.P.1(d) Handwriting of the P.W.1
Accused.
Ex.P.1(e) Writing of the Accused. P.W.2
Ex.P.1(f) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.1(g) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.1(h) Signature of Sri.Bhaskar P.W.12 Chowhan, identified by P.W.12.
Ex.P.1(i) Signature of P.W.12. P.W.12 Ex.P.1(j) Signature of P.W.12 P.W.12 Ex.P.1(k) Signature of P.W.16. P.W.16 Ex.P.2 Receipt dated 01-01- P.W.1 2013.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the P.W.1 Accused.
Ex.P.2(b) Specimen handwriting P.W.1 of the Accused.
Ex.P.3 Receipt dated 24-01- P.W.2 2013.
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of the P.W.1 Accused.
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of the P.W.1 Accused.
Ex.P.3(c) Endorsement of the P.W.1
- 34 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
Accused in his
handwriting on Ex.P.1.
Ex.P.3(d) Handwriting of the P.W.1
Accused.
Ex.P.3(e) Writings of the Accused. P.W.2
Ex.P.3(f) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.3(g) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.3(h) Signature of P.W.12. P.W.12 Ex.P.3(i) Signature of P.W.12 P.W.12 Ex.P.3(j) Signature of P.W.16. P.W.16 Ex.P.3(k) Signature of P.W.16. P.W.16 Ex.P.4 Search List dated 30- P.W.2 01-2013.
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.4(d) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.5 Proceedings dated 30- P.W.2 01-2013.
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.5(c) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.5(d) Signature of P.W.12 P.W.12 Ex.P.5(e) Signature of P.W.16. P.W.16 Ex.P.6 Sample Seal. P.W.2 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2
- 35 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ex.P.7 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.7(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.8 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.8(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.9 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.9(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.10 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.10(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.11 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.11(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.11(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.12 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2
- 36 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.12(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.13 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.13(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.14 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.14(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.15 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.15(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.15(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.16 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.16(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.17 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.17(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.17(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20
- 37 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ex.P.18 Specimen Writing of the P.W.2 Accused.
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.18(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.18(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.19 Specimen signature of P.W.2 the Accused.
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.19(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.19(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.20 Specimen signature of P.W.2 the Accused.
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.20(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.20(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.21 Specimen signature of P.W.2 the Accused.
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.21(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.21(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.22 Specimen signature of P.W.2 the Accused.
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.22(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.23 Specimen signature of P.W.2 the Accused.
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2
- 38 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ex.P.23(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.23(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.24 Specimen signature of P.W.2 the Accused.
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.2. P.W.2 Ex.P.24(b) Signature of Mr.Mulla. P.W.2 Ex.P.24(c) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.25 Covering Letter dated P.W.3 03-04-2013.
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.3. P.W.3 Ex.P.26 Attested copy of Chest P.W.3 Money Register.
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.3. P.W.3 10-10-2014 Ex.P.27 Surety Agreement P.W.5 dated 23-11-2012.
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.5. P.W.5 Ex.P.27(b) Signature of P.W.5 Mr.Surinder Juneja.
Ex.P.28 Receipt Memo dated 08- P.W.5 05-2013.
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.5. P.W.5 Ex.P.29 Guidelines with regard P.W.6 to movement of ODCs issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, in the form of Letter dated 24-01- 2013.
- 39 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
Ex.P.30 Report submitted by the P.W.6
GMR Company.
Ex.P.31 Agreement dated 01- P.W.6
01-2013.
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.6. P.W.6 Ex.P.31(b) Signature of P.W.16. P.W.16 Ex.P.32 Surety Agreement P.W.6 dated 29-01-2013.
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.6. P.W.6 Ex.P.32(b) Signature of P.W.12. P.W.12 13-10-2014 Ex.P.33 Letter dated 15-03- P.W.7 2013 written by CBI Officers to Sri.Gurudatta.
Ex.P.34 Call Details in respect of P.W.7 Mobile No.9964478520.
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of P.W.7. P.W.7 Ex.P.35 Copy of Mobile Prepaid P.W.7 Subscriber's Enrollment Form.
Ex.P.36 Copy of Voters' Identity P.W.7 Card.
Ex.P.37 Copy of H.P.Gas P.W.7
Receipt.
Ex.P.38 Certificate regarding P.W.7
certification of Exs.P.33
to P.37.
Ex.P.39 Covering Letter dated P.W.7
15-02-2013.
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of P.W.7. P.W.7
- 40 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 Ex.P.40 Copy of relevant portion P.W.8 of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Ex.P.41 Copy of Model P.W.8
Concession Agreement.
Ex.P.42 Copy of relevant portion P.W.8
of NHAI Works Manual,
2006.
Ex.P.43 Extract of Concession P.W.9
Agreement dated 22-
03-2010.
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of P.W.9. P.W.9 25-11-2014 Ex.P.44 Letter of GMR Company P.W.10 dated 20-06-2013 addressed to IO of CBI.
Ex.P.45 Receipt Memo dated 20- P.W.10 06-2013 regarding handing over File to CBI Officers.
Ex.P.46 Entire File (consisting of P.W.10 159 Sheets).
26-11-2014 Ex.P.47 Document containing P.W.11 details of ODC vehicles and also their movements.
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of P.W.11 P.W.11 27-11-2014 Ex.P.48 Letter dated 24-01- P.W.12 2013 of the NHAI granting permission for passing of ODC.
Ex.P.49 Complaint (3 Sheets) P.W.12
- 41 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of P.W.12 P.W.12
28-11-2014
Ex.P.50 Letter of Sri.Vinayaka P.W.14
Translines dated 14-01-
2013 addressed the
NHAI.
31-11-2014
Ex.P.51 Personal Particulars P.W.17
Form containing details
in respect of the
Accused maintained in
M/s.GMR Company
(4 Sheets).
Ex.P.52 Receipt Memo dated 29- P.W.17
01-2013.
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of P.W.17. P.W.17 Ex.P.52(b) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.53 E-mail dated 11-12- P.W.18 2012 sent by the Accused, received by P.W.18.
Ex.P.54 An Attachment to P.W.18
Ex.P.53.
Ex.P.55 Copy of e-mail sent by P.W.18
P.W.18 to the Accused
on 13-12-2012.
Ex.P.56 Copy of e-mail sent by P.W.18
the Accused.
01-01-2015 P.W.20
Ex.P.57 Order of the learned P.W.20
XVII ACMM, Bengaluru,
dated 11-03-2013
authorizing P.W.20 to
conduct further
- 42 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013
investigation.
Ex.P.58 Customer Relationship P.W.20
Form (3 Sheets) of
M/s.AIRTEL Company.
Ex.P.59 Copy of Letter dated P.W.20
04-12-2010 of M/s.GMR
Company addressed to
M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited
requesting to activate
Mobile No.9686999563.
Ex.P.60 Receipt Memo issued by P.W.20
P.W.20 for having
received Exs.P.58, 59
and the Letter 26-02-
2013 from the Nodal
Officer of M/s. AIRTEL
Company.
Ex.P.60(a) Signature of P.W.20. P.W.20 Ex.P.60(b) Signature of C.W.3- P.W.20 Mr.Stanley Agnelo, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.61 Letter dated 03-04- P.W.20 2013 of M/s.GOHHHPL addressed to the CBI.
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of
Sri.Fakrudin Sab.
Ex.P.62 Attendance Register P.W.20
Extract.
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex. Description of Document Marked through No.
- 43 - Spl.C.C.No.231/2013 10-10-2014 Ex.D.1 The Gazette of India dated P.W.5 08-06-2012.
Ex.D.2 Letter dated 06-12-2012. P.W.5 Ex.D.3 Letter dated 01-01-2013. P.W.6 Ex.D.4 Letter dated 23-01-2013. P.W.6 Ex.D.5 Letter dated 06-12-2012. P.W.16 Ex.D.6 Letter dated 06-12-2012. P.W.16
5. LIST OF MATERAIL OBJECTS MARKED:
M.O. Description of M.O. Marked
through
No.
07-10-2014
M.O.1 Compact Disk (CD). P.W.2
M.O.1(a) Signature of the witness. P.W.2
M.O.1(b) Signature of Sri.Ramesh. P.W.2
M.O.1(c) Signature of Sri.Mulla. P.W.2
27-11-2014
M.O.2 Compact Disk. P.W.1
(K.H.MALLAPPA)
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.