Bangalore District Court
Cid, E.O.D. (Ramamurthy Nagar Ps) vs A1 John Michale on 16 March, 2024
1 Spl.C.No.94/2021
KABC010031892021
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-48)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B. ,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)
C/c of XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48)
SPL.CC.NO.94/2021
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka by
Ramamurthy Nagar P.S.,
Bengaluru/ CID, Bengaluru.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. John Michael
S/o. Yesudas
Aged 40 years,
R/at. No.3, Behind Indian Gas Godown,
Jinke Thimmana Halli,
Varanasi Road, T.C.Palya,
Bengaluru - 36.
2 Spl.C.No.94/2021
(By Sri.SSN, Advocate)
1.Date of Commission of Offence : 2010-2011
2. Date of Report of Offence : 03.03.2011
3. Arrest of Accused : Accused is on bail
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Tapan Bhandari
5. Date of recording of Evidence : 27.05.2017
6. Date of closing Evidence : 05.01.2024
7. Offences complained of : 419, 420, 468, 471,
201 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : As per the final order
(Santhosh Gajanan Bhat)
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
C/c of XLVII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Judge forCBI
Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police (Economic Offences Cell) CID, Bengaluru, has filed charge sheet against the 3 Spl.C.No.94/2021 accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 and Sec.201 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Mr. John Michael had befriended the complainant i.e., Sreedharan N and had got himself introduced as the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri. Dharam Singh and had stated to him that he would provide him with sites at reasonable rates and also help in getting allotment of sites from Banglore Development Authority (hereinafter referred as BDA) and as such, he had induced PW.1 Sreedharan to part with a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- to him for allotment of site through BDA and subsequently he had met PW.1 Sreedharan at Taj Residence Hotel and had provided him with a registered Sale Deed which consisted of all the details except the signature of PW.1 Sreedharna. On enquiry being made by him, accused Jhon Micheal had stated that he had used his influence to get the sale deed 4 Spl.C.No.94/2021 executed in the absence of the beneficiary and had requested him to affix his signature. It was also being stated by him that, by exercising his influence, he had obtained the site allotted from BDA under the discretionary quota of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and as such, the Sale Deed was also registered in the absence of the PW-1 Sreedharan. It is also narrated in the complaint which was lodged by PW-2 Tapan Bhandari through E-mail that he had got in touch with accused person through his common friend PW-1 Sreedharan and on noticing that even PW-1 had handed over the amount as requested by accused John Micheal, he too had given a sum of Rs.30,82,032/-. It is further narrated in the complaint that since they were handed over with the allotment letter, lease cum agreement to sale and alleged registered sale deeds, they were under the impression that indeed the sites were allotted to them by BDA. However, it is narrated that, during the month of January, 2019 to September, 2010, the accused was not 5 Spl.C.No.94/2021 being able to be contacted and as such, PW.1 Sreedharan grew suspicious towards his conduct and had visited the office of the Sub-Registrar at Bengaluru to verity the veracity of the Sale Deed handed over to him. At that point of time, he came to know that the documents which were furnished by the accused person were all forged documents and being flabbergasted by the same he had lodged initially complaint through E-mail as per EX P9 to the Commissioner of Police. Subsequently, PW-1 Sreedharan had visited the concerned police station and had handed over the documents to the concerned police as he was in receipt of the documents of Complainant PW-2 Tapan Bhandari, who was working abroad at that point of time. On the receipt of the said complaint, the FIR came to be registered and investigation of the offences had commenced.
3. The Investigating Officer, on the receipt of the written information and after the registration of the FIR, had commenced the investigation and had recorded the 6 Spl.C.No.94/2021 statement of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer had also secured the presence of the accused and in fact, he was led to a place where the accused had allegedly burnt the Sale Deeds. Necessary mahazar was drawn at that place and the Laptop and Printer, which were allegedly used by accused to create the aforesaid forged documents, were also recovered during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer had sent necessary requisition to various offices of the Sub- Registrars at Bengaluru, wherein the alleged Sale Deeds came to be executed and had received necessary information that the documents which were furnished by the accused person were all forged and fabricated. Later on, the accused who was remanded to judicial custody was secured to the Police Custody and with the permission of the Court specimen signature of the accused and also his specimen writing came to be collected by the Investigating Agency. The Investigating Officer had sent the specimen signature along with the 7 Spl.C.No.94/2021 alleged Sale Deeds which he had furnished for the purpose of ascertaining the signatures and had found with the specimen signatures tallied with that of the signatures found in the Sale Deeds and on perusing the writings made on the sale deed had arrived at the conclusion that indeed the accused had affixed signature on the sale deeds. On perusal of the materials and also the statement of the witnesses which he had recorded during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had arrived to a conclusion that the guilt of the accused was made out during the course of investigation. Hence, he had preferred to file charge-sheet.
4. Initially, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned 1st Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, against the accused person. The Learned Magistrate, on perusal of the materials had found necessary materials to take cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs. 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. There after necessary summons came to be issued and accused 8 Spl.C.No.94/2021 was secured before the Court who was admitted to bail and was enlarged on bail subsequently. The court had proceeded to record the plea of the accused for the aforesaid offences, for which, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On completion of the statutory bound obligations, the Learned I Addl. Magistrate at Bengaluru, had commenced the trial of the case and proceeded to record evidence of the witnesses. The complainant had got himself examined as PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and another witness was examined as PW1 Sreedharan. However, at that point of time, a requisition came to be filed by the prosecution contending that a connected case was also filed U/Sec.3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short referred as "PMLA") before the Special Court at Bengaluru. Since the offence which was being tried by the Learned Magistrate was a predicate offence, it was requested to transfer the aforesaid case to the Special Court itself. Accordingly, 9 Spl.C.No.94/2021 the file was transmitted to the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge for passing necessary orders. On the receipt of the same and on perusing the records, the case came to be transferred to the above Court. It is relevant to note that, initially, the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge had passed an order on 16.10.2020, wherein, it indicates that the connected case was also pending on the file of this Court and accordingly the above case came to be transferred to this court. However, the case was not transmitted immediately and subsequently, one more order sheet was put up on 01.2.2021 and on 6.2.2021, again an order of transfer was made to this Court, since the connected case was pending. At that point of time, it was mentioned in the order sheet that cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.3, 4 and 8 of PMLA. At this juncture, it is required to clarify that the cognizance of the offence can be taken only once and as per the records and also the allegations leveled in the charge sheet it is noticed that, initially the 10 Spl.C.No.94/2021 cognizance was taken for the offences U/Secs.465, 468, 481, 419 and 420 of IPC. Subsequently, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed necessary memo to clarify in this regard, for which, the Learned Counsel for the accused has also consented by submitting that the second order of taking cognizance again under PMLA was only due to typographical error. Be that as it may, the case came to be transferred to this Court and as per the provision of Sec.44 (2) of PMLA; the proceedings could be continued from the stage at which it was transferred. It is relevant to note at this juncture that the connected case which was pending before this Court were filed by the Directorate of Enforcement Authority in Spl.C.No132/2015. That being the case, the other witnesses were also summoned and the prosecution has examined totally 15 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.15 and Ex.P.1 to P.32 was marked and Mo's 1 to Mo's 3 were identified and marked on their behalf. 11 Spl.C.No.94/2021
6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused came to be recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he had denied all the incriminating materials available against him. The accused has not preferred to lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who is appearing in the above case. She has argued that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and it is her contention that PW-15 R.Mohan Kumar has specifically deposed the manner in which the accused had induced the complainant to part with his valuable property i.e., in the form of money and had delivered a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- in his favour. It is also being argued that the accused had even collected a sum of Rs.30,82,032/- from PW2-Tapan Bhandari, who was the friend of the complainant and whom he had induced. The evidence of PW3 Chanda Bhandari, who is the wife of PW2-Tapan 12 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Bhandari, would also fortify the case of the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the amount was transferred into the Bank account of the accused-John Michael as per Ex.P.7, which would indicate of receiving the amount from PW.2. It is her contention that when the case of prosecution is resting upon circumstantial evidence or on an allegation of receiving illegally some amount by accused person, the court cannot assume to obtain a direct and clinching evidence. By pointing out the same it is her submission that the alleged Sale Deeds which were produced before the Court were all found to be forged and fabricated one and also the evidence of Sub-Registrars, who were examined before the Court would indicate the said aspect.
8. Lastly, it has been argued that the subsequent signatures which were sent to the FSL completely tallied with the document executed by accused-John Michael. Pointing out all these aspects, it 13 Spl.C.No.94/2021 has been argued that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, she has sought for convicting the accused person.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove their case. It is argued at length that as per the complaint itself, it indicates that the complainant had handed over a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- by way of cash to accused person. However, it has been elucidated during the cross examination about the educational qualifications of complainant-Sreedharan and also of PW2-Tapan Bhandari. By pointing out the same it has been submitted that how an intelligent and educated person would part with hefty sum of amount on the promises being made by a stranger. It is also been submitted that, at no stretch of imagination, the person would part with more than Rs.11.00 lakhs and also the further allegation indicates that the mother of PW1 has also parted a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- and further the 14 Spl.C.No.94/2021 evidence of PW3, Chanda Bhandari is not corroborating with the evidence of PW2-Tapan Bhandari, wherein she has deposed that she also had paid certain extent of amount to the accused person. It is also been argued at length that the mahazar under which the specimen signature was collected was also not in accordance with law and the Investigating Officer should have obtained written consent from the accused person. If at all, he had obtained his signature during the course of custodial interrogation, the same should have been made in accordance with law, which was not followed by the investigating agency. The learned counsel for accused had also argued that, obtaining of signature of the accused person while in custody in the absence of independent witness would cause a serious cloud of doubt over the case of the prosecution. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 1991 SCC Online DEL- 15 Spl.C.No.94/2021 217 Mukimuddin Vs. State, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the specimen signature of the petitioner cannot be obtained in the absence of any independent witness and that too when he was in custody. The Hon'ble High Court, by pointing out the same, had held that the said admission was in admissible. By relying upon the said authority, it has been argued at length that the very submission of report by the Forensic Expert cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence and in fact, it should have been supported and co-operated by the evidence of other witnesses. Since the prosecution had not led any other material evidence in the above case, the learned counsel for accused has sought for providing him the benefit of doubt, and accordingly has sought for his acquittal.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. The points that would arise for my consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused 16 Spl.C.No.94/2021 had impersonated himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri Dharam Singh and had induced the complainant Sreedharan and Tapan Bhandari to part with a huge sum of Rs.30,82,032/- from PW2, Tapan Bhandari and a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- from PW1-Sreedharan in the guise of allotting a BDA site and thereby committed an offence. Punishable under Section 419 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, during the period 2006-2007, the accused had got himself introduced as a Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka-Sri Dharam Singh to PW-1 to PW-3 and made them to believe that he had political and administrative influence and would get them allotted a BDA site under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and had furnished a false and fabricated document and induced them to deliver a sum of Rs.30,82,032/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, during the aforesaid period, the accused- John Michael, by making false promises that he was the Personal Secretary of the then 17 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri Dharam Singh and under the guise of providing an allotment of BDA sites under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister had created documents pertaining to allotment of site by BDA with a clear knowledge that the said document would be used for cheating and thereby committed an offence under section 468 of IPC?
4. Whether the accused, on the aforesaid date, place and time, by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri. Dharam Singh had made PW1 Sreedharan and PW2 Tapan Bhandari to believe that he had political and administrative influence in obtaining the site under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister and by furnishing false and fabricated documents with a dishonest intention had made them to deliver Rs.30,82,032/- knowing that the document which were produced was a forged one and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 471 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused, by impersonating to be the then Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of 18 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh, and with an intention to screen from legal punishment had destroyed the seal and other documents and instrumentality which were used for forging the documents and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 201 of IPC?
6. What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: In the Affirmative Point No.6: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
12. Point Nos.1 to 5: Before adumbrating on the contentions urged by the parties, the facts which are in narrow compass are that the accused had got himself introduced as the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri Dharam Singh and befriended 19 Spl.C.No.94/2021 with PW1 Sreedharan, who was assured to get allotment of BDA site on payment of Rs.11,13,004/- and subsequently had furnished a fabricated and forged Sale Deed purporting to be a genuine one and through him, he had contacted PW2-Tapan Bhandari and had induced him to make a payment of Rs.30,82,032/- and he was also provided with a fabricated and forged Sale Deed. However, subsequently, the witnesses came to know about its veracity when they visited the office of the Sub- Registrar to ascertain its genuineness. The complainant PW-2 Tapan Bhandari had filed written information through E-mail to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru since he was working abroad at that point of time and the documents were handed over by PW-1 Sreedharan to the concerned police and later the investigation had commenced and on its completion, it was found that necessary incriminating materials were available against the accused person and the offences alleged against him 20 Spl.C.No.94/2021 were proved during the course of investigation. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed.
13. Before adverting to the above, the entire evidence produced in this case is required to be looked into.
14. PW1-N Sreedharan has deposed that, he was working as the Associate Vice President of HSBC Bank between the period 2004 to 2016 and he came to know the accused person through the Sales Officer working in his branch by name, Anthony who had introduced accused as the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Dharam Singh. It is also been deposed that the accused had assured them to get a site allotted from BDA under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and had collected a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- and another sum of Rs.11,13,004/- from his mother. It is also been narrated that he had introduced PW2, Tapan Bhandari to the accused person, who had represented himself to be the Personal 21 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Secretary of the then Chief Minister and had induced PW2 Tapan Bhandari to handover a sum of Rs.30,82,032/- to the accused-John Michael towards allotment of BDA site. Subsequently, a letter was issued from BDA with respect to the allotment of site, and lastly he had met accused at Taj Residence Hotel, wherein he had delivered him with the Sale Deed and he had requested him to affix signature on the same. Believing his words he has accepted the same and subsequently on enquiry he came to know that the Sale Deeds which were produced to him were false and fabricated one. During the course of his cross examination, he has deposed that for the last 29 years he was residing at Bengaluru and was working at HSBC Bank in various capacities. It is his evidence that wife of PW2 Tapan Bhandari and CW6 was not an employee of their Bank. He has also deposed that he had applied for BDA site in the year 2004, 2005 and had deposited Rs.32,000/- and Rs.52,000/- as an advance amount to BDA. However, for 22 Spl.C.No.94/2021 assurance of allotment of site, subsequently he had paid nearly Rs.10.00 lakhs in cash to the accused person. It is his evidence that, out of the proceeds which he had received from the selling his ancestral property at Andhra Pradesh he had paid the amount. He has deposed that one Vamshi Anand was not known to him personally, but he was introduced to him as Secretary of Government of Karnataka Treasury.
15. PW2, Tapan Bhandari has also deposed that he was assured by accused of providing an allotment of BDA site under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and was requested to pay a sum of Rs.30,82,032/- in cash. However, he had paid Rs.6.80 lakhs through cheque and balance amount in cash to the accused person. It is his evidence that the receipt of the amount was acknowledged by the accused person and later on he was furnished with the allotment letter, Sale Agreement and Sale Deed. Subsequently in the year 2011, when he had proposed to build a small house in 23 Spl.C.No.94/2021 the said site, he came to know with respect to the details of the property that it was of a forged and fake document. He had produced the allotment letter which was marked as Ex- P1, Lease cum agreement to sale, two registered sale deeds, intimation issued for payment of stamp duty Bank account extract and covering letter and the said documents were all marked as EX P2 to ExP8 respectively. It is his further deposed by him that the accused had also got a sale deed executed in the name of his wife. During the course of cross examination, he has deposed that he was working at HSBC and later on he was transferred to Saudi Arabia. It is his evidence that he had not obtained any building plan from the concerned authority, and at that point of time itself, he had made an enquiry from the concerned authorities with respect to the veracity of the documents and came to know that it was a forged document.
16. PW3, Chanda Bhandari has also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW2 Tapan Bhandari 24 Spl.C.No.94/2021 and during the course of her cross examination she has deposed that she gave a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs directly to the accused and her husband had a transaction with the accused. Lastly, she has admitted that she was deposing before the court on the instructions of her husband.
17. PW.4 Basappa S. is the retired Deputy Secretary of BDA, who has deposed that certain documents were sent for verification and on examination of the same, he found that the allotment letter and lease- cum-sale agreement at Ex.P.1 and ExP.2 were not issued by their Department and accordingly he answered as per Ex.P.11 Letter.
18. PW.5 H.C. Lokesh, was the Sub-Registrar at Yelahanka Sub-Registrar Office and has deposed that, a Sale Deed pertaining to land in Sy.No.3/1 was sent for his verification wherein, he has deposed that he had verified the same as per Ex.P.12 and found that the Sale Deeds at Ex.P.3 and P.4 were not registered in his office. 25 Spl.C.No.94/2021
19. PW.6 H.K.Lingaraju, was the Special Officer at the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister during the period 2008-2013 and he has deposed that accused John Michael was not working in the office of the Chief Minister and he had issued a letter to the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.13.
20. PW.7 Syed Asgar Imam, is the hand writing and document expert at State Forensic Lab, Bengaluru, and has deposed that on 13.09.2011, they had received the papers pertaining to Cr.No.61/2010 of Ramamurthy Nagar P.S., and it was consisting one allotment letter dated 12.07.2006, Sale Deeds dated 27.03.2007 and 07.08.2008, Two Forms of Communication dated 19.12.2006 and 28.07.2008, specimen signatures and writings said to be that of John Michael. After thorough examination, he had found that the person who wrote the specimen signatures also wrote the questioned signatures and accordingly he had furnished his opinion as per Ex.P.15, with a report at Ex.P.14. 26 Spl.C.No.94/2021
21. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not stated in detail about the letters in his report and also he volunteered that he had not mentioned about the same since the signatures were in individualistic pattern, without legible letters. Though many suggestions were put forth to the witness suggesting that the examination conducted by him was not in accordance with law, the same has been denied by the witness. It is also been suggested that, he had not opined anything about the age of ink and type of pen used for signature and hand writings. It is his specific assertion that since the same was not requested by the Investigating Officer, he had not made any examination in that regard. Apart from that, nothing much has been elucidated from him.
22. PW.8 Madhu R was the Deputy Branch Manager of HSBC Bank and he has deposed about furnishing the account and cheque details of PW.2 27 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Tapan Bhandari and also the account extract as per Ex.P.19.
23. PW.9 Mithun Ayyappa, was the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank and has deposed about furnishing the account details of accused as per Ex.P.20.
24. PW.10 S. Gangappa, was the Head Constable in CCB, Bengaluru, and has deposed that he was deputed for apprehending the accused and later on, he had traced his address on 08.04.2011 and was arrested and produced before the Investigating Officer.
25. PW.11 S. Neeru, is the Forensic Expert at Truth Lab, and has deposed that on 24.12.2011 a Laptop, External Hard Disk and requisition letter were sent to the Truth Lab wherein, she was working as Assistant Director and the case was assigned to her. She had also examined the Laptop but it did not contain any data and hard disk was formatted and partitioned several times to erase data beyond recovery. Accordingly, she has furnished the report as per Ex.P.23. 28 Spl.C.No.94/2021 She had identified the laptop and hard disk which were identified and marked as MO.1 and 2 before the Court.
26. PW.12 M. Manjunath, was the Investigating Officer, who has deposed that, he had received an e-mail information from the Commissioner of Police on 3.3.2011 at about 10.30 am., and based on the said e-mail message and complaint of CW.1, he had registered the FIR in Cr.No.61/2011 as per Ex.P.26 and had identified the e-mail message as per Ex.P.24. Apart from denial, nothing much has been elucidated from him.
27. PW.13 K. Nagaraj, is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed that on 8.4.2011 complainant Sreedharan had produced 4 documents along with a letter before him and he had verified the same and also he has deposed of messaging accused John Michael on 08.04.2011 and after observing his mandatory formalities, he has produced him before the jurisdictional court and obtained permission for three days custodial interrogation, wherein a voluntary 29 Spl.C.No.94/2021 statement came to be given by the accused person confessing of committing the aforesaid offences. Further, he has deposed that on 9.4.2011, he had obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of accused for sending the same to expert opinion and on the same day, he had visited the BDA and also the office of the Chief Minister to ascertain about the contention of accused being the Personal Secretary. He has deposed about collecting the materials from the Bank with respect to the account extract and had recorded the further statement of PW.1 Sreedharan and PW.2 - Tapan Bhandari. Apart from denial, nothing much has been elucidated from him during the course of cross- examination.
28. PW.14 Renukaradhya H.S. is the other Investigating Officer who has deposed that he had received the report from the Truth Lab on 28.03.2012.
29. PW.15 R. Mohan Kumar, was the Investigating Officer, who has deposed that on 30 Spl.C.No.94/2021 24.09.2011 he had visited Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station after meeting the SHO and has visited the John Michael and enquired him about printer and the laptop. Accused, at that time had stated that he was not in possession of the same and subsequently he had recorded the statement of wife of the complainant i.e., Smt. Lalitha and on the same day i.e., on 01.10.2011, laptop came to be produced by the accused as per MO.1 by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P.29. He has also deposed of collecting materials and sending the same for verification, he visited the Sub-Registrars on 03.10.2011 with respect to the non-execution of the Sale Deeds and on completion of the investigation, it was noticed that the allegations leveled against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he had filed the charge-sheet.
30. On careful appreciation of the entire materials produced before the Court, the first and foremost aspect which is alleged by the prosecution is 31 Spl.C.No.94/2021 that the accused had induced the witnesses i.e., PW.1 Sreedharan, PW.2 Tapan Bhandari, PW.3 Chanda Bhandari to part with huge sum of amount on the pretext of providing with an allotment of BDA site and in furtherance of the same, he had received a huge amount from them. It has been specifically contended by the prosecution that, accused had received the amount by way of cash from PW.1- Sreedharan and with respect to PW.2- Tapan Bhandari he had received the amount partly in cash and partly through account transfer being transferred through account. It is relevant to note at this juncture that, a criminal law was set into motion on the basis of the e-mail complaint lodged by PW.2- Tapan Bhandari. Ex.P.9 is the e-mail complaint wherein he had narrated in detail about the manner in which he was cheated and duped by accused John Michael. The e-mail was sent to the Commissioner of Police, requesting him to initiate necessary action against accused John Michael. It has been stated that, accused John Michael 32 Spl.C.No.94/2021 was introduced through PW.1 N. Sreedharan who was also his ex-office colleague and one Mr. Anthony was the common friend of them and he had introduced accused as the Personal Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Karnataka Sri. Dharam Singh and was taking care of all the administrative and political and social aspects of the then Chief Minister. Subsequently, it has been stated that, by utilizing his influence, the accused would help them to get allotment under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. It is pertinent to note that, on the assurances and inducement given by accused John Michael, the witness i.e., PW.2 who was the de-facto complainant in the above case had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,82,032/- to the accused person. He had explained in detail about the manner in which he had paid the amount. It has been stated that, during January, 2007 he had paid a sum of Rs.18,42,000/- by way of cash and another payment of Rs.6,80,000/- through the cheque drawn on HSBC Bank to accused 33 Spl.C.No.94/2021 John Michael. Further it is noticed from the evidence that in the month of July, 2008, he had met the accused at Taj Residence Hotel and confirmed and acknowledged the receipt of entire amount and it is also stated that he would be handed over with necessary documents at the first instance. Subsequently, he had handed over the allotment letter, lease-cum-sale agreement and two original Sale Deeds executed on 27.03.2007 and 7.8.2008 and also a copy of communication under Rule 3(A) of Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1977 on 19.12.2006. By looking into the said aspects, the witness PW.2 Tapan Bhandari was convinced that he was being allotted with a site by BDA through accused John Michael. On the basis of the said e-mail communication, the Commissioner of Police had directed the concerned Police to initiate necessary action. Subsequently, PW.1 N.Sreedharan had met the Inspector of Police, CCB, Bengaluru and had furnished the documents which were mentioned by PW.2 Tapan Bhandari in his e-mail. It is 34 Spl.C.No.94/2021 relevant to note that, during the course of his evidence, PW.2 Tapan Bhandari has specifically deposed that he was not residing in the country at the time of sending complaint through e-mail to the concerned Police. Be that as it may, the criminal law was set into motion on the basis of the e-mail communication being made by PW.2 Tapan Bhandari. It is settled principle of law that in matters pertaining to cogninable offence, cognizance of the offence can be taken by any officer competent in this regard by looking into the averments made in the written information. In the case on hand, a specific allegation was leveled with respect to accused John Michael of impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri. Dharam Singh and furnishing forged site allotment letters and sale deeds of BDA. With this factual evidence, the evidence of PW.1 Sreedharan is required to be looked into once again.
35 Spl.C.No.94/2021
31. PW.1, who had appeared before the Learned I Addl. Magistrate Court had specifically deposed that, he came in contact with accused John Michael through his colleague Mr. Anthony who was also working at HSBC Bank at that point of time. Though it has been argued at length by the Learned Counsel that Mr. Anthony was subsequently dismissed from service and he was not summoned as witness, the same would not be a fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is relevant to note at this juncture that, accused has never denied about his acquaintance with the witnesses nor it is the case of the accused that he was seeing them for the first time before the Court. Though, candidly he has admitted his acquaintance with the complainant as well as PW.1 Sreedharan, he has not denied specifically. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW.1 Sreedharan when compared with the cross examination indicates that nothing much was elucidated from him to falsify the case of the prosecution or the contention urged by the witness. The 36 Spl.C.No.94/2021 evidence of PW.-1 Sreedharan when compared with other suggestion put forth to him would indicate that he was acquainted with him. At this juncture, he has also deposed that, his friend PW.2 Tapan Bhandari was also introduced to accused John Michael by him who was also intending to purchase BDA site. All the said aspects assumes importance for the reason that the witnesses had applied on earlier instances with BDA for allotment of site and since their applications came to be rejected, they were searching for some middle men who could help them to provide with BDA sites. In other words, the aforesaid witnesses could be termed as gullible witnesses who were in dire need of a site which was promised by accused by portraying himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister. Now, the aspect which is required to be appreciated is, whether the said transaction had indeed taken place between the accused and the witnesses. It is pertinent to note that majority of the transactions had taken place by way of cash as 37 Spl.C.No.94/2021 contended by the prosecution. In the first instance, the evidence of PW.1 indicates that he had paid with a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- towards purchasing of a site and also another sum of Rs.11,13,004/- was paid by his wife. It is their specific contention that he was paid with an allotment letter and subsequently, a lease-cum-sale agreement and also a Sale Deed by accused John Michael, however no documents are produced by him in the instant case. To be specific, the document at Ex.P.1 indicates of an allotment letter allegedly issued by BDA on 12.07.2006 to PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and also lease- cum-sale agreement to sell at Ex.P.2 is also issued to PW.2 Tapan Bhandari. However, no documents have been produced on behalf of PW.1 Sreedharan in order to justify his contention. During the course of his cross- examination, PW.1 Sreedharan has deposed that, he had paid Rs.12.00 lakhs on two occasions by way of cash. It is his contention that he had paid the said amount through his savings and also by withdrawing GPA and 38 Spl.C.No.94/2021 sale proceeds of his house at Andhra Pradesh. However, no materials have been produced by him in order to fortify his contention.
32. With respect to the document which has been furnished on behalf of PW.2 Tapan Bhandari initially by PW.2 Sreedharan, it would indicate as already discussed above that an allotment letter at Ex.P.1, lease-cum-sale Agreement at Ex.P.2 and also the Sale Deeds were issued allegedly by John Michael. PW.2 Tapan Bhandari has specifically deposed that the alleged Sale Deeds at Ex.P.3 and Ex P.4 was handed over to him by accused John Michael himself who had met him at a dinner at Taj Residence Hotel. It is relevant to note that, as per the document, the allotment letter was executed on 12.07.2006 whereas, the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 06.11.2006 and the Sale Deed at Ex.P.2 indicates of being executed on 20.03.2007 and another Sale Deed at Ex.P.3 indicates of being executed on 07.08.2008. With this factual aspect, the amount which 39 Spl.C.No.94/2021 was allegedly transferred by PW.-2 through his account at HSBC Bank is required to be appreciated. Ex.P.21 is the Account Extract pertaining to John Michael which was recovered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Particularly, the transaction on 09.07.2008 would indicate of depositing a sum of Rs.6,80,940/- by way of cheque bearing No.0030445. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to look into the evidence of PW.2 Tapan Bhandari who has specifically stated during his evidence that he had paid a sum of Rs.6.80 lakhs by way of cheque and in the complaint at Ex.P.9, which was sent through e-mail, he had given necessary details that a sum of Rs.6,80,940/- was drawn through the cheque bearing No.030445 to the account of accused John Michael. The aforesaid aspect is clearly fortified with the amount which has been transferred and it is pertinent to note that thereafter, the Sale Deeds were also executed i.e., in particularly, Ex.P.3 on 07.08.2008 and also Ex.P.2 on 27.03.2007. That apart, 40 Spl.C.No.94/2021 PW.2 Tapan Bhandari has also furnished the account extracts with respect to the amount which he had withdrawn, wherein he had paid the amount by way of cash. In this regard, the document which is produced at Ex.P.7 indicates that, on various dates commencing from 20.12.2006 to 16.06.2006, he had paid on several occasions to accused John Michael and subsequently on 09.07.2008 he had paid Rs.6,80,940/-. That apart, account extract pertaining to PW.2 Tapan Bhandari which is produced and marked as Ex.P.32 would fortify the fact that several withdrawals were made as per the Extract at Ex.P.7which would corroborate the contention of the prosecution.
33. During the cross-examination, he has admitted that he was from West Bengal and had been in HSBC Bank for about 28 years and subsequently, he was transferred to Saudi Arabia. He has feigned his ignorance about the date on which he was introduced to accused by PW.1 Sreedharan. It was specifically posed to 41 Spl.C.No.94/2021 him that whether he had obtained any building plan from the concerned authority to put up construction for the premises, for which, he has deposed that before obtaining the same he intended to enquire about the genuineness of the document and he came to know that it was a forged document. Apart from such denial, nothing much has been elucidated. It is relevant to note that there is no specific denial being put forward to the witness to the fact of transfer of amount through cheque to the accused person during the course of cross examination. It is settled principles of law that when a specific allegation is leveled, the same is required to be traversed with. That apart the amount being credited to the account of accused by PW.2 Tapan Bhandari to an extent of Rs6,80,000/- assumes importance and necessary suggestion either denying the same or explaining the reason for crediting of the amount if for any other reason the amount was credited were to be given by the Accused person. The court is fully aware of 42 Spl.C.No.94/2021 the basic postulate that the prosecution is duty bound to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. However at the same time the accused is also required to give explanation with respect to the facts which are within his knowledge.
34. The prosecution has also examined PW.3 Chanda Bhandari, who is none other than the wife of PW.2 Tapan Bhandari. She has also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW.2 Tapan Bhandari. During the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that she paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs directly to the accused. The extract of her account bearing No.021547609006 at Ex.P.7 indicates of making payment on several occasions commencing from 29.11.2007 to 17.12.2007 for an amount of Rs.5,60,0000/-. That apart, the joint account statement itself at Ex.P.32 would indicate that she too had withdrawn the said amount on several occasions which are fortified from her evidence.
43 Spl.C.No.94/2021
35. The Learned Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the evidence of PW 3 loses significance since she has deposed before the court as per the instructions and directions given by her husband PW.2 Tapan Bhandari. No doubt, the admission has been obtained during the course of her cross- examination that she was deposing on the instructions of her husband, the same cannot be made as basis to reject her entire testimony, particularly when she has deposed that she had also made certain payment to accused person. Another important aspect which is required to be considered is that though it is stated that accused never met PW2 Tapan Bhandari and PW3 Chanda Bhandari the same was not suggested during the course of cross examination. The unflinching evidence of the account extract reflecting the transfer of amount to the account of accused coupled with the corroborative evidence of account extracts at Ex P 32 reflecting various dates on which the amount were 44 Spl.C.No.94/2021 withdrawn by the witness to make payment to the accused would indicate of transaction being taken place between the accused and the witness. It is well settled principals of law that a stray admission cannot wash away entire admissibility of the evidence which was led before the Court. Here, in the instant case, the contention of the witnesses is to be appreciated based partly on the ocular evidence and partly on the documentary evidence, which is in the manner of account extracts. For the sake of convenience, if only the contention of the accused is appreciated that he never knew the witnesses nor had any transactions with them, then it would be relevant on the part of the accused to offer explanation that why such a huge amount was credited to his account to an extent of Rs.6,80,000/- on 09.07.2006. The fact of amount which has been credited to his account as per Ex.P.21 was not a small amount, but it was a huge amount being credited to his account. The accused even cannot take up a defence that he was 45 Spl.C.No.94/2021 unaware of such credit for the reason that the account extract further indicates that he had withdrawn the amount immediately thereafter. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid aspect was within the special knowledge of the accused and he was required to offer an explanation as contemplated U/Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act. The provision of Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act is extracted for the sake of convenience, which reads as below;
Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him".
36. The provision would clearly indicate that, when a fact is within the special knowledge of the accused person, he is required to offer an explanation. In this regard, the Court has relied upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is rendered in 2023 SCC Onlince SC 1261 (Balvir Singh V State of Uttarkhand) wherein it is held as:
46 Spl.C.No.94/2021
34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "espe-
cially" means facts that are pre-eminently or ex- ceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal tri- als that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modi- fied by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain excep- tional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prose- cution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience".
35. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404, this Court while consid- ering the word "especially" employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under:
47 Spl.C.No.94/2021
"11. ... The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or excep- tionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.
It is evident that that cannot be the inten- tion & the Privy Council has twice refused to con- strue this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R, [1936] 3 All ER 36 at p. 49 (B)."
36. The aforesaid decision of Shambhu Nath (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, wherein this Court observed as under:
"22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn re- garding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused.48 Spl.C.No.94/2021
When the accused fails to offer proper explana- tion about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
23. When a case is resting on circumstan- tial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a rea- sonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evi- dence Act, such a failure may provide an addi- tional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be estab- lished by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden un- der Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawan-
shi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373, this Court observed as under:
"23. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact other- wise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exer- cises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The 49 Spl.C.No.94/2021 above position is strengthened in view of Sec- tion 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the courts shall have regard to the com- mon course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilised. We make it clear that this section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reason- able inference can be drawn regarding the exis- tence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar [(2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516] : (SCC p. 393, para
38)
"38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Sec- tion 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be im- possible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge 50 Spl.C.No.94/2021 of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] the learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus :
(AIR p. 406, para 11) '11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the pros- ecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is de- signed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate dispropor- tionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exception- ally within his knowledge.'""
(Emphasis supplied)
39. The question of burden of proof, where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused, was examined by this Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382. In this case, the as- sailants forcibly dragged the deceased from the house where he was taking shelter on account of the fear of the accused, and took him away at about 2 : 30 in the night. The next day in the 51 Spl.C.No.94/2021 morning, his mangled body was found lying in the hospital. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 364, read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court and the State also filed an appeal challenging the ac- quittal of the accused for the charge of murder. The accused had not given any explanation as to what happened to the deceased after he was ab- ducted by them. The Sessions Judge, after refer- ring to the law on circumstantial evidence, had observed that there was a missing link in the chain of evidence after the deceased was last seen together with the accused persons, and the discovery of the dead body in the hospital, and concluded that the prosecution had failed to es- tablish the charge of murder against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. This Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and laid down the following princi- ples in paras 31 to 34 of the report:
"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doc- trine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the 52 Spl.C.No.94/2021 temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the tradi- tional rule relating to burden of proof of the prose- cution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic cover- age, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.
32. In this case, when the prosecution suc- ceeded in establishing the afore-narrated circum- stances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this.
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such infer- ence is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the 53 Spl.C.No.94/2021 common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Mahesh was abducted by the ac- cused and they took him out of that area, the ac- cused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted rea- soning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the ac- cused would tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody."
(Emphasis supplied)
42. Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evi- dence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the pros- ecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden of the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation 54 Spl.C.No.94/2021 in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate bur- den. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the ac- cused.
43. Section 106 obviously refers to cases where the guilt of the accused is established on the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the accused is able to prove some other facts es- pecially within his knowledge which would ren- der the evidence of the prosecution nugatory. If in such a situation, the accused gives an explana- tion which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him. In the language of Prof. Glanville Williams:
"All that the shifting of the evidential bur- den does at the final stage of the case is to allow the jury (Court) to take into account the silence of 55 Spl.C.No.94/2021 the accused or the absence of satisfactory expla- nation appearing from his evidence."
44. To recapitulate the foregoing : What lies at the bottom of the various rules shifting the evi- dential burden or burden of introducing evidence in proof of one's case as opposed to the persua- sive burden or burden of proof, i.e., of proving all the issues remaining with the prosecution and which never shift is the idea that it is impossible for the prosecution to give wholly convincing evi- dence on certain issues from its own hand and it is therefore for the accused to give evidence on them if he wishes to escape. Positive facts must always be proved by the prosecution. But the same rule cannot always apply to negative facts. It is not for the prosecution to anticipate and elimi- nate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate an accused. Again, when a person does not act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, it is not for the prosecution to eliminate all the other possible intentions. If the accused had a different intention that is a fact especially within his knowledge and which he must prove (see Professor Glanville Williams--Proof of Guilt, Ch. 7, page 127 and following) and the interest- ing discussion--para 527 negative averments and para 528--"require affirmative counter-evi- 56 Spl.C.No.94/2021 dence" at page 438 and foil, of Kenny's outlines of Criminal Law, 17th Edn. 1958.
45. But Section 106 has no application to cases where the fact in question having regard to its nature is such as to be capable of being known not only by the accused but also by others if they happened to be present when it took place. From the illustrations appended to the section, it is clear that an intention not apparent from the char- acter and circumstances of the act must be estab- lished as especially within the knowledge of the person whose act is in question and the fact that a person found travelling without a ticket was possessed of a ticket at a stage prior in point of time to his being found without one, must be es- pecially within the knowledge of the traveller him- self : see Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, illustrations (a) and (b).
46. A manifest distinction exists between the burden of proof and the burden of going for- ward with the evidence. Generally, the burden of proof upon any affirmative proposition necessary to be established as the foundation of an issue does not shift, but the burden of evidence or the burden of explanation may shift from one side to the other according to the testimony. Thus, if the prosecution has offered evidence which if be- 57 Spl.C.No.94/2021 lieved by the court would convince them of the ac- cused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the ac- cused is in a position where he should go forward with counter-vailing evidence if he has such evi- dence. When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. He is not required to do so even though a prima fa- cie case has been established, for the court must still find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict. However, the ac- cused's failure to present evidence on his behalf may be regarded by the court as confirming the conclusion indicated by the evidence presented by the prosecution or as confirming presumptions which might have been rebutted. Although not legally required to produce evidence on his own behalf, the accused may therefore as a practical matter find it essential to go forward with proof. This does not alter the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution (Wharton's Criminal Evi- dence, 12th Edn. 1955, Vol. 1, Ch. 2 p. 37 and foil). Leland v. State, 343 US 790 (1952) : 96 L.Ed. 1302, Raffel v. U.S., 271 US 494 (1926) : 70 L.Ed. 1054.
58 Spl.C.No.94/2021
37. The above said dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court would indicate that the normal rule of proving a fact beyond reasonable will always be on the prosecution. In other words generally, the burden of proof upon any affirmative proposition is required to be established as the foundation of an issue does not shift, but the burden of evidence or the burden of explanation may shift from one side to the other according to the testimony. Thus, if the prosecution has offered evidence which if believed by the court would convince them of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and if the accused is in a position to clarify by leading with counter-veiling evidence if any, then it is required by the accused to disclose the same. When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. The said aspect is required to be appreciated with the facts of the case on hand. The accused has to make necessary 59 Spl.C.No.94/2021 disclosure of the facts which were within his knowledge. In the instant case, though he has denied of receiving any amount, a sum of Rs.6,80,940/- was credited to his account on the basis of the cheque being drawn on HSBC Bank by PW.2 Tapan Bhandari on 09.07.2008. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that, receiving of the said amount was also brought to the notice of the accused person while recording the statement u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled principles of law that, recording of statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.c., is not a bald formality and it is a stage, wherein the accused is required to explain the circumstances which were known to him. The other important facet of recording the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances. In this regard, on perusal of the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the question No.12 which has been put to the accused person is specifically crediting an amount to an extent of Rs.6.80 lakhs through cheque and also he had 60 Spl.C.No.94/2021 received balance amount in cash. However, the said question was specifically denied by the accused person. The evidentiary value of the statement recorded under section 313 of CrPC is succinctly discussed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment rendered in (2016)15 SCC 572 ( Edmund S. Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya) wherein it is held as:
21 [Ed.: Para 21 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./58/2014 dated 7-11-2014.] . Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination under Section 313 CrPC, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But such inference cannot be a sub-
stitute for the evidence which the prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the ac- cused. The statement under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence. In Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam [Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam, (2007) 11 SCC 467 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 766] , this Court held that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC which cannot be regarded as evidence. It is only the stand or version of the ac- cused by way of explanation explaining the in- criminating evidence/circumstances appearing 61 Spl.C.No.94/2021 against him. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to other evidence led by the prosecution. The statements made un- der Section 313 CrPC must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with the other prose- cution evidence.
22. In the present case, it is not as if the High Court arrived at the conclusion and based conviction only on the statement made by the first accused under Section 313 CrPC. As seen from the reasonings of the High Court extracted above, the statement of the first accused under Section 313 CrPC was taken with the evidence of PW 6 and PW 13 and Item 7(17) of Ext. P-5 as a link to complete the chain of circumstances against A-1. As elaborated earlier, the answers given by the first accused were considered not in isolation but in conjunction with other oral and documentary evidence. We find no substance in the contention that the High Court erred in taking the statement of the first accused under Section 313 CrPC as a link to complete the chain of circumstances.
38. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex court was discussing the facts with respect to 62 Spl.C.No.94/2021 disproportionate assets being amazed by the accused under Prevention of Corruption Act and was pleased to hold that at certain times, the accused is required to disclose the true and correct facts and in the absence of the same, the court may draw adverse inference. The case on hand also indicates that the accused was aware of amount being credited to his account by PW2- Tapan Bhandari and inspite of the same, he had not offered any explanation when his statement was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Hence, non offering of any explanation by Accused may also be considered by the court. No doubt the non explanation or the statement recorded under section 311 of Cr.P.C cannot be a sole ground for conviction, but at the same time, the statement can also be considered as chain of link to the case of prosecution as held in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
39. Lastly, it is the contention of the accused that, he had not seen Tapan Bhandari and his wife and 63 Spl.C.No.94/2021 only PW.1 Sreedharan was his friend. For the sake of arguments, the explanation rendered by the accused has to be appreciated; once again, the accused is required to offer an explanation as to why such a huge sum of amount was credited to his account by Tapan Bhandari on 09.07.2008, if he never him. The accused immediately thereafter had withdrawn the amount from his account. Hence the accused was required to offer an explanation in this regard with respect to crediting of amount to an extent of Rs6,80,000/- to his account and also withdrawing of the same. Accordingly the act of the accused in utilizing the said amount would indicate of a mala-fide intention being entertained by him.
40. In order to attract the provision of Sec.420 of IPC, the ingredients of cheating must be a sine-qua-non. In the instant case, the prosecution has contended that the accused had committed the offence of impersonation by inducing PW.1 Sreedharan and PW.2 Tapan Bhandari to part with a huge sum of amount under the pretext of 64 Spl.C.No.94/2021 allotment of site from BDA. It would be appropriate to consider the provisions of Sec.419 of Cr.P.C., wherein, the ingredients are defined. For the sake of benefit, the provision is extracted, which reads as under;
"Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
41. As per the proviso, if any person cheats by impersonation, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. The pre-requisite for the commission of the offence is commission of an act which could be termed as cheating as defined U/Sec.415 of IPC.
42. For the sake of brevity, the proviso to Sec.415 clearly indicates that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or 65 Spl.C.No.94/2021 omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so, would commit the offence of cheating. When the said provision of Sec.419 and 420 of IPC are compared with the allegations leveled by the prosecution, it is forthcoming that the accused himself had impersonated and represented himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka. No doubt, the accused has denied the same by suggesting that at no point of time, he was in contact with Tapan Bhandari or his wife PW.3 Chanda Bhandari. Even during the course of recording the 313 Statement, the accused has stoutly contended that PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and PW.3 Chanda Bhandari were not at all known to him and he only knew PW.1 Sreedharan.
43. With respect to appreciating the said aspect, once again at the cost of repetition, the evidence of Pws.1 to PW3 is required to be examined conjointly. PW2 Tapan Bhandari has disposed that he was working at HSBC Bank at the relevant point of time is an undisputed fact 66 Spl.C.No.94/2021 and subsequently he was transferred to Saudi Arabia from where he had lodged a complaint through e-mail as per Ex.P9. In the instant case, both witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 have specifically deposed that they came to know the accused through one Mr.Anthony who was also working at their Bank. It is relevant to note at this juncture that, the accused is not seriously disputing about his relationship with Anthony and also his acquaintance with PW.1 Sreedharan. The entire case of the prosecution partly rests on the circumstantial witnesses and partly on the ocular evidence as already discussed. As such, when the acquaintance with PW1, Sridharan is admitted by accused, once again, the question of his acquaintance with PW.2 Tapan Bhandari is to be appreciated. No doubt, the accused has contended that he never knew PW.2 Tapan Bhandari or his wife PW-3 Chanda Bhandri. However, the same is required to be considered on the basis of the circumstantial evidence which has been led before the 67 Spl.C.No.94/2021 court. The account transaction that had taken place from the account of PW.2 Tapan Bhandari to the account of John Michael to an extent of Rs.6.80 lakhs would only fortify the case of the prosecution. That part PW.1- N.Sridharan had furnished several documents i.e., the allotment letter, lease-cum-sale Agreement, two registered Sale Deeds and a Communication made by the Sub-Register of Stamps, which is marked at Ex.P.1 to P.5 during the course of investigation, which purportedly handed over by Accused Jhon Micheal to be original and genuine documents. The aforesaid documents were furnished by PW.1 Sreedharan to the concerned Police immediately after lodging of complaint through e-mail by PW.2. It is relevant to note at this juncture, that the contention of the prosecution is conjointly linked with each other and chain of circumstances is linked with each other. At the cost of repetition, the first instance, an e-mail complaint was lodged by PW2-Tapan Bhandari and subsequently as per 68 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Ex.P.10 certain documents were furnished i.e., Ex.P.1 to P.4 by PW.1 Sreedharan to the Investigating Officer. The documents which were furnished were none other than the allotment letter, alleged Sale Deeds which were subsequently found to be forged and fabricated. All the said documents have been produced and identified from the evidence of PW4, Basappa S, who was the Deputy Secretary at BDA and has deposed that he was sent with Ex.P.1 and 2 i.e., allotment letter and lease-cum-sale agreement and on verification he has stated that the said letters were all forged and fabricated. That apart, the evidence of PW5 H.C.Lokesh, who was the Sub Registrar at Yelahanka would indicate that he was also furnished with two Sale Deeds, and on examining the same, he had furnished his reply as per Ex.P.12 stating that the said Sale Deeds were never registered in the office. Though it has been argued at length that accused has no nexus with respect to issuance of alleged Sale Deed or the one which is produced before the Court, the circumstantial 69 Spl.C.No.94/2021 evidence which has been produced in this regard is required to be appreciated. The documents which were recovered from PW.1 Sridharan, i.e., Ex.P.3 and P.4 Sale Deeds were sent subsequently to FSL to ascertain the signature.
44. In this regard, the evidence of PW7, Syed Asgar Imam, is required to be appreciated. He has deposed that he was a handwriting and document expert working at FSL Bengaluru, who had graduated in Science and also a Diploma holder in Handwriting and Document Examination, which he had obtained from the Institute of Criminology and FSL, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. During the course of evidence, nothing has been elucidated to impeach his credibility with respect to his experience on handwriting and document examination. During the course of his further evidence, he had received one allotment letter, lease-cum-sale dated 12.06.2006 and also a Sale Deed dated 27.03.2007 and another Sale Deed dated 70 Spl.C.No.94/2021 07.08.2008, which are none other than Ex.P.2 to EX P 4. That apart, he has deposed that the subsequent writings and signatures said to be of John Michael were furnished to him in 35 sheets which he had numbered at S.1 to S.35. After thorough examination, he had found that the person who wrote the specimen signatures, which he had sub-marked as S.1 to S.3 also wrote the questioned signatures marked as Ex.D.1. At this juncture, it is relevant to look into the report, which has been furnished by expert which was marked as Ex.P.15. In the report which he had furnished, he had in detail explained the procedures which were adopted by him and also the manner in which the signatures were compared and tallied. For instance, he had taken the photographs of the specimen signatures which he had noted down. As per the report, he has stated that the questioned signatures were marked as Ex.D.2 to 4, D.9, D.10 were written freely and firmly, line quality of the signatures were smooth, clear, rhythmic, uniform and 71 Spl.C.No.94/2021 quality of strokes formation. Apart from that, he had also noticed the similarities in the handwriting habits observed in questioned signatures which he had marked as Ex.D.2 to D.4, D.9, D.10 with that of specimen signatures marked as Ex.S.4 to 9, 24 to 29. By verifying all these aspects and also by looking into the specimen signatures and also the questioned signatures which were obtained from the documents, he had formed an opinion that there were various similarities in individual writing habits and also the manner of execution of signature with respect to nature and movement of their commencement, shape and movement in formation of their body strokes, movement in combination and termination of strokes, nature, direction and extent of finishing strokes as found in subsequent signatures are similarly found in questioned signatures along with similar freedom of movement, writing skill, rhythm and quality of strokes formation, slant and alignment, relative size and proportion of strokes formation, 72 Spl.C.No.94/2021 movement in commencement, combination and termination of strokes between the specimen and questioned signatures. As such, he had expressed positive authorship of questioned signatures with that of specimen signatures.
45. Now, with this evidence, the cross- examination is required to be looked into. It is noticed that the suggestion put to him that he had not followed the correct procedures as contemplated under law with respect to identifying the handwriting and tallying with the admitted and disputed document, no proper material has been furnished has been specifically denied by the witness. He has specifically deposed that he had given the opinion that the person who wrote the specimen signature also wrote the questioned signatures. Though it was specifically deposed by him that the writings belonged to the same person, it was not specifically denied by the Accused during the course of cross examination. It is well settled principle of law that, when 73 Spl.C.No.94/2021 a particular aspect is deposed by witness which is incriminating to the case of the accused, the same requires to be denied. Unless and until the said aspect is denied, it is to be construed as being admitted. That apart, he has admitted that there are natural variations in the questioned and specimen signatures. In this regard, it would be appropriate to consider the evidence conjointly so as to arrive at definite conclusion. Though the witness has deposed that, there would be some sort of variations in the questioned and specimen signatures, the same cannot be construed as fatal to the case of the prosecution. At this juncture it is made clear that the report of the handwriting expert cannot be considered as conclusive proof. At the first instance in order to dispute the veracity of the report, necessary foundation should have been laid down with respect to the expertness of the witness to give opinion. The Hon'ble Apex court has laid down the dictum about the manner in which the expert opinion is required to be appreciated. In this regard the 74 Spl.C.No.94/2021 court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1992)3 SCC 700 ( State of Maharastra V Sukhdev Singh) wherein it is held as:
29. It is well settled that evidence regarding the identity of the author of any document can be tendered (i) by examining the person who is con-
versant and familiar with the handwriting of such person or (ii) through the testimony of an ex- pert who is qualified and competent to make a comparison of the disputed writing and the ad- mitted writing on a scientific basis and (iii) by the court comparing the disputed document with the admitted one. In the present case the prosecution has resorted to the second mode by relying on the opinion evidence of the handwriting expert PW 120. But since the science of identification of handwriting by comparison is not an infallible one, prudence demands that before acting on such opinion the court should be fully satisfied about the authorship of the admitted writings which is made the sole basis for comparison and the court should also be fully satisfied about the competence and credibility of the handwriting ex- pert. It is indeed true that by nature and habit, over a period of time, each individual develops certain traits which give a distinct character to 75 Spl.C.No.94/2021 his writings making it possible to identify the au- thor but it must at the same time be realised that since handwriting experts are generally engaged by one of the contesting parties they, consciously or unconsciously, tend to lean in favour of an opinion which is helpful to the party engaging him. That is why we come across cases of con- flicting opinions given by two handwriting ex- perts engaged by opposite parties. It is, there- fore, necessary to exercise extra care and cau- tion in evaluating their opinion before accepting the same. So courts have as a rule of prudence refused to place implicit faith on the opinion evi- dence of a handwriting expert. Normally courts have considered it dangerous to base a convic- tion solely on the testimony of a handwriting ex- pert because such evidence is not regarded as conclusive. Since such opinion evidence cannot take the place of substantive evidence, courts have, as a rule of prudence, looked for corrobora- tion before acting on such evidence. True it is, there is no rule of law that the evidence of a handwriting expert cannot be acted upon unless substantially corroborated but courts have been slow in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence, without more, because of the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand- writing and its accepted fallibility. There is no 76 Spl.C.No.94/2021 absolute rule of law or even of prudence which has ripened into a rule of law that in no case can the court base its findings solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but the imperfect and frail nature of the science of identification of the author by comparison of his admitted handwrit- ing with the disputed ones has placed a heavy responsibility on the courts to exercise extra care and caution before acting on such opinion. Before a court can place reliance on the opinion of an ex- pert, it must be shown that he has not betrayed any bias and the reasons on which he has based his opinion are convincing and satisfac- tory. It is for this reason that the courts are wary to act solely on the evidence of a handwriting ex- pert; that, however, does not mean that even if there exist numerous striking peculiarities and mannerisms which stand out to identify the writer, the court will not act on the expert's evi- dence. In the end it all depends on the character of the evidence of the expert and the facts and circumstances of each case.
30. In Ram Narain v. State of U.P. [(1973) 2 SCC 86 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 752] this Court was called upon to consider whether a conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of the hand- writing expert could be sustained. This Court held: (SCC p. 90 para 6) 77 Spl.C.No.94/2021 "[I]t is no doubt true that the opinion of handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution. But this opin- ion evidence, which is relevant, may be worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evi- dence relating to the document in question sup- porting the view expressed by the expert."
A similar view was expressed in the case of Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma [(1973) 4 SCC 46 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 687] in the following words: (SCC p. 53, para 26) "The evidence of a handwriting expert, un- like that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert."
In Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330] this Court was once again called upon to examine whether the opin- ion evidence of a handwriting expert needs to be substantially corroborated before it can be acted upon to base a conviction. Dealing with this oft- repeated submission this Court pointed out: (SCC pp. 708-09 para 6) 78 Spl.C.No.94/2021 "Expert testimony is made relevant by Sec- tion 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' 'in questions as to identity of handwrit- ing' is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to Section 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion in unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (Section 3) tells us that 'a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters be- fore it, the Court either believes it to exist or con- siders its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the par- ticular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists'. It is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the Evi- dence Act lest we set an artificial standard of proof not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Further, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private 79 Spl.C.No.94/2021 business, in their relation to facts of the particu- lar case. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise rele- vant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So, corroboration may not invari- ably be insisted upon before acting on the opin- ion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particu- lar case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corrobo- rated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
After examining the case-law this Court proceeded to add: (SCC p. 711, para 11) "We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion- evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of 80 Spl.C.No.94/2021 the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be care- fully probed and examined. All other relevant evi- dence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the un- corroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight."
What emerges from the case-law referred to above is that a handwriting expert is a compe- tent witness whose opinion evidence is recog- nised as relevant under the provisions of the Evi- dence Act and has not been equated to the class of evidence of an accomplice. It would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. But the court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification of fingerprints; courts 81 Spl.C.No.94/2021 have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit re- liance on such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration but that is not to say that it is a rule of prudence of general application regard- less of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the court has to decide in each case on its own merits what weight it should attach to the opinion of the ex- pert.
46. In the aforesaid dictum it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that a handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion is recognized as relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Further it has been held that it would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion of the expert with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. It is also been cautioned by the Hon'ble Apex court that the trial 82 Spl.C.No.94/2021 court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification of fingerprints and hence they have been wary in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration which is not a rule of prudence of general application regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. When the said aspect is applied to the case, firstly it is noticed that the evidence of the expert is not assailed during the cross examination with respect to his competency to tender report as stated by him. Secondly, it is noticed that the opinion tendered by the expert is a well versed detailed report and nothing is pointed out to the court with respect to adversaries in the said opinion. Further the court has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in 83 Spl.C.No.94/2021 2023 Livelaw (SC)418 ( Santosh @Bhure V State) wherein the intrinsic value of the expert is discussed as follows:
64. In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court observed: "Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from fre-
quent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to ap- praise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and in finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own 84 Spl.C.No.94/2021 conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the court must play the role of an ex- pert but to say that the court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness." (Empha- sis supplied)
65. The underlying principle deducible from the observations extracted above is that though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a rule of pru- dence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with cau- tion and may be accepted if, on its own assess- ment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion.
When the said aspect is appreciated, it indicates that the evidence of the expert is a detailed report and even otherwise there are no infirmities pointed out to indicate that the said evidence is suffering 85 Spl.C.No.94/2021 from any infirmity. It is also relevant to note that the evidence which is placed before the court is supported by corroborative evidence, since the prosecution are able to establish the transfer of amount from the account of PW2 Tapan Bhandari to the accused. Apart from that, nothing much has been elucidated to discard the evidence of the expert. When the evidence of PW.1 Sreedharan and PW.2 Tapan Bhandari, coupled with the evidence of PW.3 Chanda Bhandari is appreciated with the evidence of PW.7 Syed Asgar Imam, who is the handwriting expert, would indicate that the person who had executed the specimen signatures had executed the signatures of the Sale Deeds at Ex.P.3 and EX.P.4. In other words, the prosecution case would indicate that an amount of Rs.6.80 lakhs as part payment was transferred by PW.2 Tapan Bhandari to the account of accused John Michael which indeed he 86 Spl.C.No.94/2021 had received the same and during the course of cross-examination, he had denied about receiving the said amount and that apart, the document which was produced by PW.2 through PW.1 Sreedharan also indicates that the signatures belonged to the accused John Michael. All the said aspects would only indicate of the fact that the originator of the said document was the accused John Michael.
47. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider whether the ingredients of Sec.419 of IPC., is made out. At the first instance, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard is to be appreciated. In the judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 454 (Suresh Hingorani Vs. State of Haryana) wherein, similar situation, two Sale Deeds came to be executed and same was referred to handwriting expert, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately 87 Spl.C.No.94/2021 held that the findings of the handwriting expert could be relied upon. In this regard, the judgment is extracted, which reads as follows;
8. The prosecution has placed on record the FSL report (Ext. PX) which states that the speci- men signatures of Kewal Krishan marked as S1 to S6 and specimen signatures of the appellant marked as S7 to S10 were compared with signa- tures Q1 to Q7 on the registered sale deed dated 19-9-1996, Q8 to Q15 on the registered sale deed dated 14-8-1996, Q16 to Q19 on specimen signature cards of Indian Overseas Bank, Q17 and Q18 on the affidavit dated 14-8-1996 and Q20 to Q24 on the account opening form of In- dian Overseas Bank dated 21-8-1996. The report states that after comparing Q1 to Q24 with the specimen signatures of Kewal Krishan as well as the appellant i.e. S1 to S6 and S7 to S10, it is found that the signatures S1 to S6 given by Ke- wal Krishan did not match with the signatures Q1 to Q24 on the registered sale deeds dated 14- 8-1996 and 19-9-1996, affidavit dated 14-8- 1996, specimen signature cards and account opening form of Indian Overseas Bank dated 21- 8-1996. The report further states that the speci- men signatures S7 to S10 of the appellant are 88 Spl.C.No.94/2021 similar to Q1 to Q24 found on the documents Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-6/A i.e. sale deeds dated 19-9-1996 and 14-8-1996, affidavit dated 14-8- 1996, account opening form dated 21-8-1996 and specimen signature cards of Indian Over- seas Bank.
9. PW 3, Khem Chand duly proved the reg-
istration of sale deeds, Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-6/A. PW 5 Advocate Virender Pratap Tomar and PW 9 Anjit Singh, the attesting witnesses of the sale deed dated 19-9-1996 stated that the appellant posed as Kewal Krishan and executed the sale deeds in question after signing them as Kewal Krishan. Similarly, the attesting wit- nesses PW 6 Advocate Rajinder Singh and PW 9 Anjit Singh stated that the appellant signed as Kewal Krishan and executed the sale deed dated 14-8-1996. The evidence of PW 7, U.D. Sharma and PW 10 Om Prakash establish that the appellant opened Savings Bank A/c. No. 16206 in the name of Kewal Krishan and signed the account opening form and specimen signa- ture cards as Kewal Krishan. The sale deeds (Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-6/A) bearing the pho- tographs of the appellant were signed by the ap- pellant as Kewal Krishan. This is duly proved by the evidence of PW 5 Virender Pratap Tomar, PW 89 Spl.C.No.94/2021 6 Advocate Rajinder Singh, PW 9 Anjit Singh and the FSL report (Ext. PX).
10. The learned counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis on the fact that the com- plainant was not examined by the prosecution. He submitted that therefore, the entire prosecu- tion story is suspect. In the facts of this case, we are unable to accept this submission. It is true that the complainant ought to have been exam- ined by the prosecution. But because the com- plainant is not examined, we have meticulously gone through the evidence. We find that the pros- ecution witnesses have established the prosecu- tion case to the hilt. The FSL report completely bears out the prosecution case.
48. That apart, I have also bestowed my anxious reading as to whether the elements of cheating and commission of fraud could be noticed from the evidence of PW.1 and PW 2. It is well settled principle of law that, fraud vitiates the evidence. It is also well settled principle of law that an act which will be considered as solemn act, if tainted with fraud vitiates the entire aspect. In the instant case, 90 Spl.C.No.94/2021 it has been argued that, a mere representation made by accused could not be construed as attracting the rigors of Sec.419, leading to conviction and punishment U/Sec.420 of IPC. In order to better appreciate the same, once again, at the cost of repetition, the evidence requires to be revisited. The provision of Sec.420 would clearly stipulate that mere misrepresentation of the fact would not be sufficient and it is a sine-qua-non that accused who entertained the mala-fide intention from the beginning itself. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in another occasion has held that, in order to prove the dishonest intention, it would be possible always to insist upon direct evidence. However, reasonable inferences can be drawn from the circumstances which are prevailing. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 15 (Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan 91 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Singla) wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex court as follows:
8. As was observed by this Court in Shiva- narayan Kabra v. State of Madras [AIR 1967 SC 986 : 1967 Cri LJ 946] it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the cir-
cumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishon- est intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
9. On the proved facts it is seen that a cheque was handed over to the complainant and in the receipt it was stated that the shares have been received. The High Court has referred to this factual position and drawn a conclusion that the receipt (Ext. PW 3/B) which was admittedly exe- cuted by accused Devender clearly states that the shares had been transferred. The mere fact that the cheque was filled in by the complainant is not sufficient to take away the effect of the statement in the receipt. The plea that it was an advance re- ceipt does not appear to have been even agitated before the courts below.
92 Spl.C.No.94/2021
10. Significantly, there was no suggestion to the complainant (PW 3) that the shares had not been delivered.
Even in the instant case there is no suggestion that the accused was not credited with any amount as contended by him. That apart, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that, false pretence need not be put in express words while considering the offence of cheating. Further, it can be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused The aforesaid authority aptly apply to the case on hand since the conduct of the accused in the instant case is required to be appreciated. The accused though was not working as a Personal Secretary in the office of the then Chief Minister has represented to be his Personal Secretary and under the said promises, he had obtained pecuniary benefit by inducing PW.1 and PW 2 to part with a huge sum of 93 Spl.C.No.94/2021 amount of which part of the amount was transferred to his account from the account of PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and the same was also utilized by John Michael. All the said aspects, coupled with the evidence of PW.7 who had positively opined that the signatures found at Ex.P.3 and EX.P.4 Sale Deed were tallying with the specimen signatures obtained. At this juncture, it is made clear the court is not drawing the inferences solely on the basis of the evidence of handwriting expert.
49. It is settled principle of law that the Court cannot solely rely upon the evidence of an expert but it can be used for the purpose of corroboration. In the instant case, as noticed, the amount came to be transferred by way of cash and also through account, which was subsequently transferred to John Michael and in furtherance of the same, he has issued alleged Sale Deeds Ex.P.3 and P.4 which were 94 Spl.C.No.94/2021 found to be forged and fabricated one. The accused has got issued the said documents in order to indicate that the same were being used as genuine documents though they were not the original and genuine documents and also he had intended to use them as valuable security in the eye of law.
50. The Learned Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, reported in 2019 (6) SCC 111 S.K.Migalani Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that, the evidence of an expert is only having a presumptive value and the evidence can rarely take the place of substantive piece of evidence. I have bestowed my anxious reading to the case on hand, wherein the case was based on handwriting expert, but it is not applicable to the facts of the case, since the above case is not solely based upon the opinion of the expert. The opinion of the expert is 95 Spl.C.No.94/2021 only of corroborative in nature and the same cannot be construed as sole material available in the case on hand.
51. With respect to the evidence of PW.11 S.Neeru, who was the Assistant Director of the Truth Lab, has deposed that on 24.12.2011, their office had received sealed cover containing of one laptop, external hard disk along with a requisition to verify the contents of the materials. It is pertinent to note that the expert, on examining of the same had formed an opinion that no data was noticed in the hard disk since it was formatted and partitioned several times to erase the date beyond recovery. The aforesaid aspect is once again required to be looked into from the point of view of its recovery. Ex.P.29 and EX.P.30. Ex.P.29 is the recovery mahazar which were marked subject to objections before the Court at the time of evidence. The said recovery mahazar 96 Spl.C.No.94/2021 indicates that, a laptop and printer were recovered at the behest of the accused John Michael. The said evidence was tendered by PW.15. In his evidence, he has deposed of recovering the same on 01.02.2011. However, during the course of cross-examination, it is relevant to note that, no suggestion was put to him that he has not recovered any materials as per MO.1 laptop, MO.2 hard disk and MO.3 printer. Once again, if the evidence of PW.8 is appreciated, it would indicate that the laptop and the external hard disk were formatted and partitioned several times in order to delete the date contained. Allegedly said laptop and printer were used by accused John Michael to prepare the document at Ex.P.3 and EX.P.4 Sale Deeds. Under the circumstances, though the mahazar was marked subject to objections since it is the true copy of the original, the same can be looked into for the limited purpose. 97 Spl.C.No.94/2021 That apart, the accused has also not seriously disputed with respect to the marking of the said document. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the evidence of PW.13 K. Nagaraja, who had conducted the part investigation in the above case. During the course of his chief-examination, he has deposed that, he had obtained the specimen signatures of accused John Michael after obtaining him to his custody and also on the basis of the voluntary statement which was recorded on 09.04.2011. During the course of cross-examination, it has been elucidated that, he had obtained sample signatures of accused and also it was suggested that opinion of the expert was not pertaining to the signature which was obtained during the course of custodial interrogation. In other words, the accused has categorically admitted the signatures which he had affixed during the Police Custody which were 98 Spl.C.No.94/2021 sent to handwriting expert. Apart from that, it had also been elucidated that the said documents were sent for FSL, Bengaluru. All the aforesaid aspects only indicate of commission of offence by the accused John Michael by impersonating himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister Sri. Dharam Singh. The prosecution has also established the fact that the accused had made an attempt to destroy the contents in the hard disk and also the evidence of PW.11-Smt.S.Neeru, who established the fact that the laptop which was recovered from the accused person was formatted and partitioned several times to erase data beyond recovery. The recovery of the laptop and printer was made under the mahazar at Ex.P.29. The said drawing of mahazar is not serious disputed by the accused counsel, which would once again fortify the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, 99 Spl.C.No.94/2021 the provision of Section 201 of IPC is also established by the prosecution.
52. Before parting, it would be appropriate to consider the feeling of the gullible persons who are in need of site are made to wait for several years for a particular allotment to be made by Governmental authorities. Under the pretext of providing allotment of sites by competent authorities, the persons like accused are inducing the general public by impersonating themselves to be connected closely to the persons who are in power. The said aspect is required to be determined and under the circumstances, when the evidence of prosecution is examined in its entirety would indicate of an act being committed by accused and hence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
100 Spl.C.No.94/2021
Summation:
53. To sum up, the prosecution has contended that the accused has impersonated himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri. Dharam Singh and had befriended PW.1 Sreedharan through is relative Mr. Anthony who was also working at HSBC Bank and was induced to pay a sum of Rs.11,13,004/- towards allotment of a site and subsequently, PW.1 Sreedharan had also introduced accused John Michael to his friend PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and his wife PW.3 Chanda Bhandari who had paid a sum of Rs.30,82,032/- towards purchase of the site and subsequently, the accused had furnished an allotment letter, lease-cum-sale agreement, two Sale Deeds which were respectively marked as Ex.P.1 to P.4 and later on, it was noticed that the said documents were not genuine and accordingly, a 101 Spl.C.No.94/2021 complaint was lodged through e-mail as per Ex.P.9 by PW.2 and thereafter, PW.1 had produced aforesaid documents since PW.2 was not in country at that time due to his personal necessities. Later on, the said documents were sent to FSL along with specimen signatures of accused which were collected through the course of his custodial interrogation, and a positive report was issued by FSL that the hand writings and the signatures found in the Sale Deeds are affixed by accused himself. That apart, an amount of Rs.6.80 lakhs came to be transferred from the account of PW.2 through his cheque on 09.07.2008 to the account of accused John Michael and though he had denied having any acquaintance with PW.2 and further it is noticed from the account extracts produced before the court that he had withdrawn the amount deposited to his account. During the course of recording of his statement 102 Spl.C.No.94/2021 U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused had not furnished any explanation with respect to creating of such a huge amount by PW.2 alleging that he was not known to him. However, in his explanation, he has stated that he was having acquaintance with PW.1 Sreedharan and the materials which have been produced before the Court based on the circumstantial materials would clearly point out and establishes that the accused had impersonated himself and had produced false and forged documents with an intention to cheat and defraud the witnesses. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 to 5 are all answered in the Affirmative.
54. Point No.6: In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused John Michael S/o. Yesudas, is hereby 103 Spl.C.No.94/2021 convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC.
To hear regarding sentence, call on.
15.03.2024.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 14th day of March, 2024).
(Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) C/c of XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48) ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE In the instant case, the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 201 of IPC.
The accused is secured from judicial custody and is present before the Court.
The Learned Special Public Prosecutor Smt. S.K. Anupama has vehemently argued that the offences against the accused for the provisions of law have been 104 Spl.C.No.94/2021 proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that the accused had induced the complainant PW.2 Tapan Bhandari, who had handed over a sum of Rs.25,23,788/- towards allotment and registration of BDA site and whereas, the wife of PW.3 Chanda Bhandari has handed over a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs and that apart, PW.1 N.Sreedharan has handed over a sum of Rs.11,13,004/-. It is her contention that the accused had represented himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and had forged and fabricated the documents and created the documents to cheat and defraud the complainant. It is her contention that the said act of impersonation is to be viewed seriously and also several cases are pending against the accused in other States and also before this Court itself. She has argued that the act of the accused has to be viewed seriously as he is a snollygoster person who was in the habit of cheating and defrauding the general gullible public. Accordingly, she has sought for imposing 105 Spl.C.No.94/2021 maximum punishment as provided under the aforesaid provisions of law.
The Learned Counsel for the accused is present before the Court and has submitted that accused is the sole bread earner in his family and he has to take care of his aged mother, who is aged about 82 years and he is also suffering from various ailments.
The Court has also heard the accused, who has also reiterated the submissions made by his counsel.
Heard the parties and the point that requires to be considered is what would be the appropriate sentence that could be imposed on the accused person.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that, in matters of awarding sentence, the court should be cautious and has to consider all the relevant factors to arrive at a just conclusion. It is a cardinal principle of law that the nature and gravity of crime is to be appreciated and not the criminal which are germane for consideration to impose suitable 106 Spl.C.No.94/2021 punishment. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the trial courts to precisely consider the aggravating and mitigating factors at the time of awarding sentence. If the aggravating and mitigating factors are appreciated, the same can be culled out as follows;
Aggravating Factors:
1. The accused had induced the PWs.1 to 3 to part with a huge amount under the pretext of providing BDA sites.
2. The accused had impersonated himself to be the Personal Secretary of the then Chief Minister and the same is a serious aspect.
3. The act of the accused was deliberate and intentional one.
4. The accused is a habitual offender, facing several cases.
Mitigating Factors:
a. The accused does not have any criminal antecedents. b. The accused has to take care of his aged mother and also he is the sole bread earner of his family. c. The accused is suffering from various ailments and accused is having deep roots in the society.
On considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, it is noticed that the offence which is committed by the accused could be termed as white collared 107 Spl.C.No.94/2021 offence, which bleeds the economy of the nation.
Further, the maxim "Nullum crimen sine lege" which means, the principle of legality in the rule of construing criminal statute is to be in favour of citizens and also the approach should be towards the social welfare. The important aspect of socio-economic offence is to be considered from the point of view of the harm it has caused to the society at large. Even though the gravity of offence cannot be deciphered easily, the same requires to be considered in a manner which would indicate the mode in which its execution was carried out by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also specifically laid down the dictum that the Court has to consider the cry of the victim at the time of imposing punishment. It is also been held that the society at large is the sufferer due to the commission of white collared offence by the accused person. When the aforesaid aspect is applied to the case on hand, it indicates that the accused had induced the witnesses in the above case to part with 108 Spl.C.No.94/2021 huge amount of money. It is to be appreciated that the accused had chosen the persons who had got faith and had made them to part with money under the pretext of providing BDA sites.
In this regard, the act of accused in collecting Rs.11,13,004/- from PW.1 and Rs.25,23,788/- from PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and Rs.5.00 lakhs from PW.3 Chanda Bhandari has been established by the prosecution.
Under the circumstances, the court has to consider imposing of maximum punishment as contemplated under Section 420, 419 of IPC and also under Sections 468, 471, 201 of IPC. By considering the said aspects, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The accused John Michael, S/o.
Yesudas, is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE 109 Spl.C.No.94/2021 years and imposed with a fine of Rs.42.00 lakhs and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO years.
The accused is convicted under Sec.468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE years with a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE years and a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The accused is hereby sentenced to under to a Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years, for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 110 Spl.C.No.94/2021 and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE month. The sentences ordered shall run concurrently and accused shall be entitled for the period of set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of detention he has already undergone, if any as Under Trial Prisoner in the above case.
Acting under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C., suitable compensation requires to be ordered to the victims out of the fine amount i.e., PW.1 N.Sreedharan, PW.2 Tapan Bhandari and PW.3 Chanda Bhandari and accordingly, PW.1 N.Sreedharan is awarded with a compensation of Rs.12.00 lakhs (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), PW.2 Tapan Bhandari is awarded with compensation of Rs.26.00 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) and PW.3 Chanda Bhandari is awarded with compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) and the remaining amount is ordered to be forfeited to the State.
111 Spl.C.No.94/2021
In the event of deposit of fine amount, the same shall be forfeited after disbursing the compensation.
Office is hereby directed to furnish the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.
The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
The material objects at MO.1 to 3 being the Laptop, External Hard Disk and Printer are ordered to be confiscated to the State, on completion of the appeal period.
(Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on 16th March, 2024) (Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) C/c of XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Judge forCBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48) ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 : N. Sreedhar 112 Spl.C.No.94/2021 PW.2 : Tapan Bhandari PW.3 : Chanda Bhandari PW.4 : Bassappa S PW.5 : H.C.Lokesh PW.6 : H.K.Lingaraju PW.7 : Syed Asgar Imam PW.8 : Madhu R PW.9 : Mithun Ayappa PW.10 : S. Gangappa PW.11 : S. Neeru PW.12 : M. Manjunath PW.13 : K. Nagaraj PW.14 : Renukaradhya H.S. PW.15 : R. Mohan Kumar List of Exhibits marked through Prosecution in Spl.CC.94/2021:
Ex.P.1 : Allotment Letter. Ex.P.2 : Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. Ex.P.3, 4 : Sale Deeds.
Ex.P.5, 6 : Intimation issued for payment of Stamp Duty.
Ex.P.7 : Bank Statement. Ex.P.8 : Covering Letter. Ex.P.9 : E-mail Complaint. Ex.P.10 : Letter. Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.10(b) : Signature of PW.13. Ex.P.11 : BDA Letter. Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.11(b) : Signature of PW.13. Ex.P.12 : Reply Letter. Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW.5. 113 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Ex.P.13 : Letter dated 3.2.2011. Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of PW.6. Ex.P.14 : Certificate. Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of PW.7. Ex.P.15 : Report. Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of PW.7. Ex.P.16 : Enlarged print of question and specimen signatures. Pg.65 to 71. Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of PW.7. Ex.P.17 : Specimen Signatures of Accused (Pg.72 to 104) Ex.P.18 : Two specimen writings. (Pg.105 and 106) Ex.P.19 : Letter dated 10.08.2011. Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of PW.8. Ex.P.19(b) : Signature of PW.13 Ex.P.20 : Letter dated 25.08.2011. Ex.P.20(a) : Signature of PW.9. Ex.P.20(b) : Signature of PW.13. Ex.P.21 : Statement of account standing in the name of accused John Michael. Ex.P.22 : Report from Truth Lab. Ex.P.23 : Report. Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of PW.11. Ex.P.24 : Complaint. Ex.P.25 : E-mail message. 114 Spl.C.No.94/2021 Ex.P.25(a) : Signature of PW.12. Ex.P.26 : FIR. Ex.P.26(a) : Signature of PW.12. Ex.P.27 : PF No.9/2011 Ex.P.27(a,b): Signatures of PW.13. Ex.P.28 : Report along with specimen seal. Ex.P.28(a) : Specimen Seal. Ex.P.29 : Mahazar dated 01.10.2011. Ex.P.30 : PF No.5/2011. Ex.P.31 : Mahazar dated 09.11.2011. Ex.P.31(a) : Signature of P.15 Ex.P.32 : A/c. Extract of HSBC Bank pertaining to PW.2 and PW.3.
List of Material Objects marked through Prosecution:
MO.1 : Laptop. MO.2 : External Hard Disk. MO.3 : Printer
List of documents marked through Defence Side:
NIL (Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) C/c of XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Judge forCBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48)