Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. A.C. Keshavamurthy on 23 September, 2022
KABC010009142018
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act), BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.77)
Present: Smt. Vineetha P. Shetty,
B.Sc., M.A. (Sanskrit, English), LL.M.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge &
Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru.
C/c LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act.), Bengaluru
Dated: 23rd September 2022
Spl. C.C. No.20/2018
Complainant: The State of Karnataka
Represented by Lokayukta Police,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: Sri. A.C. Keshavamurthy,
Managing Director,
Karnataka Soaps & Detergent Ltd.,
Bengaluru,
R/at. No.A/122, 4th Main Road,
C.I.L. Layout, Geddalahalli,
Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sri. Parameshwara N.
Hegde, Advocate)
2 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Date of commission of : 26.06.2014
offence
Date of report of : 30.06.2014
occurrence
Date of arrest of accused : Not arrested
Date of commencement : 16.08.2018
of evidence
Date of closure of : 20.06.2022
evidence
Name of the : Srinivas, Dy.S.P. Tumkur
complainant Lokayukta
Offence complained of : Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused is acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, has submitted this Charge Sheet, against the accused, for the offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is that Accused A.C. Keshava Murthy joined the service as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 03.02.1983, and as on 27.06.2014, he was working as Managing Director of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents, Bengaluru. That 3 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Srinivas, the then Dy.S.P. of Lokayukta, Tumkur, had received a credible information about accused amassing of assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income, and accordingly, placed a Source Report, before the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Tumkur. As per the Source Report, the known source of income of the accused was Rs.95,00,000/, and his approximate expenditure was Rs.42,00,000/. Further, the accused possessed assets worth Rs.1,32,44,000/, and therefore, there was possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.79,44,000/, amounting to 83.62%, over and above his known source of income.
3. Based on the Source Report, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Tumkur, vide his order in LOK/SP/Tumkur/2/14 dated 26.06.2014, directed Srinivas, Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta, Tumkur to register a case against the accused, and to investigate into the matter. In accordance with said order, a criminal case was registered in Cr.No.16/2014 for the offences 4 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
4. The Investigating Officer thereafter secured search warrants, and on 27.06.2014, conducted search at the house No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru, on 27.06.2014 conducted search at the House No.235 of Kalyana Nagar, Bengaluru, on 27.06.2014 conducted search at House No.716 of Kalyana Nagar, Bengaluru, on 28.06.2014 conducted search of the lockers available in Canara Bank, Kalyana Nagar Branch, on 28.06.2014 conducted search at the office of the accused at Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd., Yeswanthpura, Bengaluru, and conducted search at the Cafe Roshini Hotel run by his son.
5. The ADGP Lokayukta, as per his order dated 14.08.2014, in LOK/INV(G)/City/L44/CR16/2014, authorised CW1 Srinivasa, Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta Tumkur to transfer the file to Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City Division. As per the order in LOK/INV(G)/City/crime/2014 dated 20.09.2014, of the 5 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta City Division, the file was received by CW157 N.M. Dharmappa, Dy.S.P., Lokayukta Bengaluru City Division, from Srinivasa, Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta Tumkur, and as per the proceedings in order No.LOK/INV(G)/City/CR 49/2014 dated 25.09.2014, a criminal case was registered in Cr. No.49/2014 on the file of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City Division, for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. Upon search of the house at No.122/A of Sanjaya Nagar, Bengaluru, the search team found, several house hold articles, gold ornaments, silver articles and cash of Rs.5,50,530/, and the property documents. They were reported to the Court under PF No.29/2014. The Investigating Officer CW157 N.M. Dharmappa, Dy.S.P., Lokayukta Bengaluru City Division, after completion of investigation arrived at a conclusion that, the known source of income of the accused was Rs.1,62,41,037.34/, 6 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 his approximate expenditure was Rs.81,36,977.78/, and the accused possessed assets worth Rs.2,16,18,864.97/, and thereby the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known source of income, to an extent of Rs.1,35,14,805.41/, which is 83.21%, over and above his known source of income.
7. As the accused belonged to Union Public Service, CW157 Dharmappa, Dy.S.P., Lokayukta Bengaluru City Division, has sent the Final Report to his Higher Officer, seeking Prosecution Sanction Order. The accused retired from service, on 30.06.2017. CW158 T. Mahadeva, the then Dy.S.P. Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, filed the Charge Sheet against the accused, for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.
8. On receipt of the Charge Sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken. After receipt of summons, the accused entered appearance through his counsel. The copy of the Charge Sheet and its enclosures, were supplied to him. 7 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 After hearing, charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution in all has examined 33 witnesses as PW1 to PW33, and marked 247 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.247 and closed its side.
10. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the incriminating evidence against him, and lead defence evidence.
11. The accused in all has examined 16 witnesses as DW1 to DW16, and marked 15 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.15.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned PP and the Sri. Parameshwara N. Hegde, Advocate, the learned Counsel for accused. The learned counsel, has also filed written arguments.
13. Now, the following points would arise for my consideration:
8 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused being a public servant, who joined the service as Assistant Conservator of Forest on 03.02.1983, and working as Managing Director of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents, Bengaluru, as on 27.06.2014, was found in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.2,16,18,864.97/, during the check period commencing from 03.02.1983 to 27.06.2014, and expenses of the accused and his family during that period was Rs.81,36,977.78/, the total assets and expenditure of his family was Rs.2,97,55,842.75/, and that, during the check period the known source of his income was Rs.1,62,41,037.34/ and that, hence he was in possession of the property disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs.1,35,14,805,41/, which amounts to 83.21%, over and above his known source of income, and that, the accused could not satisfactorily account for the same and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What order ?9 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
14. My findings to the above points are as under :
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order below for the following REASONS
15. Point No.1: According to the Prosecution, during the check period i.e., from 03.02.1983 to 27.06.2014, the accused had acquired assets in his name, and also in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.2,16,18,864.97/ and incurred expenditure of Rs.81,36,977.78/, that his known source of income during the check period was Rs.1,62,41,037.34/, and his total assets and expenditure stood at Rs.2,97,55,842.75/, but that the accused could not satisfactorily account for the pecuniary sources and properties, to an extent of Rs.1,35,14,805.41/, which is 83.21% in excess of his known source of income. Therefore, the accused has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 13(1)
(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. 10 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
16. It is well settled that, mere possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, does not lead to the presumption that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and it is only if the accused fails to offer satisfactory explanation for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, then it amounts to an offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
17. Further, it is also a settled proposition of law, that to substantiate a charge under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, the prosecution must prove that i) the accused is a public servant, ii) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or properties found in his possession, iii) known source of income of the accused i.e., source known to the prosecution and iv) that such resources or properties found in possession of the accused, were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal 11 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 misconduct is complete, unless, the accused is able to account for such resources. In other words, only after the prosecution proves the required ingredients, the onus to satisfactorily account for the possession of such resources or properties, shifts on to the accused. Keeping these principles in mind, let me appreciate the material legal evidence produced on both sides.
18. PW1 D. Shivakumar, is a Second Division Assistant, in Agriculture Department, Gubbi. He has deposed that, he and another Second Division Assistant, CW3 - Leelavathi, had participated in the raid, conducted in the house of the accused, situated at Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru, and both of them were the witnesses to the Panchanama at Ex.P.2.
19. PW2 - Syed Sujath, is the Junior Assistant in BESCOM, Tumkur. He has deposed that, he had participated in the search proceedings, in respect of a locker in Canara Bank, Kalyana Nagar, Bengaluru, and that he was a witness to the Panchanama at Ex.P.18. 12 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
20. PW3 - T.J. Jagadish, is the Goldsmith. He has deposed that, a search was conducted in respect of a locker in Canara Bank, Bengaluru, and that, he had valued gold ornaments at Rs.10,11,000/ and that he had signed Ex.P.18 Mahazar.
21. PW4 - Nataraj K., is a Second Division Assistant, working in Veterinary Department, Tumkur. He has deposed that, he along with the police, had visited the house of accused, and the police conducted Panchanama as per Ex.P.2, by valuing the wooden articles at Rs.5,00,000/.
22. PW5 - Puttaswamy H.P., is the Police Inspector of Lokayukta. He has deposed that, he had conducted search as per Ex.P.22 Panchanama, in the house No.716, situated at Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore.
23. PW6 - M.M. Bopaiah, is a purchaser of the car. He has deposed that, he had purchased a car bearing No.KA 04 MG 171 from the accused, for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/. 13 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
24. PW7- Kanakaraju T.N., is the tenant under the accused. He has deposed that, he was a tenant under accused from November 2010 to November 2017, and that he had paid an advance of Rs.1,50,000/ to accused, by cash and paid monthly rent of Rs.15,000/, with a condition to pay enhanced rent at the rate of 10% once in 2 years.
25. PW8 - B. Venkatesh Reddy, is another tenant. He has deposed that, he was a tenant under accused from 2006 to 2009 on a monthly rental basis, and that he had paid an advance of Rs.50,00,000/ by cash, and paid monthly rent of Rs.50,000/ and that he had paid additional advance of Rs.5,00,000/ with enhanced rent of Rs.20,000/ per month, from the year 2009.
26. PW9 - Karunanidhi A.P., is the seller of the house. He has deposed that, he had sold house No.524 to Smt. Kusumalatha, the wife of the accused, for a sum of Rs.20,95,000/.
14 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
27. PW10 - H.S. Prakash, is the Police Head Constable, who had assisted the Investigating Officer, at the time of raid, conducted in the house of Sri. Gonal Bheemappa. He has referred to the Search Warrant at Ex.P.24, and Panchanama at Ex.P.25.
28. PW11 - Manjunath E., is the owner of Manjunath Wood Works Shop, and he has identified the xerox copies of the bills issued by him as per Ex.P.27.
29. PW12 - K.N. Kantharaju, is the Deputy Director of Statistics in Karnataka Lokayukta. He has deposed that, he had estimated the family invisible expenditure of the accused, and found the approximate expenditure at Rs.20,15,117/, and estimated the total income of accused and his family, from 04.02.1983 to 27.06.2014 at Rs.1,11,12,390/ and issued his Report as per Ex.P.28.
30. PW13 - Rathnam Amarjyothi, is the Retired Assistant Passport Officer. He has deposed that, he had furnished the Passport details of the accused, his wife 15 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Smt. Kusumalatha, his son Mr. Shravan and his daughter Ms. Shruthi, as per his Report at Ex.P.29.
31. PW14 - Shashirekha, is the owner of a Travel Agency, namely Holiday Dreams. She has deposed that, she had furnished the payment details of the accused, as per Ex.P.30.
32. PW15 - N. Dutta, is the owner of the shop Dutta Furnishers and Decorators. He had estimated the interior work done in the house of accused at Rs.1,01,057/, as per Ex.P.31 letter.
33. PW16 - Colonel Krishnan Dakshinamurthy, is the Retired Army Officer. He has deposed that, he was the Secretary of Bengaluru Club, and the accused was a Corporate Member of the said Club from 03.01.2014 to 07.01.2016, and that he has issued the document as per Ex.P.32, containing the banquet bill for Rs.8,617.65/.
34. PW17 - Sanjeeva Kumar, is the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Bengaluru. He has deposed that, he had 16 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 valued the house No.122/A situated at Sanjay Nagar and estimated the cost of construction at Rs.16,97,942.10/, and issued a Valuation Report as per Ex.P.33, along with a sketch at Ex.P.34.
35. PW18 - Achyutha Bidarahalli, is the Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Bengaluru. He has deposed that, he had valued the house No.2C situated at Kalyana Nagar and estimated the cost of construction at Rs.63,61,755/, and issued a Valuation Report as per Ex.P.37.
36. PW19 - B. Aswathnarayana, is the Artist, Karnataka State Handicraft Development Corporation. He has deposed that, he had estimated nine idols kept in the house of accused and valued them at Rs.1,96,000/, and issued a Report as per Ex.P.42.
37. PW20 - Narasimha Murthy, is the RFO of Tumkur District. He has deposed that, he had inspected four pieces of sandal wood, as well as idols and toys made out of 17 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 sandal wood, totally weighing 2 kgs and 825 grams, kept in the house of the accused and valued the same at Rs.20,602/ and issued his Report as per Ex.P.43.
38. PW21 - K.H. Ashok, is the Carpenter. He has deposed that, he had valued the windows, doors, sofa, teapoy and other furnitures in the house of accused, and issued a Report as per Ex.P.9.
39. PW22 - Srinivasa, is the then Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha. He has spoken about the registration of the case, the search conducted, the recording of the statements of witnesses, the collection of documents and handing over of the case file, to PW25 for further investigation.
40. PW23 - Venkatesh, is the Accounts Officer of AIM Health Care Centre, Bengaluru. He has deposed that, he had furnished information as per Ex.P.62 in respect of Medical Expenses incurred by the daughter of accused, to the tune of Rs.1,14,517/ and Rs.77,093/. 18 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
41. PW24 - Dr. K. Mallikarjuna Babu, is the Director and CEO of Vardhaman College of Engineering, Hyderabad. He has deposed that, he had furnished documents as per Ex.P.63 with regard to Education expenses of son of accused, to pursue his MBA course, to the tune of Rs.53,885/ and Rs.68,165/.
42. PW25 - N.M. Dharmappa, the DY.S.P. Bengaluru City Division, Lokayukta, is the Investigating Officer. He has spoken about the further investigation and collection of documents as per Ex.P.64 to Ex.P.247, and preparing of the Final Report, concluding that the accused was found in possession of properties, disproportionate to his known source of income, to the tune of Rs.1,35,14,805.41/ which is 83.21% over and above his known source of income.
43. PW26 - Vasudeva, is the Retired Assistant Regional Transport Officer. He has deposed that, he had furnished an Expenditure Report, in respect of Ambassador Car No.CNE 1470.
19 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
44. PW27 - Dr. G.D. Raghavan, is the Honarary Secretary of Kasturba Education Institution, Chitradurga. He has deposed that, Kusuma Keshavamurthy, the wife of accused had donated a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ to the Institution, and accordingly, he had issued a letter at Ex.P.88.
45. PW28 - Aloknath Chattopadhyaya, is the owner of Security Company. He has deposed that, accused had paid Rs.150/ per month, as monthly security fee and Rs.1,200/ towards Annual Membership. Said information was furnished by him, as per Ex.P.117.
46. PW29 - G.V. Sathyanarayana Nayak, is the Assistant Executive Engineer. He has deposed that, he had inspected the borewell attached to House No.122 of the accused, and furnished information to Lokayukta Police. Ex.P.238 is the Mahazar drawn by him.
47. PW30 - K.P. Gangadharacharya, is the retired Assistant Chief Transport Officer. He has spoken about 20 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 producing of the documents pertaining to the Vehicles bearing No.KA 04 MG 171 and KA 04 ME 3355 as per Ex.P.155, KA 04 EV 9438 as per Ex.P.152 and KA 04 MH 9963, as per Ex.P.154.
48. PW31 - Madanagopal M., is the retired Chief Transport Officer. He has deposed that, he had submitted a Report, with details of purchase cost of the vehicle No.KA 41 Z 9963, and its Registration fee, Tax amount, Fuel charges and maintenance expenses etc., as per Ex.P.193.
49. PW32 - T. Mahadeva, the Assistant Director of State Secret News, is the then Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division. He has deposed that, he has examined the documents received from PW25, and prepared the Charge Sheet. While preparing the Charge Sheet, he has noticed that the known source of income of the accused was Rs.2,16,18,864.97/, his approximate expenditure was Rs.81,36,977.78/, and that the accused possessed assets worth Rs.1,62,41,037.34/, and therefore, there was possession of disproportionate assets 21 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 worth Rs.1,35,14,805.41/, with the accused, amounting to 83.21%, over and above his actual assets.
50. PW33 - Shashikanth, is the Gold and Silver trader. He has deposed that, 1 kg and 360 grams of gold, 4 to 4½ kg of silver were found in the house of accused, and the market value of gold as on the day was Rs.2,500/ per gram, and that of Silver was Rs.37/ per gram.
51. As could be gathered from cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, and the 313 statement of the accused, it is the contention on defence side that, the income of the accused is more than his assets and expenditure, and therefore, he has not committed any offence. Further, over valuation is shown in respect of the articles found in his house, during raid. Further, the income and assets of the son of the accused were not considered by the IO, though his expenditures were considered.
52. It is argued on behalf of the accused that, though the son of accused Mr. Shravan is unmarried and he was 22 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 living with the accused as per Ex.P.9 - Mahazar itself, and admitted by PW25/IO in his cross examination, though the accused as per his schedule submitted to IO has categorically stated that, his son is residing with him, and though the IO has collected the documents in respect of taxes paid by the son of the accused, the details of his business set up, service tax details, loan details, bank details, details of the assets, vehicle details, ITRs, medical and travelling expenses, he has not considered the same.
53. It is also argued that, the articles found in the room of Shravan has been taken as assets of the accused, stating that he was residing with the accused, and while considering the per capita monthly expenditure of the accused also, the IO has furnished the details of income of the accused as well as his son, and obtained a Report at Ex.P.28 in respect of expenditure of accused, his wife, his mother, daughter and son Shravan. Further, the medical expenses incurred by the son in the month of June 2013, maintenance and fuel expenses of the two wheeler in the 23 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 name of the son, and travelling expenditure of the son, have been taken as expenditure of the accused, and IO has considered the financial help made by the accused to his son.
54. It is further argued that, if the son of the accused is not dependent on the accused, there was no reason for the accused to extend financial help to his son, and there was no reason for the IO to consider per capita expenditure of the son as expenditure of the accused, medical and travelling expenses, and fuel cost of the son, as expenditure of the accused. Further, the assets, expenditure and income of the son of the accused, have been taken into consideration by the Investigation Officer, but, admittedly, there was no division between the accused and his son Shravan, and these aspects have been clearly admitted by the IO/PW25 in his crossexamination. The son of the accused had taken considerable amount of loan, on the guarantee of his father, and those details were obtained by the IO during the course of the investigation, and PW25/IO 24 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 has also categorically admitted these aspects in his cross examination.
55. In the decision reported in LAWS (MAD) 200712 547 R.Kannappan & K. Chandrashekaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, it is held that, after finding out that there is any disproportionate wealth in the hands of the public servant beyond his known source of income, the accused must be given an opportunity to explain the same, and the Investigating Officer has called upon the accused to furnish his explanation, and the accused has duly furnished the same, as per Volume No.1 to 7, which are marked as Ex.P.202, Ex.P.203, Ex.P.204, Ex.P.205, Ex.P.206, Ex.P.207, and Ex.P.208.
56. DW1 to DW16 have been examined on defence side. DW1 Shravan is the son of the accused and he has spoken about his assets and income. DW1 deposed that, he had worked as a Marketing Executive in Ananya Group of Companies from July 2007 to March 2010, on initial monthly salary of Rs.10,000/ which was later enhanced 25 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 upto Rs.13,000/. He started his own Coffee Shop business in the name of Gulf and Grub of Roshini Cafe at a rented building at Kalyana Nagar, in March 2010. According to DW1, he had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/ from Sirsi Urban Bank, to start the business. Further, his father/ accused had given him Rs.8,00,000/ through cheque, and Rs.2,00,000/ in cash. In the year 2013, he had started a restaurant Cafe Macchiato at Poojari Layout, and at that time, he had availed a loan of Rs.25,00,000/ from Vijayalakshmi Souharda Bank, Sirsi Branch. DW1 further deposed that, in respect of aforesaid business, he had availed hand loans of Rs.10,00,000/ from Kondareddy, Rs.7,00,000/ from Nanjireddy, Rs.6,60,000/ from Bayyareddy, Rs.6,60,000/ from Bhagyalakhmi, and Rs.4,00,000/ each from Venkatashiva Reddy and Mohan Reddy, all in cash. It is in his evidence that, his mother Kusuma had given him Rs.2,50,000/ in cash.
57. Ex.P.206(a) is the document referred by DW1, to show that all transactions were duly informed to Income 26 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Tax Department. Ex.P.206(b) is the Certificate issued by his Company. DW1 also referred to Ex.P.208, and stated that his friend Sadiq had gifted him a laptop, a camera, a mobile phone, and a hard disc etc., and Ex.P.208(b) is the confirmation letter issued by said Sadiq. It is found in the evidence of DW1 that, the Proprietorship Firm, Shravan Enterprises, belonged to him, and a land measuring 10,000 sq.ft. situated at Nelamangala was allotted to him in the year 2013, and for that purpose he had availed a loan of Rs.50,00,000/ from SBI, Rajajinagar branch.
58. DW2 S. Babu, has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.48,000/ to accused, as per Ex.D.4. DW3 Gonal Bheemappa is the Cobrother of the accused. He has spoken about Late Alkuraiah, the father of the accused, purchasing the property at Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore and renovating it in the year 2001. He has deposed that, Late Alkuraiah was receiving the pension regularly, and that he was having income from his agricultural property also. DW4 Nagaraju is the younger brother of accused and he 27 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 has spoken about his father purchasing a house at Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore, from out of his retirement benefits.
59. DW5 Mohammad Fasiulla is a Wood Trader, and he has spoken about giving an estimation, in respect of the wooden articles, found in the house of the accused. According to DW5, the value of wooden articles is Rs.2,25,000/, and he has issued estimation as per Ex.P.208(c) found in Ex.P.208 accordingly.
60. DW6 is the accused himself, and he has spoken about his assets, expenditure and income, during the check period. It is in his evidence that, his father had purchased a site along with a house, at Sanjay Nagar in the year 1996 itself, out of the income from his pension, and also out of income from agriculture. A Certificate found in Ex.P.208 is referred to by DW6, and the same has been issued by one Dr. Mallappa, Director of Agriculture, with regard to agricultural income. DW6 Accused has stated that, the gold ornaments seized by the police, at the time of raid on 27.06.2014, were the ornaments received by him as 28 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 gift, at the time of his marriage. He has also deposed that, gold and silver ornaments were also gifted by his parents inlaw, at the time of naming ceremony of his children. He has referred to the affidavit of his motherinlaw as per Ex.P.208(d).
61. DW7 - Shivakumar is the Chartered Accountant, who has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the accused. DW8 Kondareddy has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ to the son of the accused for the business purpose. DW9 Bhagyalakshmi has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/ to the son of the accused. DW10 Venkatashiva Reddy has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/, to the son of the accused. DW11 Mohan Reddy has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ to the son of the accused for the business purpose.
62. DW12 Dr. Mallappa is the Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, has spoken about the issuance of Income Certificate with regard to income from agricultural 29 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 properties. DW13 - Raveendra, has spoken about purchasing of a car from the accused, for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/. DW14 - Gurunath, has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/ to the accused. DW15 Nanji Reddy has spoken about lending of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/ to the son of the accused. DW16 Manjunath has spoken about his father Late Bayya Reddy lending of a sum of Rs.6,60,000/ to the son of the accused, for business purpose.
63. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2017) 14 SCC 442 in the case Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and submitted that, a person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory, and on the evidence that is conjectural or hypothetical, with regard to an offence under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
30 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
64. The learned counsel for the accused has further placed reliance on the decision reported in (1981) 3 SCC 199 in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, and submitted that, the initial burden is on the prosecution, to substantiate the charge under the PC Act, and only when the burden is so discharged, onus shifts on accused, to account for. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the accused public servant, is that the accused is not bound to prove his innocence, beyond all reasonable doubt, and all that he needs to do, is to bring out a preponderance of probability.
65. I am also guided by the aforesaid decisions while appreciating the evidence. On appreciation of entire material evidence placed on record, the fact that, as on 22.06.2014, i.e., on the date of raid, the accused was working as Managing Director, of Government Soap and Detergent Factory, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru, is not in dispute. Further, the fact that, till 26.06.2014 i.e., till the 31 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 date of registration of FIR, from the date of his joining the service on 03.02.1983, and during the check period i.e., from 03.02.1983 to 27.06.2014, the accused was working as a public servant, in various capacities, is also not in dispute. Hence, it is clear that, the accused was a public servant, within the meaning of section 2(c) of the PC Act.
66. The criminal prosecution has been initiated against the accused, by the Police at Karnataka Lokayukta, for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is seen that, the accused retired from service, on 30.06.2017, and the Charge Sheet was filed on 14.08.2017. As the accused was no more a Public Servant, as on the date of filing of the Charge Sheet, the question of obtaining Sanction Order for prosecution, does not arise.
67. The Investigating Officer PW25 - N.M. Dharmappa, Dy.S.P., Bengaluru City Division, Lokayukta, in his Final Report, has observed that, the accused was born on 05.06.1957, as a second son of Late Alkuraiah, who had 32 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 two sons and two daughters, with his native place at Yellappanayakana Hosakote Village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. It is also stated in the Final Report that Late Alkuraiah died in the year 2007. After completion of his Secondary Education, at Tumkur Govt. Science College, the accused completed his graduation at GKVK College, Bengaluru, and in the year 1983 he was selected as Assistant Conservator of Forests, and completed two years training at Coimbatore. Thereafter, he joined as a probationary Officer at Mysuru. In the year 1981, he married S. Kusumalatha, who is a House Wife, and his two children, namely K. Shravan, has been running a Hotel business on his own, and his daughter K. Shruthi, has done post graduation in M.Sc, but unemployed. Further, both the children are unmarried. The accused is not having any ancestral properties.
68. It is seen that, PW22 and PW25 being the Investigating Officers, have reiterated the investigation procedure. Srinivasa, Dy.S.P. Tumkur Lokayukta/PW22 33 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 has submitted Ex.P.44 Source Report to SP Lokayukta, Tumkur. Based on the said Report, and after obtaining Ex.P.45 the order of ADGP to register a case against the accused, as provided under section 17 of the P.C. Act, and Ex.P.46 - Office Memorandum of Superintendent of Police, Tumkur, PW22 has registered the case in Cr.No.16/2014 and transmitted Ex.P.49 FIR to the Court. On the same day, he had filed a requisition for Search Warrant as per Ex.P.47, and conducted the raid, in the house of the accused, which is situated at No.A/122, CIL Layout, 4th Main, Geddalahalli, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru, as per the Search Warrant at Ex.P.1, and drawn the Ex.P.9 - Mahazar. As all the properties of accused were situated in Bengaluru City limits, the said IO filed a memo before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, to transfer the case to Bengaluru City Lokayukta, and accordingly, the case was transferred as per Ex.P.57 order of the Court.
69. PW25 N.M. Dharmappa, Dy.S.P., Bengaluru City Division, Lokayukta, is the Investigating Officer, who has 34 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 received the entire file along with properties from PW22, on 25.09.2014, and also received authorisation as per Ex.P.65 from SP Lokayukta, Bengaluru, authorizing him to conduct the investigation as per Sec.17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and accordingly, on the same day, he had registered the case at Bengaluru City Lokayukta PS in Cr.No.49/2014, and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.61.
70. Nothing has been suggested to PW22 and PW25 that, only to falsely implicate the accused, this case has been registered against the accused. The oral evidence of PW22 and PW25 coupled with documentary evidence placed on record, would indicate that, during the course of investigation, they could gather that, the accused had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
71. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in (1997) 6 SCC 185 in the case Kaptan Singh and Others vs. State of MP and another and submitted that, the result of investigation is 35 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 only a conclusion drawn by the Investigation Officer, on the basis of materials collected by him, and such conclusions can only form the basis for a competent Court, to take cognizance thereupon, and to proceed with the case for trial, and only when the materials so collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, are translated into legal evidence during the trial, the Court can base its conclusion on such legal evidence, but it cannot solely rely upon the investigation or the result thereon, in the absence of any legal evidence. I am also guided by the said decision while appreciating the evidence.
72. Before examining the assets and expenditure of the accused, it is proper to consider the Income of the accused as put forth by the prosecution and the dispute raised by the accused, with regard to non consideration of some of the income by the Investigating Officer. As per the prosecution, the accused was having income of Rs.1,62,41,037.34/ from various sources, during the 36 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 check period. The tabulation made by the Investigating Officer reads as follows Sl. Income Amount No. (in Rs.)
1. The net salary of the accused 82,25,798.00
2. TA, DA, and other allowances of accused from 04.02.1983 to 2,29,344.00 27.06.2014
3. Advance amount received in 1,50,000.00 respect of let out property at No.122/A, Ground Floor, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru
4. Rent received in respect of let out 6,48,000.00 property at No.122/A, Ground Floor, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru
5. Advance amount received in respect of let out property at 524, 2,50,000.00 5th Floor, Ghataprabha Block, NGV Koramangala,
6. Rent received in respect of let out 19,02,000.00 property at 524, 5th Floor, Ghataprabha Block, NGV Koramangala,
7. Income out of sale of Opel Corsa 1,05,000.00 Car No.KA 04 ME 3355
8. Income out of sale of Maruti Swift 3,40,000.00 Car No.KA 04 MG 171
9. Income out of sale of Ambassador 55,000.00 Car No.CNE 1470
10. Income out of sale of Ambassador 1,75,000.00 Car No.KA30 M4466 37 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
11. Advance amount received from the 1,20,000.00 Department to purchase Motor Car
12. Advance amount received from the 7,31,000.00 Department for construction
13. Loan received from Motherinlaw - 50,000.00 Lingamma for the construction of house in 2C/716, Hennur, Banaswadi Road, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru
14. Interest received from SB 2,41,765.34 A/c.30006991149 of SBI, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru
15. Interest received from SB A/c.3511 846.00 of Sri. Vijaya Lakshmi Souharda Sahakari Bank, Sirsi.
16. Interest received from SB A/c.3511 of Sri. Vijaya Lakshmi Souharda 12,810.00 Sahakari Bank, Sirsi.
17. Interest received from SB 36,813.00 A/c.106601010015159 of Vijaya Bank, RMV 2nd Stage, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru
18. Interest received from SB A/c.2456101001905 of Canara Bank, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, 1,37,138.00 Bengaluru
19. Face Value of NSC Certificates 9,275.00 obtained during the service of accused
20. Maturity amount received from LIC policy No.630611356 5,32,498.00
21. Amount received from KGID Policy 1,72,770.00 Nos.755771 and 944712
22. Amount received from the partial 6,38,000.00 withdraw of GPF 38 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
23. Amount received from the father of 1,50,000.00 accused for the construction of house in 2C/716, Hennur Banaswadi Road, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru
24. Amount received from the mother inlaw of accused for the construction of house in 2C/716, 5,00,000.00 Hennur Banaswadi Road, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru
25. The pension and the interest 2,22,980.00 deposited as on 27.06.2014 in the SB account No. 2699101006441 of accused mother in Canara Bank, Sanjay Nagar Branch
26. Rent received from the house 6,05,000.00 situated in No.2C/716, Kusumanjali, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Total 1,62,41,037.34
73. By admitting the income considered by the Prosecution at Sl. No. 2 to 6, 8 to 25, i.e., Rs.73,05,239.34/, the accused has disputed the income mentioned in Sl. No. 1, 7 and 26. The Item in Sl. No.1, 7 and 26 are:
Sl. Amount
Income
No. (in Rs.)
1. The net salary of the accused 82,25,798.00
7. Income out of sale of Opel Corsa Car 1,05,000.00
No.KA 04 ME 3355
39 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
26. Rent received from the house situated 6,05,000.00
in No.2C/716, Kusumanjali, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,
74. In respect of item No.1 i.e., salary income, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out the salary income of Rs.6,18,437/. It is argued that, if the above salary income of Rs.6,18,437/ is added to admitted salary income of Rs.82,25,798/, the same comes to Rs.88,44,235/.
75. Apart from admission of the accused, the Prosecution has independently proved the salary income of the accused, by producing relevant documents along with Charge Sheet. It is also relevant to note that, in view of admitted facts, touching the salary income, the initial burden of the prosecution, in proving the salary income of the accused, stands discharged. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss about the admitted salary income of Rs.82,25,798/, and it is sufficient if the disputed salary income of Rs.6,18,437/ is discussed. 40 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
76. It is also a settled law that, once the prosecution is able to prove the income, and its source, there is benefit of presumption in favour of the prosecution, as provided under section 20 of the P.C. Act. Moreover, the term known source of income referred under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, is the income known to the prosecution.
77. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2010 SCC Online Del 4053 in the case Virender Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and submitted that, the expression "known sources of income" refers to the sources known to the prosecution, and the expression "for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account" refers to the onus or the burden on the accused to satisfactorily explain and account for the assets, found to be possessed by the public servant, and that the assets can be those which have been disclosed and also other assets which have not been disclosed by the public servant, but there is evidence that the asset belongs to or held by the accused public servant. 41 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Hence, onus would shift to the accused to prove that, apart from above referred income, he had an additional salary income to the tune of Rs.6,18,437/. It is therefore just and necessary to appreciate the stand taken by the accused, with regard to his additional salary income.
78. Regarding, the degree of proof required to accept the explanation of the accused and the evidence let in by him, this Court is guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 AIR SCW 5411, State of Maharashtra v/s Dyaneshwar Lakshman Rao Wankhade. By interpreting Section 20 of the P.C. Act, it has been held that, in a case registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the standard of burden of proof on the accused visavis prosecution would differ, and that, the Court is required to consider explanation offered by the accused, if any, on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. So, from the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is very clear that, in so far as the prosecution is 42 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 concerned, it has to prove the allegations levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, the explanation offered by the accused has to be considered on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, which is normally applied in civil cases. Keeping these principles in mind, it is just and necessary to consider the explanation offered by the accused and the evidence produced by him, regarding additional salary income.
79. As per the evidence of PW25, the salary details of the accused were secured from his department, and the salary details are marked as per Ex.P.101, Ex.P.104, Ex.P.105, P.114, P.115, P.116, P.118, P.119, P.123, P.128, P.133, P.134, P.136, P.138, P.145, P.146, P.147, P.148, P.151, P.157, P.159 and P.167. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has taken a sum of Rs.82,25,798/ as salary income of the accused, though the authors of said documents are not examined.
80. During the course of crossexamination of PW25, it is elicited that, the salary particulars reflecting the receipt 43 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 of Dearness allowances, arrears, Annual increment and other emoluments as shown in Ex.P.202, Ex.P.203, Ex.P.204 and Ex.P.205, have not been considered by the IO. It is elicited that, the arrears of pay of Rs.24,128/ reflected in page 178 of Ex.P.202, Leave supplementary DA and difference pay bill of Rs.23,767/ reflected in page 443 of Ex.P.203, Arrears of Dearness pay of Rs.25,217/ and Rs.26,022 reflected in page 462 of Ex.P.203, the salary of Rs.16,571/ for the month of May 2004 reflected in page 77 and 147 of Ex.P.202 and Ex.P.159 respectively, have been left out.
81. It is further elicited that, increment difference bill of Rs.27,340/ and Rs.28,600/ reflected in page 474 and 149 to 150 of Ex.P.203 and Ex.P.147 respectively, increment difference bill of Rs.33,034/ and Rs.33,034/ reflected in page 506 and 182 of Ex.P.203 and Ex.P.147 respectively, increment difference bill of Rs.32,208/ and Rs.32,208/ reflected in page 507 and 182 of Ex.P.203 and Ex.P.147 respectively, increment difference bill of Rs.34,520/ 44 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 reflected in page 513 and 182 of Ex.P.203 and Ex.P.147 respectively, difference of pay and allowances of Rs.2,59,568/ reflected in page 540 and 187 of Ex.P.203 and Book No.6 respectively, have been left out. It is further elicited that, DA arrears of Rs.9,023/ reflected in page 547 and 187 of Ex.P.203 and Book No.6 respectively, DA arrears of Rs.13,197/ reflected in page 562 and 189 of Ex.P.204 and Book No.6 respectively, in total Rs.6,18,437/ has been left out.
82. In view of the above admissions found in the evidence of PW25 coupled with the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.202, Ex.P.203, Ex.P.204 and Ex.P.205, it has to be held that, Investigation Officer has left out additional salary income of Rs.6,18,437/.
83. In respect of item No.7, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has taken the income from sale of the car i.e., Opel Corsa, to one Ravindra Bachappa for sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/, but the sale price was Rs.1,10,000/. It is argued that, if the 45 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 difference amount of Rs.5,000/ added to the income of the accused from the sale of car, the income needs to be increased from Rs.1,05,000/ to Rs.1,10,000/. It is relevant to note here itself, that apart from admission of the accused, the Prosecution has independently proved the sale amount of Rs.1,05,000/, by producing relevant documents along with Charge Sheet. Hence, it is sufficient if the disputed sale amount of Rs.5,000/ is discussed.
84. As per the evidence of DW13, the sale amount was Rs.1,10,000/. It is contended that, DW13 though has been cited as CW24 in the Charge Sheet, the Prosecution has not examined the said seller of the car, and therefore, the accused got the said witness examined as DW13, to show that the car was purchased for Rs.1,10,000/ by DW13. The delivery note issued by DW13 is reflected in page No.1590 of Ex.P.207 itself of the prosecution, and the sale price shown is 1,10,000/. Hence, additional income of Rs.5,000/ needs to be added to the income of the accused. 46 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
85. In respect of item No.26, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has taken the rental income from the house property as Rs.6,05,000/, but the monthly rent of Rs.50,000/ for 11 months, in total Rs.5,50,000/ (Rs.50,000 x 11 months) has not been considered by the IO, and the rental amount is fixed as Rs.70,000/, only after the lapse of first 11 months, and hence, the rent for the 11 months i.e., from April 2010 to February 2011 needs to be considered as Rs.7,70,000/ (Rs.70,000 x 11 months).
86. It is argued that, if the difference amount of Rs.13,20,000/ (Rs.5,50,000/ + Rs.7,70,000/) is added to the rental income of the accused, the rental income needs to be increased from Rs.6,05,000/ to Rs.19,25,000/. Apart from admission of the accused, the Prosecution has independently proved the rental income of Rs.6,05,000/, by producing relevant documents along with Charge Sheet. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss admitted rental income 47 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 of Rs.6,05,000/, and it is sufficient if the disputed rental income of Rs.13,20,000/ is discussed.
87. Ex.P.237 is the Rental Agreement, relied upon by the accused. PW25/IO during crossexamination has admitted that, he has taken the rental income in respect of house No.2C/716 belonging to wife of accused as Rs.6,05,000/, and the tenant had occupied the same on 01.05.2009. PW25 also admitted that, he has not enquired any person from the tenant i.e., M.Q. Network. It is also admitted that, Rs.5,50,000/ advance amount was credited to the account of the owner on 01.07.2009. Having admitted the fact that, the refundable deposit has been credited to the account of the accused, there was no reason for the IO to discard the rent for 11 months, and hence, the contention of accused, touching the additional rental income of Rs.13,20,000 stands for reasons.
88. The accused has thus recalculated the value of income as below:
48 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Sl. Description of the Amount to
As per IO As per AGO
No. Income be added
1 Salary 82,25,798 88,44,235 6,18,437
7 Sale price of Opel 1,05,000 1,10,000 5,000
Corsa to Ravindra
Bachappa
26 Rent from House 6,05,000 19,25,000 13,20,000
No.2C716
Kusumanjali at
Banasawadi Road
Total 89,35,798 1,08,79,235 19,43,437
In view of aforesaid discussion, therefore, the recalculated additional income of Rs.19,43,437/ needs to be taken into consideration.
89. According to the accused, the Investigating Officer has also intentionally left out the following income of the accused and his family members:
Sl.
Description of the Income Income No. 1 Agricultural income from Sy. No.264 of 4,25,000 Y.K.Hoskote, Pavagada 2 Loan from Gurunath 5,00,000 3 Loan from A.J. Sathisha 45,000 4 Loan from B.V. Srinivas 45,000 5 Loan from Venkateshppa 55,000 6 Loan from Babu 48,000 49 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 7 Loan from Mallikarjuna 45,000 8 Loan from Shivakumar 10,000 9 Interest on FD No.31616929750 50,000 10 Interest on fixed deposit account 51,196 No.31616929750 11 Interest on SB Ac No.30311456774 at SBI in the joint name of accused and 2,728 Shravan 12 Bonus accrued on Policy No.639007620 96,000 13 Amount received by wife from her mother 20,50,000 14 Loan by Shravan from SBI 50,00,000 15 Business loan of Shravan from 25,00,000 Vijayalakshmi Souharda Ltd, Sirsi 16 Vehicle loan of Shravan from Sirsi Urban 4,12,414 Bank 17 Unsecured loan from Mohan Reddy 4,00,000 18 Unsecured loan from Kusuma 2,50,000 19 Unsecured loan from Bhagyalakshmi 6,50,000 20 Business loan of Shravan from Konda 10,00,000 Reddy 21 Income of Shravan from Café Roshini 6,96,273 22 Salary of Shravan 3,81,000 23 Business loan of Shravan from Venkatashiva Reddy 4,00,000 24 Business loan of Shravan from Nanji 7,00,000 Reddy 25 Business loan of Shravan from Bayya 6,60,000 Reddy Total left out income 1,64,72,611
90. Regarding item No.1 - agricultural income, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating 50 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Officer has left out the Agricultural income of Rs.4,25,000/ derived from Sy.No.264 of Y.N. Hoskote, Pavagada. The IO/PW25 during cross examination, has admitted that, the accused and his family members owned agricultural property measuring 8 acres 16 guntas at Y.N.Hoskote, and the accused in his schedule at Ex.P.202 has claimed the agricultural income from the said property.
91. The IO has secured the annual property returns of the accused from his department, and the accused has declared the income under the head of agriculture in his APRs, ie., Rs.10,000/ each for the years 1993 to 2002, Rs.20,000/ each in the years 2003 to 2005, Rs.25,000/ in the year 2006, Rs.30,000/ each in the years 2007 - 2009, and Rs.50,000/ each in the years 2010 - 2012, as per Ex.D.7, and the total amount so declared by the accused is Rs.4,25,000/. These facts are admitted by PW25 during cross examination. However, the IO has rejected the entire claim and not considered the agricultural income. No reasons are assigned by the 51 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Investigation Officer for not considering the agricultural income. The accused on the other hand, has produced a Certificate at Ex.P.206 issued by a retired Director of Agriculture along with the RTCs, and also examined the said witness as DW12. Hence. the said agricultural income of Rs.4,25,000/ needs to be taken as left out income of the accused.
92. Regarding item No.2, Loan from Gurunath, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out a loan of Rs.5,00,000/. Accused as DW6 has deposed that, while constructing the house at Kalyan Nagar (HRBR), he had borrowed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/ from Gurunath, and claimed the said loan of Rs.5,00,000/ in his schedule Ex.P.202. Further, the fact of loan was also informed to his department on 06/05/2014, as per Ex.P.8. The said loan has been taken as source, and not as the loan obtained from Gurunath.
93. It is seen that, though the said witness Gurunath has been cited as CW18, he has not been examined by the 52 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 prosecution, but, examined on defence side as DW14. The said witness has spoken about giving of the loan of Rs.5,00,000/ to accused, and nothing has been elicited during his cross examination, to disbelieve his version. In the circumstances, the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/ needs to be added as income of the accused.
94. Regarding Item No.3 to 7, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out item No.3 to 7, i.e., loans from A.J.Sathish, B.V. Srinivas, Venkateshappa, Babu and Mallikarjuna. It is seen that, the accused had informed his department about the registration of a property from BDA, and also informed about the private loan availed by him, for the said purpose and enclosed the consent letters of the persons who had given him the loan, and the same has been admitted by PW25/IO in his cross examination.
95. In addition to this, Ex.D.9 - letter to the Chief Secretary to Government, also has been produced on defence side. It is seen that, the IO has not considered the 53 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 total amount of Rs.45,000+ 45,000 + 55,000 + 48,000+ 45,000 = 2,76,000, the loan availed by the accused from A.J. Sathish, B.V. Srinivas, Venkateshappa, Babu and Mallikarjuna. Hence, the entire loan amount of Rs.2,76,000/ needs to be added as income of the accused.
96. Regarding item No.8, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out item No.8 loan from Shivakumar. It is seen that, accused had informed his department about taking of the loan of Rs.10,000/ from one Shivakumar to purchase the car. Said Shivakumar has been examined as DW7, and he has spoken about having given a letter vide Ex.D.1, stating that a loan amount of Rs.10,000/ was given to the accused. Nothing has been elicited from DW7 during cross examination, to disbelieve his version. Hence, the entire loan amount of Rs.10,000/ needs to be added as income of the accused.
97. Regarding item No.9 and 10, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has 54 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 intentionally left out item No.9 & 10 Interest from FD. It is seen that, the accused was holding FD No.31616929750 in his name, and initially, Rs.5,00,000/ was invested on 05/02/2011. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the initial amount and the interest of Rs.50,000/ i,e., a total of Rs.5,50,000/ was reinvested on 31/08/2012, but the interest amount of Rs.50,000/ has not been taken as income of the accused. Further, interest of Rs.51,196/ was accrued on 31/08/2013 for Rs.5,50,000/, and the said additional interest has also not been taken as income of the accused.
98. No doubt, these aspects have been admitted by the PW25/IO in his cross examination, but, however, on perusal of the list of assets considered by the investigating agency, it is noted that, the balance of FD No.31616929750 is shown as Rs.5,00,000/ i.e., the principle amount. The accused has made a claim, that the interest earned on such FD is not considered. But the FD balance considered by the IO in asset list is excluding 55 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 interest. If the interest is to be considered as source, the FD balance also would have a corresponding increase. Hence, the accrued interest of Rs.1,01,196/ needs to be ignored as source.
99. Regarding item No.11, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out item No.11 i.e., Interest on SB account No.30311456774 at SBI, in the joint name of accused and Shravan, which has been shown in Ex.P.184. It is suggested to PW25/IO that, the SB A/c. No.30311456774 has been standing in the joint name of accused and his son, but the interest credited to the said account, has not been taken into consideration, and this aspect is admitted by PW25/IO, in his cross examination. Hence, interest amount of Rs.2,728/ needs to be added as income of the accused.
100. Regarding item No.12, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out item No.12 i.e., Bonus accrued on Policy 56 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 No.639007620, though the above mentioned LIC is in the name of accused and as on the date of raid, bonus amount of Rs.96,000/ was declared on the said policy. It is also contended that, the interest on investment will have to be considered as income, even though such interest is not withdrawn, and there is no reason for the IO to discard the bonus accrued on the investment made in LIC. PW25/IO has admitted that, bonus amount of Rs.96,000/ has not been taken into consideration. However, on perusal of list of assets considered by the Investigating Agency, it is noted that the balance of policy No.639007620 is shown as Rs.2,34,750/ i.e., the premium paid, and the accused has made a claim, that the bonus accrued on such policy is not considered. But the policy balance considered by the IO in the Asset list, is excluding bonus. If the bonus is to be considered as source, the paid up value of the policy, also would have a corresponding increase. Hence, the accrued bonus of Rs.96,000/ needs to be ignored as source.
101. Regarding item No.13, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally 57 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 left out item No.13, i.e., the amount received by wife of the accused, from her mother. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the accused had declared the receipt of Rs.20,50,000/ from his motherinlaw, paid to his wife over a period of time. Such declarations are made as shown in page No.9 of Schedule4, which is marked as Ex.P.202, and along with the schedule, the accused had furnished the sworn Affidavit of his motherinlaw Smt. Lingamma.
102. PW25/IO has also admitted in his cross examination that, he had enquired Lingamma, with regard to her Affidavit and that, said Lingamma had admitted the contents of the Affidavit, though he had not enquired her about Rs.20,50,000/, and admitted that, she was financially well off. When IO has admitted that, Lingamma had admitted the contents of the Affidavit and her sound financial capacity, there was no reason for the IO, to reject the amount paid by Lingamma to her daughter/wife of accused, as income of the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for the said sum of Rs.20,50,000/ as his income. 58 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
103. Regarding item No.14 and 15, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out item No.14 and 15, Loan by Shravan from SBI, and loan from Vijayalakshmi Souharda Ltd, Sirsi. It is seen that, the son of accused Mr. Shravan is unmarried and he was living with the accused, and the same is reflected in Ex.P.202 schedule also which was furnished to IO by the accused. The said fact is elicited during cross examination of PW25, and the same has been reflected in the Mahazar at Ex.P.9 also.
104. It is further contended that, while considering the value of the household articles, the articles found in the room of Shravan has been taken as assets of the accused, stating that he was residing with the accused, and the said fact is reflected in the Mahazar at Ex.P.9. Further, while considering the per capita monthly expenditure of the accused, the IO has furnished the details of income of the accused as well as his son.
105. Further, the IO has obtained Ex.P.28 - Report in respect of expenditure of accused, his wife, his mother, 59 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 daughter and son Shravan, by himself sending a requisition to the concerned. Further, medical expenses incurred by the son in the month of June 2013 has been taken as expenditure of the accused. Maintenance and fuel expenses of the two wheeler in the name of the son Shravan have also been taken as expenditure of the accused. Travelling expenditure of the son Shravan has also been taken as expenditure of the accused.
106. It is elicited from PW25/ IO that, Shravan, the son of accused had availed a loan of Rs.50,00,000/ from SBI, Rajajinagar, a loan of Rs.25,00,000/ from Vijayalakshmi Souharda Limited, as per the ITR, and he had also availed an unsecured loan of Rs.12,00,000/, a loan of Rs.4,00,000/ from one P.S. Mohan Reddy, a loan of Rs.2,50,000/from one Kusuma, a loan of Rs.6,50,000/ from one Bhagyalakshmi, a loan of Rs.10,00,000/ from one Konda Reddy. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has deliberately excluded the income of the son of the accused, after realizing the fact that, if the said 60 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 income is taken note of, no case can be made out against the accused.
107. It is further contended that, in view of the fact that, the son of the accused was residing with the accused, and that the assets and expenditure of the son, have been taken as assets and expenditure of the accused, income of the son is also required to be taken as income of the accused, and hence, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ obtained from SBI, and a sum of Rs.25,00,000/ obtained from Vijayalakshmi Souharda Limited, which are part of Ex.P.182, are required to be taken as income of accused.
108. The above contention of the accused cannot be accepted. The expenses and assets found at the room belonging to son of the accused, at the residence owned by the accused are only considered in the list of assets. All assets belonging to son of accused are not considered, while arriving at the total assets of the accused. The loans claimed by the accused in item No.14 and 15 are utilised for other personal assets owned by son of the accused. 61 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Since, the same have not been treated as assets of the accused, the loans borrowed for such assets also cannot form part of source for the assets of the accused.
109. Regarding item No.16, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out item No.16, Vehicle loan of Shravan from Sirsi Urban Bank, though the IO has secured the details of loan obtained by the son of the accused from Sirsi Urban Co Operative Bank to purchase the car, as per Ex.P.180. The IO/PW25 has admitted about this loan transaction in his cross examination. As per Ex.P.180, the son of the accused had obtained a loan of Rs.6,15,000/ and repaid a sum of Rs.2,02,586/, and it is contended that, the IO has intentionally left out the difference loan amount of Rs.4,12,414/ as income of the accused.
110. This contention of the accused cannot be accepted. The expenses and assets found at the room belonging to son of the accused, at the residence owned by the accused are only considered in the list of assets. 62 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Accused has claimed that, vehicle loan borrowed by his son is the source of assets of the accused. However, on perusal of the list of assets, the vehicle for which the loan is availed, is not found in the list of assets. Hence, the vehicle loan reflected to in Item No.16, cannot form part of source for the assets of the accused.
111. In respect of item No.17, 18, 19 and 20, it is contended that, unsecured loan from Mohan Reddy, Kusuma, Bhagyalakshmi and Konda Reddy, in total a loan amount of Rs.22,50,000/ has been intentionally left out by the IO. It is contended that, the son of the accused had declared the loan of Rs.4,00,000/ availed from Mohan Reddy in the ITR for the years 201112, 201314, and 201415 as reflected in Page No.1382, Page No.1366 and Page No.1358 of the schedule, a loan of Rs.2,50,000/ availed from Kusuma in the ITR for the years 201415, as reflected in Page No.1358 of the schedule, a loan of Rs.6,50,000/ availed from Bhagyalakshmi in the ITR for the years 201415, as reflected in Page No.1358 of the 63 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 schedule, a loan of Rs.10,00,000/ availed from Konda Reddy in the ITR for the years 201314, as reflected in Page No.1366 of the schedule, and all the said ITRs are part of Ex.P.206.
112. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that, the prosecution though has marked the ITR for the year 201415 as Ex.P.173 at page No.291302 of Book No.7, deliberately has not got marked the ITRs of previous years, despite collecting and producing the same, while filing the Chargesheet. PW25/IO has admitted these aspects in his cross examination. Further, to establish availment of loan, the witnesses namely, Konda Reddy, Bhagyalakshmi, and Mohan Reddy, have been examined as DW8, DW9 and DW11 respectively.
113. However, this contention of the accused cannot be accepted. The expenses and assets found at the room belonging to the son of the accused at the residence owned by the accused, are only considered in the list of assets. All assets belonging to son of the accused are not considered 64 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 while arriving at the total assets of the accused. The loans claimed by the accused in item No.17, 18, 19 and 20 are utilised for other personal assets owned by the son of the accused. Since the same have not been treated as assets of the accused, the loans borrowed for such assets, also cannot form part of source for the assets of the accused.
114. In respect of item No.21, i.e., Income from Café Rossini, it is contended that, M/s. Shravan Enterprises is a proprietary concern, and the IO during investigation has secured the ITR of the son of the accused, to find out his income from the said concern, and according to the IO/PW25, the son of the accused received an income of Rs.6,96,273/. Since, the per capita expenditure of the accused includes expenditure of his son, the income from business of the son of the accused, is to be considered as source of the accused. Hence, Rs.6,96,273/ needs to be added as income of the accused.
115. In respect of item No.22 i.e., salary of Shravan, it is seen that, the son of the accused was working at Ananya 65 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Group from 2007 to 2010 as a Marketing Executive, and salary details of son of accused were part of Ex.P.206. PW25/ IO has admitted the said facts during his evidence. The accused has also produced the Certificate issued by the Company showing that the total salary paid to his son was Rs.3,81,000/, however, the said amount also has not been considered as income of the accused, and no reasons are assigned by the IO for not considering the said income. Since, the per capita expenditure of the accused includes expenditure of his son, the income from business of the son of the accused, is to be considered as source of the accused. Hence, Rs.3,81,000/ needs to be added as income of the accused.
116. In respect of item No.23, 24, and 25 i.e., Business loan availed by Shravan from Venkatashiva Reddy, Nanji Reddy, and Manjunath respectively, it is contended that, son of accused had availed business loan from Venkatashiva Reddy who as DW10 has spoken about the said loan, from Nanji Reddy who as DW15 has spoken 66 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 about the said loan, from Manjunath, who as DW16 has spoken about the said loan, and the Affidavits given by all the three persons are at Ex.D.12, Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15, and these Affidavits are also part of Ex.P.207. No doubt, PW25/IO has also spoken about these facts in his cross examination. But the contention of the accused cannot be accepted. The expenses and assets found in the room belonging to son of the accused at the residence owned by the accused, are only considered in the list of assets. All assets belonging to son of the accused are not considered, while arriving at the total assets of the accused. The loans claimed by the accused in item No.23, 24 and 25 are utilised for other personal asset owned by son of the accused. Since the same have not been treated as assets of the accused, the loans borrowed for such assets, cannot form part of source for the assets of the accused.
117. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the additional source claimed has to be recalculated as below: 67 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
As Amount
Sl.
Description of the Income per As per AGO to be
No.
IO added
1 Agricultural income from
Sy. No.264 of 0 4,25,000 4,25,000
Y.K.Hoskote, Pavagada
2 Loan from Gurunath 0 5,00,000 5,00,000
3 Loan from A.J. Sathisha 0 45,000 45,000
4 Loan from B.V. Srinivas 0 45,000 45,000
5 Loan from Venkateshppa 0 55,000 55,000
6 Loan from Babu 0 48,000 48,000
7 Loan from Mallikarjuna 0 45,000 45,000
8 Loan from Shivakumar 0 10,000 10,000
9 Interest on FD 0 0
50,000
No.31616929750
10 Interest on fixed deposit 0
account 51,196 0
No.31616929750
11 Interest on SB Ac
No.30311456774 at SBI
2,728 2,728
in the joint name of 0
accused and Shravan
12 Bonus accrued on Policy 0
96,000 0
No.639007620
13 Amount received by wife 0
20,50,000 20,50,000
from her mother
14 Loan by Shravan from 0
50,00,000 0
SBI
15 Business loan of
Shravan from 0
25,00,000
Vijayalakshmi Souharda 0
Ltd, Sirsi
16 Vehicle loan of Shravan
4,12,414 0
from Sirsi Urban Bank 0
68 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
17 Unsecured loan from 0
4,00,000 0
Mohan Reddy
18 Unsecured loan from
0
Kusuma 0 2,50,000
19 Unsecured loan from
0
Bhagyalakshmi 0 6,50,000
20 Business loan of Shravan 0
10,00,000 0
from Konda Reddy
21 Income of Shravan from 0
6,96,273 6,96,273
Café Roshini
22 Salary of Shravan 0 3,81,000 3,81,000
23 Business loan of Shravan
from Venkatashiva Reddy 0 4,00,000 0
24 Business loan of Shravan 0 0
7,00,000
from Nanji Reddy
25 Business loan of Shravan 0
6,60,000 0
from Bayya Reddy
Total left out income 0 1,64,72,611 43,03,001
Hence, the total left out income of the accused, during the check period was Rs.43,03,001/.
118. Now, let me discuss the dispute regarding assets of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused owned assets worth Rs.2,16,18,864.97/, whereas, the accused claims that his assets were worth only Rs.1,06,36,320/. So, there is a dispute of opinion between the prosecution and accused in respect of the assets worth 69 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Rs.1,09,82,544/. In view of the above dispute, it is just and necessary to describe the list of assets considered by the Investigating Officer, as described in Final Report.
119. The list of Assets considered by the Investigating Agency is as follows:
Sl. Amount
Income
No. (in Rs.)
1 Amount paid to BDA towards
purchase of site No.2C716, 2,91,303.00
Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road, 1st Block Layout, Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru 2 Construction cost of house at 63,61,755.00 No.No.2C716, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road, 1 Block Layout, st Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru 3 Purchase of house at No.176, 20,95,100.00 Ghataprabha Block, National Games Housing Board Colony, Koramangala, Bengaluru 4 Accused father Alkuraiah 8,75,000.00 purchased RCC roofed house at No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru, from one Kumaran Masood 5 Construction of house at 1st floor at 16,97,942.00 No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru, 6 Cost of Hero Honda CBZ No.KA19 51,145.00 S 5454, purchased by accused in 70 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the name of his son 7 Amount in SB A/c. 17,35,938.10 No.30006991149 as on 27.06.2014 in SBI Bank, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore 8 Amount in SB A/c. No.3511 as on 797.00 27.06.2014 in Sri. Vijayalakshmi Souharda Sahakari Bank, Shirsi 9 Amount in SB A/c. 30,382.00 No.106601010015159 as on 27.06.2014 in Vijaya Bank, RMV 2nd Stage, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 10 Amount in Joint Account in the 57,455.87 name of accused and his wife, in SB A/c. No.2456101001905 as on 27.06.2014 in Canara Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, Bangalore 43 11 Amount in SB A/c. 12,261.00 No.2699101006441 as on 27.06.2014 in Canara Bank, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore, in the name of accused mother Smt. Sakamma 12 Deposited amount in TD Account 5,00,000.00 No.33273390516, 5,00,000.00 No.33273390517, and 5,00,000.00 No.31616929750 in SBI, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 13 Deposited amount towards locker 1,000.00 in A/c.No.2456401001411/1 in Canara Bank, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru 14 Premium paid towards LIC policy 2,34,750.00 No.639407620 15 Share amount in Sri Vijayalakshmi 500.00 71 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Souharda Sahakari Bank, Sirsi -
Member No.1641 16 Share amount in The Sirsi Urban 100.00 Sahakari Bank Limited - A/c 100.00 No.40178, and No.40177 17 Share amount and Membership fee 1,000.00 paid in Mysore District Forest 1,110.00 Department Employees Housing Society Ltd., 18 Share amount in Sri Vijayalakshmi 500.00 Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sirsi - Member No.1642 19 Cost of house hold articles and 21,88,312.00 furniture found during house search 20 Cost of Rose and teak wood furniture found at No.716, Kusumanjali, Hennur Banaswadi 5,00,000.00 Road, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru 21 Cost of gold items found in locker 29,95,494.00 and in the residence of accused at No.122/A, Shishira, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 22 Cost of silver items found in locker 83,800.00 and in the residence of accused at No.122/A, Shishira, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 23 During search, amount found in 5,43,330.00 the residence of accused at No.122/A, Shishira, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 24 Cost of sandal wood idols and 2,16,602.00 sandal wood pieces found in 72 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 accused residence 25 Amount deposited to BESCOM for 26,000.00 the electricity supply at No.716, 2nd cross, 1st Block, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru.
26 Amount deposited to BESCOM for 8,740.00 the electricity supply at No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 27 Amount deposited to BWSSB for the 2,340.00 water supply at No.716, 2nd cross, 1st Block, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru.
28 Amount deposited to BWSSB for the 1,190.00 water supply at No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 29 Amount deposited towards Gas 1,400.00 connection to Veeresh Gas Agencies and Indane Gas Distributors 30 Amount deposited towards 3,900.00 telephone connection for the No.23517163 31 Deposit amount towards Bengaluru 5,618.00 Club Membership fee 32 Deposit amount towards Gulf Club 10,000.00 Membership fee 33 Deposit amount towards 15,000.00 Cosmopolitan Club Membership fee 34 Amount paid towards drilling of 69,000.00 Borewell at No.2C716, Hennur Cross, Banaswadi Road, 1st Block, Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru Total 2,16,18,864.97 73 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
120. Out of the said 34 heads, the accused has disputed the value in respect of the Assets mentioned in Sl. No.2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 26, 30, 31, 32 and 33. The accused has not disputed the assets mentioned in Sl. No. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 to 18, 23, 25, 27 to 30 and 34. Hence, it is sufficient to discuss only the disputed assets.
121. In respect of item No.2 i.e, Construction cost at Plot No.2C716 of HRBR Layout, Kalyana Nagar, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has valued this property at Rs.63,61,755/ based on the Valuation Report Ex.P.37 issued by PW18, which is based on Gazette Notification at Ex.P.38. It is seen that, the construction work was completed in the year 200406, and the accused has reported to his department, about the construction and the amount spent by him i.e., a sum of Rs.39,14,650/ as per Ex.D.5, and the said declaration is made on the basis of the Valuation Report, which is a part of Ex.D.5. It is also seen that, the accused had also declared the cost of 74 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 construction in his Annual Property Returns submitted on 01/01/2007 as found in Ex.P.206.
122. It is elicited from PW18 that, he has adopted the rates mentioned in the Gazette Notification of the year 2014, but, the building was constructed in the year 2004
06. Ex.D.1 is the Gazette Notification of the year 2005. PW18 has admitted that, if the price mentioned in the said Gazette Notification is applied, the cost of the ground floor would be Rs.10,40,000/, cost of the first floor would be Rs.8,49,000/ and the cost of the second floor would be Rs.3,61,368/. He has further admitted that, he has mentioned in his Report that, the cost of cellar and stilt valuation has to be arrived at 66% of the ground floor and if the 66% of the value of the ground floor in terms of guideline is adopted, the value of the basement would be Rs.6,16,800/. The evidence of PW18 would indicate that, the cost of the building is Rs.28,67,168/, which is in fact, less than what is declared by the accused to his department. Hence, there was no reason for the IO to reject 75 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the declaration of the accused, made during the undisputed point of time, and accept the Report of PW18 which is based on the rate prevailing in the year 2014. The accused as DW6 has reiterated the same during his evidence, and nothing worthy has been elicited from DW6, to disprove his contention. Therefore, the cost of the building i.e., Rs.39,14,650 has to be deducted from Rs.63,61,755, and the value of the asset would be 63,61,755 39,14,650 = 24,47,105.
123. In respect of item No.4 and 5 i.e., purchase value and construction cost in respect of 1st and 2nd floor in site No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar in the name of Late Alkuraiah. According to the IO/PW25, the site No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar, is a benami property of the accused and as such, the purchase value of Rs.8,75,000/ as well as the construction value of Rs.16,97,942/ have been taken as assets of the accused. It is seen that, the property was purchased by Late Alkuraiah, vide registered Sale Deed dated 25/01/1996, from one Kumaran, and when the 76 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 property was purchased, there was a RCC house measuring 850 Sq ft, as per the said Sale Deed at Ex.P.243. It is worthy to mention that, neither the vendor, nor the attesting witnesses, have been enquired by the IO, to show that the alleged Sale is a benami transaction.
124. It is also seen that, the 1 st floor and 2nd floor building plan has been sanctioned in the name of Late Alkuraiah as per the documents seized by the IO, and that 1st and 2nd floors were constructed in the year 2001. Though the IO has cited H.A. Nagaraj, the younger brother of the accused as CW22, and Channakeshava, the son of elder brother of Late Alkuraiah as CW38, to show that, Late Alkuraiah had no financial sources to purchase or construct the building, and had recorded the statement of one Gonal Beemappa, none of these witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
125. But, however aforesaid H.A. Nagaraj has been examined by the defence as DW4 and he has deposed that, his father had purchased the property at Bangalore, and 77 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 during cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, he has denied the suggestion that, the property was neither purchased by his father, nor he had constructed the building. Further, Gonal Bheemappa has been examined on defence side as DW3, and he has also deposed that, Late Alkuraiah had purchased the property and later constructed 1st and 2nd floors. In the course of the cross examination, DW3 also denied the prosecution suggestion that, the construction was made by the accused.
126. It is contended that, the father of the accused Late Alkuraiah was a teacher, who was retired during the year 1977, and was receiving the pension, and that he was engaged in agricultural activities, and also in tuitions to the children, subsequent to his retirement. As per the evidence of the accused/DW6, his father was a joint owner of property, to an extent of 8 acres 16 guntas at Y.N.Hoskote and one Dr.Mallappa had given a Certificate in respect of the agricultural income of Late Alkuraiah. Out of his pension, agricultural income and income from the other 78 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 sources, Late Alkuraiah had purchased No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar, and put up the additional structure. In support of agricultural income of his father, the accused has also examined Dr.Mallappa as DW12 and the Certificate issued by DW12 is at Ex.D.13. Nothing worthy of credence has been elicited during cross examination of DW6 and DW12, in favour of the prosecution.
127. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that, when the IO has taken a stand that, the accused had borrowed a loan from his father in the year 200405, the IO could not have alleged that, Late Alkuraiah had no money to purchase the site, and that it was the accused, who had invested the money for purchase. It is further contended that, prior to the death of Late Alkuraiah, the rental income of said property, has not been considered as income of the accused, and IO has not assigned any reason for not considering the rental income in the name of the accused, if it is the benami property of the accused. 79 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
128. It is seen that, as per the prosecution, 1 st and 2nd floors were constructed in the year 2001, and the accused was posted at Mangalore at that time. Though the contention of the IO is that, the accused had paid the electricity charges for the year 201314 in respect of No.122/A, Sanjay Nagar, through his bank account and as such, the said property is presumed to be benami, it is seen that, Late. Alkuraiah died on 27/06/2007, and the payment of electricity bills were done only after the death of Alkuraiah, and not prior to that. Further, the fact that, the accused started living with his father, from 2005 onwards also cannot be lost sight of.
129. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in (1974) 1 SCC 3 in the case Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through L.Rs and another vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra and others, and submitted that, the burden of proving that, a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so, and this burden has to be 80 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character, which would either directly prove the fact of Benami or establish circumstances, unerringly and reasonably raising an inference to that effect.
130. It is settled law that, while deciding the question of benami transaction, the circumstances such as (1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of the titledeeds after the sale and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale, are to be taken into consideration. Further, the purchase money came, is by far the most important test, for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in, reality for the benefit of another, but nothing of these sequences have been placed before the Court, by the prosecution. In the circumstances 81 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 therefore, the purchase value i.e., Rs.8,75,000/ and construction value i.e., Rs.16,97,942, have to be deducted from the assets of the accused.
131. In respect of item No.7 i.e., Bank balance in SB No.30006991149 of State Bank of India, Sanjay Nagar, it is contended that, as on the date of raid, an amount of Rs.17,35,938.10 was in the said account, belonging to the accused, and entire amount has been taken as assets of the accused by the IO, but, the account is salary account of the accused and only salary and amount in reference to employment of the accused were credited. It is also contended that, the salary has to be considered as income, and not as assets, and as such the entire amount standing in the name of the accused, as on the date of the raid, has to be removed from the list of assets.
132. Bank account extract from 26/05/2005 to 22/06/2014 is at Ex.P.184, and PW25/IO has admitted during his evidence that, the salary credited to the bank account shall be considered as income, and that amount 82 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 has been periodically credited to the account of the accused from 26/05/2005 to 22/06/2014, under the caption of "Bhanneraghatta R by clearing" and there is no other credits to the account except the interest thereon. It is also admitted that, during the said period, the accused was working at Bhanneraghatta Division.
133. PW25/IO has also admitted that, periodic amount has been credited from 10/04/2007 to 17/11/2008 under the caption of "Establishment treasury Cheque, Salary by transfer" and there are no other credits to the account except the interest thereon. PW25/IO has further admitted that, periodic amount has been credited from 22/12/2008 to 22/06/2010 under the caption of "Check Department, Tumkur, Government Establishment" and there are no other credits to the account except the interest thereon. PW25/IO has further admitted that, periodic amount has been credited from 05/10/2010 till the date of raid under the caption of "CCPC, Bangalore" and there are no other credits to the account except the interest thereon. PW25/IO 83 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 has admitted that, the aforesaid account is the salary account of the accused.
134. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, PW25/IO himself has collected salary particulars of the accused as per Ex.P.147 reflecting the account number of the accused, which indicates that the entire amount found in the account, as on the date of raid, is the accumulation of salary credits of the accused, and further, the accused as DW6 has also deposed that, no credits were done to the aforesaid account, except the salary and salary related payments, and hence, the entire amount of Rs.17,35,938/ has to be treated as income. This claim cannot be accepted, as the income from salary is already considered in the list of income. Bank balance is an asset, the source of which could be an income (like the salary in this case). Hence, the balance cannot be treated as asset.
135. In respect of item No.11 i.e., Bank balance in SB No.2699101006441 of Canara Bank, Sanjay Nagar in the 84 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 name of mother Sakamma. It is contended that, this is the pension account of the mother of the accused, and she has been receiving the pension, after the death of the father of the accused. As on the date of the raid, an amount of Rs.12,261/ was available in the account, and Investigation Officer has wrongly taken the same as assets of the accused. The claim cannot be accepted, as the income from pension is already considered in the list of income. Bank balance is an asset, the source of which could be an income (like the pension in this case). Hence, the balance cannot be treated as asset. Further, having taken the same as income of the accused, the same amount cannot be considered as his asset.
136. In respect of item No.19 i.e., Household articles, it is contended that, during Mahazar as per Ex.P.9, at the residence of the accused, the IO has made an inventory of the articles and fixed the probable value of articles at Rs.21,88,312/, and the accused has offered his 85 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 explanation as per Ex.P.208, as per which the value of the articles were inflated, that the value of the articles which were received as gift were taken as assets and that the value of the articles belonging to the father of the accused till his death, were not separated. According to accused, the value of the articles belonging to him, is only Rs.13,88,357/.
137. It is seen that PW1 Shivakumar, who has been examined by the prosecution to prove the value of the articles, has not stated anything about the parameters for fixing the value. It is also seen that, the search was conducted and Ex.P.9 was prepared under the supervision of PW22. But, neither the evidence of PW22, nor the Ex.P.9 indicate anything about availing of the services of any expert, to ascertain the value of the electrical and electronic items, the cloths and the wooden articles.
138. The details of the value of the each of the articles found in the house, and the articles which are received as gift, have been furnished by the accused, in Ex.P.208. As 86 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 per the explanation, Item No.19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 41, 43, 49, 66, 76, 85, 87, 88, 89, 93, 107, 111, 117, 124, 129, 130, 257, 264, 359, 360 and 367 are received as gifts at various functions. The gifts received from motherinlaw of the accused, has been confirmed by her affidavit, which is in Ex.P.208. These Items are corresponding to the items mentioned in the Mahazar at Ex.P.9. and the total value of these items is Rs.4,10,799/.
139. In respect of item No.51 (i.e., Iphone, Apple Mac Book and imported hard disc), item No.258, and item No.259, it is contended that, the same were received as gifts, by the son of the accused, from his friend Mr. Sadiq. It is seen that, Prosecution has not attempted to collect the invoices/ bills or any other evidence to gather as to in whose name, item No.51, 258 and 259 had been purchased. It is needless to mention that, generally the invoices would be in the name of the donor and not in the name of the donee. No such details are forthcoming in the evidence led by the prosecution. If gifts are received by a 87 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 person from friends and relatives, on the occasion of the birthdays, marriage and other religious/ social functions, it is obvious that the same person could have given similar gifts to his friends and relatives, and Investigation Officer has not collected any material evidence in this regard. In fact the gifts received from Mr. Sadiq have been confirmed, by way of a Confirmation Letter dated 28/01/2016 in Ex.P.208. Further, the PW25/IO has also admitted in his cross examination that, he had not enquired Mr. Sadiq. These Items are mentioned in the Mahazar at Ex.P.9, and the total value of these items is Rs.1,82,000/.
140. In addition to the above, the accused has contended and also has taken a stand in his schedule that, Sl.No.63, 81, 91, 325, 334, 363, 364, in all, valuing at Rs.69,000/ have already been included in the house Valuation Report at Ex.P.37, and as such, the said amount is shown in duplication. Hence, the cumulative amount of Rs.6,61,799/ (4,10,799 + 1,82,000 + 69,000 = 6,61,799) needs to be deducted from the component of assets, and 88 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the value of the remaining household articles would be Rs.15,26,513/ (21,88,312 6,61,799 = 15,26,513).
141. It is also contended that, the household articles which were valued at Rs.15,26,513/ are not purchased only during the close vicinity of the date of the raid, and the articles might have been purchased over a period of time and as such there is likelihood of inflating the value of the same. PW25/IO has not produced any bills or other papers, with regard to purchase of household articles. In the circumstances therefore, it is just and necessary to deduct reasonable percentage i.e., 10% which works out to Rs.1,52,651/ (15,26,513 X 10% = 1,52,651), as claimed by the accused. Hence, the value of the household articles would be Rs.13,73,862/ (15,26,513 1,52,651 = 13,73,862), and hence, 21,88,312 - 13,73,862 = Rs.8,14,450, needs to be deducted from the assets of the accused.
142. In respect of item No.20 i.e., value of the teak and rose wood, it is contended by the accused that, no Expert 89 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 has been examined to prove the value arrived at by the IO. According to the PW25/IO, when the search was conducted in the residence of the accused at Kalyana Nagar, 100 pieces of teak wood, 50 pieces of rose wood and 150 pieces of sele teakwood, were found and the value of the same has been fixed at Rs.5,00,000/. Neither the services of any expert were availed by the IO, to assess the said value, nor any expert has been examined by the prosecution, to prove the said value, though the IO has stated that, he has received letters and enclosures from different Timber Merchants, as per Ex.P.174.
143. On the other hand, the accused in his schedule has offered an explanation in Ex.P.208. In support of his assessment, the accused has also enclosed a Certificate issued by Hafeez Timbers, and according to the said Certificate, the value of the aforesaid wood pieces would be Rs.2,25,000/. But, despite the said explanation, admittedly, PW25/IO has not examined any person from said Hafeez Timbers. Apart from this, the accused has also 90 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 examined the proprietor of Hafeez Timbers as DW5, who has deposed about the issuance of Ex.P.208(c) Certificate, and reiterated that, the value of the woods inspected by him, is Rs.2,25,000/. In the circumstances therefore, the value of the same needs to be reduced to Rs.2,75,000/ (5,00,000 2,25,000 = 2,75,000).
144. In respect of item No.21 i.e., Gold Ornaments, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the inflated value has been shown by the IO. According to IO, at the time of search in the residence of the accused, the gold ornaments weighing 1395.05 grms, as per Ex.P.9 Mahazar, and at the time of search of bank locker, the gold ornaments weighing 389.18 grms, as per Ex.P.18 Mahazar were found. According to PW25/IO, the accused has declared 30 tolas of gold (349.92 grms) as gift in his annual property returns, and hence, the same has not been taken as assets of the accused. The IO has taken the value of the remaining gold ornaments found in the residence, weighing totally 1045.58 grms, at Rs.19,83,626/, and taken the value of the gold 91 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 ornaments found in the bank locker weighing totally 389.18 grms, at Rs.10,11,868/. Admittedly, the rates applied by the IO are as per the information furnished by the goldsmith, who was present at the time of drawing the Seizure Mahazar.
145. The goldsmith who had weighed the gold ornaments and fixed the rates, in the residence of the accused has been examined by the prosecution as PW33, and the said witness during his cross examination, has admitted that, he had applied the rate prevailing as on 27.06.2014, and also for 24 carats. The witness further admitted that, the gold ornaments would be normally made in 18 carats or 22 carats, and that he could not say the carats of the gold ornaments, inspected by him at the residence. PW33 further admitted that, while weighing the ornaments, he had not separated the stones, beads, wax etc., from the gold ornaments, and if those items were to be separated, the weight of the gold, would be reduced by 20%. Further, the Goldsmith who had weighed and valued 92 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the gold ornaments found in the bank locker, has been examined as PW3, and he has also admitted that, he was not a licensed appraiser and that, he had not separated the gold and nongold items.
146. The evidence of PW3 and PW33 coupled with the Mahazar at Ex.P.9 and P.18, would clearly indicate that, the nongold materials such as stones, beads, wax etc., were not separated, while weighing and if the weight of the said items are to be separated, the weight of the gold will be reduced by 20%, and further, the rate has been applied for 24 carat gold whereas, the gold ornaments are made out of 18 to 22 carat gold. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that, all the gold ornaments were purchased, immediately prior to the date of raid, and the gold articles were purchased over a period of time. It is seen that, the IO has not even applied the average rate of the gold between 03.02.1983 to 27.06.2014, and in view of the same, the weight and value of the gold ornaments needs to be reconsidered.
93 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
147. According to the accused, the reconsideration of the weight and value of gold is weight of the nongold articles at the rate of 20% is 1045.58 + 389.18 =1434.76, 1434.76 x 20% = 286.952, and 1434.76 - 286.952 = 1147.808. Further, the average rate of gold from 1983 to 2014 for 10 grms is Rs.8482.32/, at the rate of Rs.848.23/ per gram for 1 gram gold of 24 carats. It would be Rs.848.23/24 x 20 = 706.85 for 1 gram of 20 carats. Hence, the value of the gold would be Rs.706.85 x 1147.808 = 8,11,337.64/. In the circumstances therefore, I am of the considered view that, this calculation made by the accused seems to be proper and needs to be accepted accordingly. Hence, the value of the gold needs to be reduced to Rs.21,84,156.36 (29,95,494 8,11,337.64 = 21,84,156.36).
148. In respect of item No.22 i.e., Silver found in the house, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the inflated value has been shown by the IO. According to IO, at the time of search in the residence of the accused, the 94 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 silver items shown in the Mahazar, were found, and the accused has furnished his explanation vide his schedule, and contended that, item No.217, 218, 220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243 and 244 mentioned in the Mahazar are shown inflated, and item No.219, 222, 223, 224, 229, 230, 233, 236, 238, 240, 242, 245 to 249 were received by him, as gift during functions. Considering the fact that, the IO has applied the rate prevailing at the time of drawing the Mahazar, the amount at Rs.62,303/ as shown by the accused is to be taken into consideration, in the similar lines as discussed with regard to the gold articles. In the circumstances therefore, instead of Rs.83,800/ considered by the IO, it is proper for this Court to accept the amount of Rs.62,303/ of the accused. Hence, the value of silver articles needs to be reduced to Rs.21,497/ (Rs.83,800 - 62,303).
149. In respect of item No.24 i.e., Sandalwood and idols, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the inflated value has been shown by the Investigation Officer. 95 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 According to IO, at the time of search in the residence of the accused, 9 items of idols made up of Shivani Sandal and Rose wood were found, and the same were inspected by the expert from Karnataka State Handicraft Development Corporation Limited, who has valued the said items at Rs.1,90,000/. The prosecution has examined PW19, in this regard and the Certificate issued by PW19 is at Ex.P.42. However, PW19 has admitted during his cross examination that, he was not having any Certificate to identify the nature of the wood.
150. PW19 has further admitted that, the prices of the wood, vary from year to year, and also pleaded inability to state, as to when the idols were made. He has further admitted that, the labour charges and other charges for making the wooden idols also vary from year to year, and hence, it is contended that, the price fixed by PW19 is not definite and conclusive. The evidence of PW19 and his report at Ex.P.42 would indicate that, the rate as on the date of his report i.e., as on 29.09.2015 was taken into 96 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 consideration. It is not the case of the prosecution that, all the idols were purchased within a close proximity to the last date of the check period (date of the raid). It has to be presumed that, the idols might have been purchased over a period of time and as such, the fixation of rate prevailing in the year 2015 is not correct. In the circumstances therefore, I am of the considered view that, 20% reduction in the price as claimed by the accused needs to be accepted. Hence, the value of the 9 idols needs to be reduced by 20% i.e., 1,96,000 x 20% = 39,200, and therefore, the value of the idols would be Rs.1,56,800/. Thus, the difference amount of Rs.59,802/ needs to be deducted from the assets of the accused (2,16,602 - 1,56,800 = 59802).
151. In respect of item No.26 i.e., Electricity deposits made towards the house No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar, belonging to Late Alkuraiah, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the electricity deposit of Rs.8,740/ as per the bills at Ex.P.122 is in respect of the house standing in 97 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the name of late father of the accused, and the same has been taken as assets of the accused, though the entire deposits were made during the year 1997 and 2000. It is seen that, the father of the accused had purchased the said property in the year 1996, and during the period between 1996 to 2005, and the accused was not working in Bangalore, or residing at a close proximity to Bangalore. The father died in the year 2007 and till then all the charges in respect of the property, were paid by the father, and hence, the entire amount of Rs.8,740/ needs to be deducted from the assets of the accused.
152. In respect of item No.30 i.e., Telephone Deposit made towards the house No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar belonging to Late Alkuraiah, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the telephone deposit of Rs.3,900/ as per Ex.P.192, bill of the BSNL, is in respect of the house standing in the name of late father of the accused, and the same has been taken as assets of the accused. The material evidence on record would indicate that, the entire 98 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 deposit was made on 11.07.2003, and the Late father of the accused had purchased the property in the year 1996, and till then all the charges in respect of the property were paid by the father. Hence the entire amount of Rs.3,900/ needs to be deducted from the assets of the accused.
153. In respect of item No.31 to 33 i.e., Club Membership, Golf Club membership, and Cosmopolitan Club membership, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the IO has taken Rs.5,618/, Rs.10,000/ and Rs.15,000/, respectively, as assets of the accused, and the IO has collected Ex.P.28 Report from PW12 Statistical Officer, in respect of per capita monthly expenditure of the accused and his family members, during the entire check period. Ex.P.28 - Report contains the payments made by the accused towards the club fees, under the head of entertainment, and the total sum is Rs.95,719/. Hence, consideration of the amount paid to the club, for the second time, amounts to duplication, and as such, 99 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Rs.5,618 + 10,000 + 15,000 = 30,618/ needs to be deducted, from the assets of the accused.
154. The accused has recalculated the value of the disputed assets as under:
Amount to Sl. Description of the As per As per IO be No. assets AGO deducted 2 Construction cost at Plot No.2C716 63,61,755 39,14,650 24,47,105 of HRBR Layout 4 Purchase value of site No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar in 8,75,000 0 8,75,000 the name of Alkuraiah.
5 Construction cost
of 1st and 2nd floor
at site No.122/A
16,97,942 0 16,97,942
of Sanjay Nagar in
the name of
Alkuraiah.
7 Bank balance in
SB
No.30006991149
17,35,938 0 17,35,938
of State Bank of
India, Sanjay
Nagar
11 Bank balance in 12,261 0 12,261
SB
No.26991010064
41 of Canara
Bank, Sanjay
100 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Nagar in the
name of mother
Sakamma
19 Household
21,88,312 13,73,862 8,14,450
articles
20 Value of teak and
5,00,000 2,25,000 2,75,000
rose wood
21 Gold found in the
house No.122/A
29,95,494 21,84,156 8,11,337
of Sanjay Nagar
and locker
22 Silver found in the
house No. 122/A
83,800 62,303 21,497
of Sanjay Nagar
and locker.
24 Sandalwood and
2,16,602 1,56,800 59,802
idols
26 Electricity deposit
made towards the
house No. 122/A
8,740 0 8,740
of Sanjay Nagar
belonging to
Alkuraiah.
30 Telephone Deposit
made towards the
house No. 122/A
3,900 0 3,900
of Sanjay Nagar
belonging to
Alkuraiah.
31 Club Membership 5,618 0 5,618
32 Golf Club
10,000 0 10,000
Membership
33 Cosmopolitan
15,000 0 15,000
Club Membership
Total 1,67,10,362 79,16,771 87,93,591
101 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
155. It is worthy to note that, in the recalculated list of Assets of the accused, the value of household articles is shown as Rs.13,88,357/, and amount to be deducted is shown as Rs.7,99,955/, while in the notes of arguments, the said value is shown as Rs.13,73,862/, and amount to be deducted as Rs.8,14,450/. Further, the value of gold is shown as Rs.4,17,176/ and Rs.66,556/, and amount to be deducted is shown as Rs.25,11,762, while in the notes of arguments, the said value is shown as Rs.21,84,156/ and amount to be deducted as Rs.8,11,337/. Further, the value of sandalwood and idols is shown as '00', and amount to be deducted is shown as Rs.2,16,602/, while in the notes of arguments, the said value is shown as Rs.1,56,800/, and the amount to be deducted as Rs.59,802/. As a detailed calculation is made in the notes of arguments, the same is taken into account, for calculating the difference.
156. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that, the Assets have to be recalculated as below:102 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Amount to Sl. Description of Recalculated As per IO be No. the assets amount deducted 2 Construction cost at Plot 63,61,755 39,14,650 24,47,105 No.2C716 of HRBR Layout 4 Purchase value of site No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar 8,75,000 0 8,75,000 in the name of Alkuraiah.
5 Construction cost of 1st and 2nd floor at site No.122/A of 16,97,942 0 16,97,942 Sanjay Nagar in the name of Alkuraiah.
7 Bank balance in
SB
No.3000699114
17,35,938 17,35,938 0
9 of State Bank
of India, Sanjay
Nagar
11 Bank balance in
SB
No.2699101006
441 of Canara
12,261 12,261 0
Bank, Sanjay
Nagar in the
name of mother
Sakamma
19 Household
21,88,312 13,73,862 8,14,450
articles
20 Value of teak
5,00,000 2,25,000 2,75,000
and rose wood
103 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
21 Gold found in
the house
8,11,337
No.122/A of 29,95,494 21,84,156
Sanjay Nagar
and locker
22 Silver found in
the house No.
122/A of Sanjay 83,800 62,303 21,497
Nagar and
locker.
24 Sandalwood and
2,16,602 1,56,800 59,802
idols
26 Electricity
deposit made
towards the
house No. 8,740 0 8,740
122/A of Sanjay
Nagar belonging
to Alkuraiah.
30 Telephone
Deposit made
towards the
house No. 3,900 0 3,900
122/A of Sanjay
Nagar belonging
to Alkuraiah.
31 Club
5,618 0 5,618
Membership
32 Golf Club
10,000 0 10,000
Membership
33 Cosmopolitan
Club 15,000 0 15,000
Membership
Total 1,67,10,362 96,64,970 70,45,391
104 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
157. Now let me consider the Expenditure of the accused incurred by him, during the check period.
According to the Investigating Officer the following are the expenditures incurred by the accused and his family members during the check period.
Amount
Sl.No. Expenditure
(in Rs.)
1 Registration and Stamp duty fees
towards purchase of Site No.2C716, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road, 1st 47,975.00 Block, Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru 2 Registration and Stamp duty fees towards purchase of Site No.176, Ghataprabha Block, National Games 2,11,805.00 Housing Board Colony, Koramangala, Bengaluru 3 Registration and Stamp duty fees towards purchase of Site No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay 1,47,115.00 Nagar, Bengaluru 4 Amount partially paid by the accused in the name of his son Shravan K. for B type industrial plot 5,85,783.00 at Nelamangala, Bengaluru district.
5 Amount paid to BBMP for sanction of blue print for the house construction in 2C716, Hennur 5,940.00 Road, Banaswadi Road,Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru 6 Amount paid to BBMP for sanction 603.00 105 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 of blue print for the construction of additional floors at No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 7 Revenue Tax paid to BDA for the property situated at No.2C716, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road, 1st 2,869.00 Block, Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru 8 Revenue paid to BBMP for the property situated at No.2C716, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road, 1st 44,974.00 Block, Kalyan Nagar, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru 9 Tax paid to BBMP for the property situated at No.122/A, 4th Main Road, 74,349.00 CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 10 Tax paid to BBMP for the property situated at No.176, Ghataprabha Block, National Games Housing 23,126.00 Board Colony, Koramangala, Bengaluru 11 Purchase value of the Maruthi Swift 5,09,709.00 Car No.KA 04 MG 171 12 Insurance and Maintenance cost of Maruthi Swift Car No.KA 04 MG 171 1,31,050.00 13 Purchase value of the Ambassador Car No.CNE 1470 1,76,300.00 14 Purchase value of the Opel Corsa 4,79,164.00 Car No.KA 04 ME 3355 15 Maintenance cost of Opel Corsa Car 2,62,661.00 No.KA 04 ME 3355 16 Purchase value of the Ambassador Car No.KA 30 M 4466 by accused 4,57,500.00 wife 106 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 17 Maintenance cost of the Ambassador 53,209.00 Car No.KA 30 M 4466 purchased by accused wife 18 Maintenance cost of the Hero Honda CBZ No.KA 19 S 5454 purchased in 50,128.00 the name of accused son 19 Amount paid towards Electricity Connection to the house at 1,12,922.00 No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar Bengaluru 20 Deposit towards Water connection to the house situated at No.716, 2nd 19,305.00 Cross, 1st Block, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru 21 Fees paid towards water connection to the house situated at No.122/A, 93,238.00 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 22 Bill paid for the BSNL Land line 1,34,355.00 phone No.23517163 23 Amount transferred from SBI Bank, Sanjay nagar to the account of 11,00,000.00 Concorde Cuppa Breverages for the hotel business 24 Amount deducted towards bank charges for the account maintained 11,171.70 in SBI, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru 25 Rent paid towards locker No.9 maintained in Canara Bank, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru 10,934.00 with the account No.2456101001905 26 Final amount to be withdrawn from the SB A/c.7423 maintained in Karnataka State Apex CoOperative 446.24 Bank Ltd., Vidhana Soudha Branch 107 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 27 Donation given for the food to Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamivarla Devasthanam, Srishaila. 12,322.00 28 Donation made to Hattinangadi Shri. Siddhi Vinayaka Kshetra Development Trust ®, Hattinangadi, 2,505.00 Kundapura, Udupi District for perpetual service 29 Donation made every year to Adishakthyathmaka Shri. Annapoorneshwari Temple for 4,503.00 perpetual service 30 Donation made to Shri. Marikamba 1,501.00 Temple, Sirsi, for perpetual service 31 Donation made to Shri. Mookambika Temple, Kolluru, for perpetual 1,501.00 service 32 Donation made to Shri. Chamundeshwari Temple, Chamundi Hills, Mysuru for 3,501.00 perpetual service 33 Donation made to Kasturiba Vidyabivruddhi Organisation, Chitradurga 1,00,000.00 34 Donation made to Shri. Durgaparameshwari Temple, 1,001.00 Kateelu, for perpetual service 35 Donation given to perform rituals to God Sadashiva Rudra SuryaTemple, Nadagrama post Permanu, 1,000.00 Belthangadi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.
36 Premium paid towards LIC policy No.630611356 4,00,596.00 37 Face value of NSC Certificate 4,590.00 108 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 obtained during the service 38 Additional tax paid by the accused out of his own money other than 56,087.00 salary deduction 39 Expenses incurred for family maintenance 20,51,107.00 40 Amount paid to Veeresh Gas Agency and Indane Gas Distributors 10,865.84 towards domestic Gas 41 1st Std Education fee of Shruthi K in the School Vidyaniketan English 2,002.00 Medium Nursery and Primary School, Tumkur.
2nd Std to 4th Std Education fee of Shruthi K in the School St. Antony's English Medium Higher Primary 2,700.00 School, Sirsi 8th Std to 10th Std Education fee of Shruthi K in the School of Lady Victoria Girls High School, 7,200.00 Mangalore 1st PUC and 2nd PUC Education fee of Shruthi K in the College of MES, Arts, Commerce and Science Pre 1,120.00 University College, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru 3 years BSc. Education Fee of Shruthi K in Mount Carmel College, 92,418.00 Autonomous, Bengaluru Msc Education Fee of Shruthi K. in 80,235.00 MLA College, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru 42 1st Std to 4th Std Education fee of Shravan in the School of 6,297.00 Vidyaniketan English Medium Nursery and Primary School, 109 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Tumkur.
5th Std to 7th Std Education fee of Shravan in the School of St. 2,700.00 Antony's English Medium Higher Primary School, Sirsi 8th Std to 10th Std Education fee of Shravan in the School of Holy 8,500.00 Rosery Convent High School, Honnavara 1st PUC and 2nd PUC Education fee of Shravan in the College of St. 9,581.00 Aloysius PreUniversity College, Mangalore 1st year Degree Education fee of Shravan in the College of St. 789.00 Aloysius PreUniversity College, Mangalore 2nd year and 3rd Year Degree Education fee of Shravan in the 1,593.00 College of MES, Bengaluru MBA Education fee of Shravan in the college of BMS Engineering College, 1,02,050.00 Post Box No.1908, Bull Temple Road, Bengaluru 43 Expenses for religious ceremonies 12,000.00 44 Tax paid to Bengaluru Gulf Club, with the membership No.CRP 202 1,030.00 45 Tax paid to Cosmopolitan Club ® , with the membership No.477 600.00 46 Maintenance towards Garbage, Security and Park at Residential 1,350.00 Welfare Association ® 47 Expenses towards Passport 2,500.00 Expenses towards Passport of 1,000.00 accused wife 110 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Expenses towards Passport of 1,000.00 accused son Shravan K Expenses towards Passport of 1,000.00 accused daughter - Shruthi K 48 Lab test expenses in Amarashantha 300.00 Medical Consultants 49 Expenses towards Registration, Consultation and laboratory at R.V. 5,960.00 Metro Police Diagnostics Health Care Centre 50 Expenses towards treatment at I AIM Health Care Centre 51 Expenses towards treatment at Dr. Batra's Positive Health Clinic Pvt. 17,800.00 Ltd., Homeopathy 52 Expenses towards treatment at 29,681.00 Columbia Asia Hospital 53 Value of the share obtained in Mysore District Forest Department Employees Home Construction Co 110.00 operative Society Pvt 54 Amount paid to Banashankari Glass and Plywood for fitting the Plain 7,440.00 Glass and Glass Lamination 55 Amount paid towards interior design made at No.2C716, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road, 1st Block, Kalyan 1,01,057.00 Nagar, HRBR Layout, Benglauru 56 Expenses towards Boarding and lodging in Hotel at Chunda Palace, 7,638.00 Udayapura, Rajasthan 57 Amount paid to Pawan Hans Helicopter to travel from Katra to 2,796.00 Sanjichhat 111 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 58 Expenses towards air tickets from Bengaluru to Jaipur and from Jaipur to Bengaluru through 2,02,000.00 Holiday Dreams 59 Amount paid to Bhat and Roy (Chartered Accountant) for preparing 3,371.00 the Income Tax Report 60 Amount paid to Hathway cable and Datacom Ltd., for the cable connection at No.122/A, 4th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, 11,250.00 Bengaluru 61 Amount paid to Agricultural Product Marketing Committee, Hunsur, for 983.00 purchasing teak wood 62 Cost towards drilling borewell at 11,215.00 No.122/A. 4Th Main Road, CIL Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru Total 81,36,977.78
158. Out of the said 62 heads, the accused has disputed the value in respect of the expenditure mentioned in Sl. No.1, 3, 4, 9, 15, 18, 20, 23, 39, 43, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 60 and 62. The accused has not disputed the expenditure mentioned in Sl.No.2, 5 to 8, 10 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24 to 38, 40, 41, 42, 44 to 48, 50, 53, 56 to 59 and 61. Hence, the discussion is confined only to the disputed expenditure.
112 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
159. The recalculation of the value of the Expenditure as per accused are as under:
Amount to Sl. Description of the Recalculate As per IO be No. assets d amount deducted 1 Registration and stamp duty for purchase of Plot 47,975 36,570 11,405 No.2C716 of HRBR Layout 3 Registration and stamp duty for purchase of site No.122/A of 1,47,115 0 1,47,115 Sanjay Nagar in the name of Alkuraiah 4 Deposits towards sanctioned plot in 5,85,783 0 5,85,783 the name of son 9 Property Tax in respect of site No.122/A of 74,349 43,757 30,592 Sanjay Nagar in the name of Alkuraiah 15 Maintenance cost 2,36,395 26,266 of car No.KA04 2,62,661 ME3355 18 Road tax and maintenance of 50,128 40,128 10,000 two wheeler No.KA19S5454 20 Water 19,305 0 19,305 consumption 113 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 charge for House No.716 of HRBR Layout 23 Payment made to the business 11,00,000 0 11,00,000 establishment of Shravan 39 PCME 20,51,107 19,37,778 1,13,328 43 Expenses for religious 12,000 0 12,000 functions 49 Expenses at RV Metro Police 5,960 0 5,960 Diagnostics 51 Expenses incurred at 17,800 0 17,800 Batra's Health Care 52 Expenses incurred at 29,681 0 29,681 Columbia Asia 54 Expenses for 7,440 0 7,440 Glass Lamination 55 Payment made to 1,01,057 0 1,01,057 Datta interiors 60 Payment made towards obtaining 11,250 0 11,250 cable connection 62 Cost incurred for 11,215 0 11,215 drilling the bore well at 122/A of Sanjay Nagar Total 45,34,826 22,94,628 22,40,197 114 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
160. In respect of Item No.1 i.e., Registration and stamp duty for Purchase of Plot No.2C716 of HRBR Layout, it is seen that, the IO has taken a sum of Rs.47,975/ as expenditure of the accused on the ground that, the accused has incurred the said expenditure towards stamp duty and registration charges while purchasing the said property.
161. During the course of the investigation, the IO has secured the details of registration charges and stamp duty incurred by the accused from the concerned office of the Sub Registrar. The Report of the SubRegistrar is marked as Ex.P.227. The property is purchased by the accused from the BDA under the registered Sale Deed. As per Ex.P.227, the accused had in all paid Rs.36,570/. The IO has also secured another Report from Dy. Secretary to BDA, as per Ex.P.108, stating that, accused had incurred Rs.47,975/ for Registration and Stamp Duty. The prosecution has not examined either the SubRegistrar or the Dy. Secretary to the BDA, to clarify these aspects. 115 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Though it is the SubRegistrar who is the Competent Authority to speak about the payment of Registration charges and Stamp Duty, IO has taken the amount mentioned by Dy. Secretary, BDA, by ignoring the Report of the SubRegistrar, and no reasons are assigned by the IO, in this regard. Hence, the expenditure on the instant head, needs to be reduced by Rs.11,405/ (47,975 - 36,570 = 11,405).
162. In respect of Item No.3 i.e., Registration and stamp duty for Purchase of site No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar in the name of Alkuraiah. According to IO, a sum of Rs.1,47,115/ has been paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges while purchasing the said property in the name of father of the accused namely, Late Alkuraiah, and the said amount has been taken as expenditure of the accused. The Report of the SubRegistrar is at Ex.P.230. PW25/IO in his cross examination has admitted that, as on the date of purchase, the accused was working at Uttara Kannada District, and also that, he has not obtained any 116 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 information regarding the Demand Draft, through which the Stamp Duty and Registration fees were paid. As already stated that, it is not established by the prosecution that, the purchase was made by the accused in the name of his father. In view of the same, the entire amount of Rs.1,47,115/ needs to be deducted from the component of expenditure.
163. In respect of Item No.4 i.e., Deposits towards sanctioned industrial plot in the name of son at Nelamangala. An amount of Rs.5,85,783/ drawn by way of Demand Draft from the account of the accused at SBI, Sanjaynagar has been taken as expenditure of the accused. The Demand Draft has been purchased towards part payment of industrial site allotted to son of accused. Money is paid within the family and as such, when the son is the within the family and if the money paid to the son is taken as expenditure of the father, then the money received by the son has to be considered as income of the accused, and ultimately, both the amounts need to be squared off. 117 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
164. In respect of Item No.9 i.e., Property Tax in respect of site No.122/A of Sanjay Nagar in the name of Late Alkuraiah. It is seen that, during the investigation, the IO has secured a Report at Ex.P.85, regarding the property tax paid from 200001 till 27/06/2014, in respect of the said property. As per the said Report, a sum of Rs.74,349/ has been paid as property tax from 200001 to 2014. IO has considered the entire amount as expenditure of the accused. It is seen that, the house belonged to Late Alkuraiah, and the accused was paying the property tax only after death of his father on 23.06.2007, but, the IO/PW25 instead of considering the property tax as expenditure from the said date of death of Late Alkuraiah, has taken the entire amount, as expenditure of the accused.
165. As per Report at Ex.P.85, the total property tax paid between 200001 to 2007 is Rs.30,592/. Since the taxes were paid by the father, the said amount needs to be deducted and the remaining tax amount of Rs.43,757/ 118 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 paid only after 2007, needs to be taken as expenditure of the accused. Hence, the amount of Rs.30,592/ (74,349 43,757 = 30,592) needs to be deducted from the component of expenditure.
166. In respect of Item No.15 i.e., Maintenance cost of car No.KA04 ME3355, it is contended that, the car was sold on 14/09/2010 itself, and the same was not in possession of the accused from that date. It is seen that, the car was purchased on 10/09/2003, and was used till it was sold to Ravindra Bachappa on 14.09.2010. Ex.P.197 is Report from RTO, secured by the IO, with regard to the maintenance cost and fuel expenses incurred by the accused, and as per the said Report, the accused has incurred the expenditure of Rs.2,62,661/ for having run the vehicle for 45,000 KM. According to the IO, the distance run by the accused was ascertained on the basis of the statement given by Ravindra Bachappa. Admittedly, raid was conducted on 27.06.2014. Hence, the car was not in possession and control of the accused from 14.09.2010 till 119 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the date of raid. Hence, the estimation of exact distance covered by the car between 10.09.2003 to 14.09.2010 is not satisfactorily explained.
167. According to IO, Ravindra Bachappa had given a statement that, at the time of purchase, the vehicle had covered a distance of 45,000 km. But, however despite citing Ravindra Bachhappa as CW24, in the chargesheet, he has not been examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, he has been examined as DW13 on defence side, to elicit the exact distance, but, DW13 deposed that, he did not remember as to what was the distance covered by the car. PW25/IO has also admitted in his cross examination that, 3 to 5 free service are available to the new cars. It is also elicited from PW25/IO that, Report secured from the RTO office, did not reflect the mileage capacity of the car, and the details of fuel price between 2003 to 2010. No opinion is secured from Automotive Research Association of India, with regard to the mileage of the cars. The authorised Officer, who has issued Ex.P.197 - Report has 120 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 not been examined by the prosecution. According to the accused the maintenance cost and fuel expenses of the car would be 2,62,661 x 10% = 26,266, and 2,62,661 26,266 = 2,36,395. Hence, the expenditure on this head, needs to be reduced to Rs.26,266/ (2,62,661 - 2,36,395 = 26,266).
168. In respect of Item No.18 i.e., Road tax and maintenance of two wheeler No.KA19S 5454, it is contended that, no document has been produced by the IO/PW25 to show that, the tyre was changed, chain sprocket was changed and engine oil was replaced. According to IO, the aforesaid vehicle was in the name of the son of the accused and the IO had obtained a Report from the RTO, regarding the maintenance cost and fuel expenses incurred for the said vehicle as per Ex.P.111, and hence, he has taken the expenditure based on the said Report as Rs.50,128/. The Report of the RTO speaks about the cost of Rs.10,000/00 for changing the tyres, chain sprocket and engine oil, but, no document is produced to show that, tyres, chain sprocket and engine 121 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 oil, have been changed. Further, the author of Ex.P.111 has not been examined before the Court. Hence, the expenditure on this head, needs to be reduced by Rs.10,000/ (50,128 10,000 = 40,128).
169. In respect of Item No.20 i.e., Water consumption charges for House No.716 of HRBR Layout, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, water charges paid by the tenants have not been considered. It is seen that, the IO has taken a sum of Rs.19,305/, based on Ex.P.120 Report received from BWSSB as expenses towards water charges, in respect of the house No.716 of Kalyana Nagar. No material evidence is placed by the IO to show that, the accused was residing in the said house. The IO in his cross examination has also admitted that, the building was constructed in the year 200406 and the accused was not working in Bangalore, between 15.03.2007 to 24.05.2010, and started residing in Bangalore, from 2010. Further, the IO/PW25 has also admitted that, the tenants were residing in the said building, and accordingly, he has considered 122 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 the rental income of the accused. However, he has not considered the fact that, the water consumption was that of the tenants, and the rental agreements collected by the IO/PW25 disclosed that, the water charges were paid by the tenants. It is not the case of the prosecution that, despite the covenants in the rental agreement, it was the accused who had paid the water charges. Hence, the entire amount of Rs.19,305/ needs to be deducted from the component of expenditure of the accused.
170. In respect of Item No.23 i.e., Payment made to the business establishment of Shravan, it is contended that, the accused over a period of time from 2009 to 2014 has transferred the amount of Rs.11,00,000/ to hotel business of the son Shravan. The said amount has been taken as expenditure of the accused. The money is paid within the family and as such, when the son is within the family, and if the money paid to the son is taken as expenditure of the father, then the money received by the son has to be considered as income of the son and ultimately, both the amount will be squared off. It is contended that, IO has 123 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 considered the amount paid by the father to son as expenditure, but, when the income of the family members to be considered as income of the accused, then this amount has to be considered as income of Shravan and ultimately to be included as income of the accused.
171. This contention of accused is not acceptable, as the amount transferred by the accused to his son, has been utilised for establishment by the son of the accused. The expenditure incurred by the son of the accused is not considered in the list of expenditure. The claim of the accused, that the money is paid within family and there will not be any impact is not acceptable, since the money ultimately used for the purpose of business establishment of son of the accused, and has moved to a third person. Hence, amount transferred by the accused to his son, for the purpose of business of his son, is required to be treated as expenditure of the accused.
172. In respect of Item No.39 i.e., Per Capita Monthly Expenditure, it is contended that, expenses of a non 124 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 vegetarian has been wrongly considered by the IO. It is seen that, according to the IO, the invisible expenditure of the accused as Rs.20,51,107/ during the check period, and the said amount is shown based on the Ex.P.28 Report of Statistical Department issued by PW12. As per the said Report, the expenditure of the accused, his wife, daughter, son and mother were included, and the said Report is with regard to expenses of a nonvegetarian.
173. PW25/IO during his cross examination has admitted that, the accused and his family members are vegetarians. No doubt, he has deposed that, the brother of the accused Mr. Nagaraj has given a statement that, the accused is a vegetarian, and other members are non vegetarians, but, though the said Nagaraj has been cited as CW22, he has not been examined by the prosecution, and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the information furnished by the accused in his schedule, and in his evidence as DW6 that, he and his family members are vegetarians. The said portion of his evidence has not been 125 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 disputed by the prosecution during his cross examination. Hence, the entire amount of Rs.97,976.25/ needs to be deducted from the expenditure. Hence, the per capita monthly expenditure would be: 20,51,107 97,976.25 = 19,53,130.75.
174. It is also contended that, the son of the accused was born on 07.09.1984 and the daughter was born on 19.04.1987, and the accused in his schedule has stated that, on both the occasions, his wife was with her parents, for about one year each. PW25/IO has also admitted the said fact in his cross examination. Further, the accused as DW6 has also deposed about these aspects in his evidence, and the same is not disputed by the prosecution during his cross examination. Hence, the expenditure of 2 persons for a period of 1 year for the year 1984, and the expenditure of 3 persons for a period of 1 year for the year 1987, needs to be deducted from the expenditure, which works out to 7,095/3 x 2 = 4,730 (year 1984), 14,163/4 x 3 = 10,622 (year 1987), and hence, the per capita monthly expenditure 126 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 would be: 19,53,130.75 4,730 10,622 = 19,37,778.75. In the circumstances, the per capita monthly expenditure needs to be reduced to Rs.1,13,328.25 (20,51,107 19,37,778.75 = 1,13,328.25).
175. In respect of Item No.43, 49, 51, 52 and 60 i.e., expenses for religious functions, expenses at RV Metropolis Diagnostics, expenses incurred at Batra's Health care, expenses incurred at Columbia Asia, Payment towards cable connection, it is contended that, these expenses have been added in the invisible expenditure Report at Ex.P.28, and hence, there is duplication of the said expenses. According to PW25/IO, the accused and his family members have incurred the expenditure towards religious functions, diagnostic centre, hospital and cable connection etc., at the rate of Rs.12,000/, Rs.5,960/, Rs.17,800/, Rs.29,681/, and Rs.11,250/ respectively. But, the medical and noninstitutional expenses are included in Ex.P.28 Report issued by PW12. PW12 has taken a sum of Rs.1,21,807.76/ as expenditure of the accused, and his 127 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 family members during the check period under Sl.No.15. Similarly, under Sl. No.16 of invisible expenditure chart of the report at Ex.P.28, the cable TV expenses are included. PW12 has taken a sum of Rs.95,719.87/ as expenditure of the accused and his family members during the check period including the cable TV expenses. Hence, the taking of medical and cable TV expenses once again in the above heads, amounts to duplication and hence, the entire amount of Rs.12,000/, Rs.5,960/, Rs.17,800/, Rs.29,681/, Rs.11,250/ needs to be deducted from the component of expenditure.
176. In respect of Item No.54 and 55 i.e., expenses for Glass Lamination, and payment made to Datta interiors, in respect of house at Kalyana Nagar, it is contended that, the Valuation Report at Ex.P.37 already included the said expenses, and hence, the expenses shown under these head, are nothing but duplication. It is seen that, IO has enquired Banashankari Glass and Plywood in respect of invoices of the year 2005 for a sum of Rs.7,440/, and also 128 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 enquired Datta Interiors and Designers in respect of labour contract bill of the year 2006 for a sum of Rs.1,01,057/. It is seen that, the house at Kalyana Nagar has been constructed during 200406, and the PW25/IO has secured the Valuation Report at Ex.P.37 from the Expert. When the valuation is in respect of the entire property, considering the said amount once again amounts to duplication of expenditure and hence, the entire amount of Rs.7,440/ and Rs.1,01,057/ needs to be deducted from the component of expenditure.
177. In respect of Item No.62 i.e., Cost incurred for drilling the bore well at 122/A of Sanjaya Nagar, it is contended that, the house belonged to father of the accused, and no amount has been spent by the accused, for drilling the borewell. According to PW25/IO, he has found a bill for Rs.5,000/ dated 22.09.1999 and another bill for Rs.6,215/ dated 22.09.1999. The said bills are in the name of Late Alkuraiah. It is in the evidence of PW25/IO that, at the time of his spot visit, along with 129 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Assistant Executive Engineer, he could found no borewell, and a Report was secured that, the bore well was closed, since there was no water in it.
178. It is seen that, the house belonged to Late Alkuraiah, the father of the accused, as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 25/01/1996, and during 199497, the accused was working at Uttara Kannada District. Further, the author of the bills was also not examined by the prosecution. Inthe circumstances therefore, the said expenditure cannot be shown as that of the accused, and the entire amount of Rs.11,215/ needs to be deducted from the component of expenditure.
179. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that, the Expenditure has to be recalculated as below:
Amount to Sl. Description of Recalculated As per IO be No. the assets value deducted 1 Registration and 47,975 36,570 11,405 stamp duty for purchase of Plot No.2C716 of 130 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 HRBR Layout 3 Registration and stamp duty for purchase of site No.122/A of 1,47,115 0 1,47,115 Sanjay Nagar in the name of Alkuraiah 4 Deposits towards sanctioned plot 5,85,783 0 5,85,783 in the name of son 9 Property Tax in respect of site No.122/A of 74,349 43,757 30,592 Sanjay Nagar in the name of Alkuraiah 15 Maintenance cost of car 2,36,395 26,266 2,62,661 No.KA04ME 3355 18 Road tax and maintenance of two wheeler 50,128 40,128 10,000 No.KA19S 5454 20 Water consumption charge for House 19,305 0 19,305 No.716 of HRBR Layout 23 Payment made to the business 0 11,00,000 11,00,000 establishment of Shravan 131 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 39 PCME 20,51,107 19,37,778 1,13,328 43 Expenses for religious 12,000 0 12,000 functions 49 Expenses at RV Metro Police 5,960 0 5,960 Diagnostics 51 Expenses incurred at 17,800 0 17,800 Batra's Health Care 52 Expenses incurred at 29,681 0 29,681 Columbia Asia 54 Expenses for Glass 7,440 0 7,440 Lamination 55 Payment made to 1,01,057 0 1,01,057 Datta interiors 60 Payment made towards 11,250 0 11,250 obtaining cable connection 62 Cost incurred for drilling the bore 11,215 0 11,215 well at 122/A of Sanjay Nagar Total 45,34,826 33,94,628 11,40,197
180. In view of the above discussion, the findings of this Court, regarding the Income, Assets, Expenditure and value of disproportionate assets, are as follows: 132 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Heads As per IO Reduction Net
Assets 2,16,18,864 70,45,391 1,45,73,473
Expenditure 81,36,977 11,40,197 69,96,780
Assets + 2,97,55,841 81,85,588 2,15,70,253
Expenditure
Heads As per IO Addition Net
Income 1,62,41,037 19,43,437 1,81,84,474
Left out income 0 43,03,001 43,03,001
Total (Income + 1,62,41,037 62,46,438 2,24,87,475
Left out income)
Disproportionate Nil
Assets
181. Thus, i) The total income of the accused during the check period is Rs.2,24,87,475, ii) Assets of the accused during the check period is Rs.1,45,73,473, iii) Expenses of the accused is Rs.69,96,780, iv) Total of the assets and expenditure is Rs.2,15,70,253, and hence, v) Value of disproportionate assets found with the accused is - Nil.
182. In view of these findings therefore it is to be held that, the accused was not in possession of disproportionate assets and properties, during the check period, as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, the accused could establish that his income was more than his assets and 133 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 expenditure, as contended. Therefore, I hold that, the guilt of the accused regarding criminal misconduct, under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has not been established by the prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Negative.
183. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
His bail bond, and the surety bond, are cancelled.
Accused is directed to execute a
personal bond for Rs.50,000/, as per
Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., for his due appearance 134 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 before the Appellate Court, in case, if any Appeal is preferred against this Judgment.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 23rd day of September, 2022).
Sd/ 23.09.2022 Vineetha P. Shetty, C/c. LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH 77).135 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW. No. Name
P.W.1 D. Shivakumar
P.W.2 Syed Sujath
P.W.3 T.J. Jagadish
P.W.4 Nataraj K.
P.W.5 Puttaswamy H.P.
P.W.6 M.M. Bopaiah
P.W.7 Kanakaraju T.N.
P.W.8 B. Venkatesh Reddy
P.W.9 Karunanidhi A.P.
P.W.10 H.S. Prakash
P.W.11 Manjunath E.
P.W.12 K.N. Kantharaju
P.W.13 Rathnam Amarjyothi
P.W.14 Shashi Rekha
P.W.15 N. Datta
P.W.16 Karnel Krishnan Dakshinamurthy
P.W.17 Sanjeev Kumar
P.W.18 Achutha Bidarhalli
P.W.19 B. Ashwathnarayana
P.W.20 Narasimhamurthy
P.W.21 K.H. Ashok
P.W.22 Srinivasa
P.W.23 Venkatesh K.
P.W.24 Dr. K. Mallikarjuna Babu
P.W.25 N.M. Dharmappa
P.W.26 Vasudeva
136 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
P.W.27 Dr. G.D. Raghavan
P.W.28 Aloknath Chattopadhyaya
P.W.29 G.V. Sathyanarayana Nayak
P.W.30 K.P. Gangadharacharya
P.W.31 Madanagopal M.
P.W.32 T. Mahadeva
P.W.33 Shashikanth
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
Exhibit No. Description of the document Ex.P.1 Search Warrant Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Accused Ex.P.2 Medical bills Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of CW3 Ex.P.3 Education Details of daughter of accused Ex.P.4 Property details of accused Ex.P.5 Club details of accused Ex.P.6 Rental Agreement Ex.P.7 Tax receipt Ex.P.8 Bills of BWSSB Ex.P.9 Mahazar Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.9(c) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.9(d) Signature of PW33 137 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.9(e) Signature of accused Ex.P.10 Insurance policy details Ex.P.11 PAN Card, Voter ID, Trade Licenses of son of accused Ex.P.12 Valuation Report Ex.P.13 Identity card of accused, and enclosures Ex.P.14 Details pertaining to Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and enclosures Ex.P.15 Entire file at Volume No.4 submitted by IO Ex.P.16 Entire file at Volume No.5 submitted by IO Ex.P.17 Entire file at Volume No.5(a) (continuation of volume No.5) submitted by IO Ex.P.18 Panchanama Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.18(b) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.18(c) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.18(d) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.18(e) Signature of accused Ex.P.18(f) Signature of Bank Manager Ex.P.18(g) Signature of accused Ex.P.19 Panchanama Ex.P.20 Search Warrant Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.21 Panchanama Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.21(b) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.21(c) Signature of PW22 138 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.21(d) Signature of son of accused Ex.P.22 Panchanama Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.23 Search Warrant Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.24 Search Warrant Ex.P.25 Mahazar Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.26 Search Warrant Ex.P.27 Xerox copy of bills Ex.P.28 Family Invisible Expenditure Report Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.29 Passport details Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.30 Tour payment details Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.31 Estimation of interior work Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.32 Club payment details Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.33 Building Valuation Report Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.34 Sketch Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.35 Gazette Notification Ex.P.36 Covering letter and Valuation Report Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.37 Valuation Report 139 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.38 Gazette Notification Ex.P.39 Covering letter of Ex.P.33 Ex.P.40 Covering letter of Ex.P.37 Ex.P.41 Covering letter of Ex.P.42 Ex.P.41(a) Signature in Ex.P.41 Ex.P.42 Report of PW19 Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.42(b) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.43 Report of PW20 Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.44 Source Report Ex.P.45 Requisition of SP, Tumkur Ex.P.46 Office Memorandum of SP, Tumkur Ex.P.47 Requisition for Search Warrant Ex.P.48 Acknowledgement Ex.P.49 FIR Ex.P.50 Report of Mahazar by PW22 Ex.P.51 Report of Mahazar by PW22 Ex.P.52 Report of Mahazar by PW22 Ex.P.53 Report of PW22 Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.54 Report of PW22 Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.55 Office memorandum of ADGP, Lokayukta Ex.P.56 Copy of requisition of PW22 Ex.P.57 Certified copy of the Order Sheet in Cr.No.16/2014 Ex.P.58 Report of PW22 140 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.59 Office memorandum of SP, Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division.
Ex.P.60 Complaint
Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW22
Ex.P.61 FIR
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW25
Ex.P.62 Letter of PW23
Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW23
Ex.P.63 Letter of PW24
Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW24
Ex.P.63(b) Signature of PW24
Ex.P.64 File at Volume No.1 (page103 to 108)
Ex.P.65 Authorization Letter of SP, Lokayukta,
Bengaluru
Ex.P.66 Copy of order in Cr.N.16/2014
Ex.P.67 Property Tax particulars
Ex.P.68 Property Tax particulars
Ex.P.69 Lab expenses Report
Ex.P.70 Letter of LIC
Ex.P.71 Letter of Metropolis
Ex.P.72 Letter of Dr. Batra's Clinic
Ex.P.73 Letter of Secretary, Cosmopolitan Club
Ex.P.74 Letter of The New India Assurance
Company Ltd.,
Ex.P.75 Notice of PW25
Ex.P.76 Statement of Account
Ex.P.77 Letter of Columbia Asia
Ex.P.78 Notices of PW25
Ex.P.79 Letter of Bengaluru Golf Club
141 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Ex.P.80 Letter of United India Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Ex.P.81 Letter of LIC
Ex.P.82 Letter of MES college
Ex.P.83 Letter and enclosures of Concorde
Cuppa Beverages Pvt Ltd.,
Ex.P.84 Letter and enclosures of Mount Carmel
College
Ex.P.85 Property tax details
Ex.P.86 Letter and annexures of Commercial
Tax Department
Ex.P.87 Letter and enclosure of BMS
Engineering College
Ex.P.88 Letter of Kasturiba Education
Institution
Ex.P.88(a) Signature of PW27
Ex.P.89 Letter of AG, Bengaluru and
enclosures
Ex.P.90 Letter of KSSIDC, and enclosures
Ex.P.91 Letter of New India Assurance
Company Ltd.,
Ex.P.92 Letter of SBI with enclosures
Ex.P.93 Letter of BDA, and enclosures
Ex.P.94 Letter of Concorde Cuppa Beverages
Pvt Ltd.,
Ex.P.95 Letter of BWSSB
Ex.P.96 Letter of The United Trading
Corporation and Workshop Pvt Ltd., Ex.P.97 Letter of AEE, BBMP, with enclosures Ex.P.98 Service Tax particulars Ex.P.99 Letter of Sr. SubRegistrar, K.R. Puram and enclosures 142 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.100 Letter of Dy. Director, District Treasury Mysore Ex.P.101 Letter of District Treasury, Hassan, and enclosures Ex.P.102 Letter of Headmaster, Vidyaneketan, Tumkuar Ex.P.103 Affidavit of Head Master, Tittus Nursery School, Madikeri Ex.P.104 Letter of PCCF, Bengaluru, and enclosure Ex.P.105 Letter of District Treasury Officer, Karwar, and enclosures Ex.P.106 Letter of Tahsildar, and enclosures Ex.P.107 Letter of BDA, and enclosures Ex.P.108 Letter of BDA Ex.P.109 Letter of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Belgaum, and enclosures Ex.P.110 Letter of accused and copies of RTCs Ex.P.111 Letter of RTO Mangalore, and enclosures Ex.P.112 Letter of Metropolis clinic, and enclosures Ex.P.113 Letter of Jt. SubRegistrar, Bommanahalli and enclosures Ex.P.114 Letter of SubTreasury Office, Sirsi, and enclosures Ex.P.115 Letter of the SubTreasury Office, Sirsi,and enclosures Ex.P.116 Letter of District Treasury, Karwar, and enclosures Ex.P.117 Letter of Residents Welfare Association, Sanjay Nagar, and enclosures Ex.P.117(a) Signature of PW28 143 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.118 Letter of Joint Director, District Treasury, Mysore, and enclosures Ex.P.119 Letter of District Treasury, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.120 Letter of BWSSB, and enclosures Ex.P.121 Letter of District Treasury, Bellary Ex.P.122 Letter of BESCOM, and enclosures Ex.P.123 Letter of Conservator of Forest, Madikeri, and enclosures Ex.P.124 Copy of letter of ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta Ex.P.125 Letter of BWSSB, with enclosures Ex.P.126 Letter of BWSSB with enclosures Ex.P.127 Letter of Deputy Director, State Huzur Ex.P.128 Letter of CCF, Hassan, and enclosures Ex.P.129 Letter of Assistant Director, Town planning BBMP (East), and enclosures Ex.P.130 Letter of Assistant Director, Town planning BBMP (East), Ex.P.131 Letter of Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.132 Copy of letter of Dy Director, State Treasury, Mysore Ex.P.133 Letter of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.134 Copy of letter of Addl. Chief Conservator of Forest Ex.P.135 Letter of CCF Mysore, Ex.P.136 Letter of PCCF, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.137 Letter and report of AEE, Bengaluru Ex.P.138 Letter of AG office, Bengaluru, and 144 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 enclosures Ex.P.139 Mahazar Ex.P.140 Genealogical tree Ex.P.141 Demand Register Extract Ex.P.142 Letter of KGID, Bengaluru Ex.P.143 Letter of AG, Bengaluru Ex.P.144 Letter of St. Aloysius PU college, and enclosures Ex.P.145 Letter of PCCF, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.146 Letter of Chief Accounts Officer, ZP Tumkur, and enclosures Ex.P.147 Letter of Dy. Controller Accounts, Technical Wing, Lokayukta, Bengaluru Ex.P.148 Letter of DCF, Honnavar, and enclosures Ex.P.149 Letter of BESCOM, and enclosures Ex.P.150 Letter of BESCOM Ex.P.151 Letter of DCF, Honnavar. Ex.P.152 Letter of ARTO, Bengaluru North, and enclosures.
Ex.P.152(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P.153 Letter of RTO, Jnanabharathi, and enclosures.
Ex.P.154 Letters of RTO, Bengaluru, and and enclosures Ex.P.155 Ex.P.154(a) Signature of PW30 Ex.P.155(a) Signature of PW30
Ex.P.156 Letter of ICICI Bank, and enclosures Ex.P.157 Letter of DCF, Honnavar, and 145 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 enclosures Ex.P.158 Letter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.159 Letter of District Treasury, Kodagu, and enclosures Ex.P.160 Letter of National Insurance Company Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.161 Letter of National Insurance Company Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.162 Letter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited., and enclosures Ex.P.163 Letters of temples Ex.P.164 Letter of Garuda Autocraft Pvt. Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.165 Letter of Banashankari Glass Plywoods, and enclosures Ex.P.166 Letter of Om Glasses, and enclosures Ex.P.167 Letter of DCF, Mangalore, and enclosures Ex.P.168 Letter of Mysuru District, Forest Employees House Building Co operative Society, and enclosures Ex.P.169 Letter of Vijayalakshmi Souharda Sahakari Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.170 Letter of Annapurna Saw Mill, and enclosures Ex.P.171 Letter of Chunda Palace, Rajasthan, and enclosures Ex.P.172 Letters of temples Ex.P.173 Letters of IT Department, and enclosures Ex.P.174 Letters of Timber merchants, and enclosures 146 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.175 Letter of RFO, Honnavara Ex.P.176 Letters of Canara Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, and enclosures Ex.P.177 Letter of RTO, Karwar, and enclosures Ex.P.178 Letter of RTO, Sirsi, Ex.P.179 Letter of Bhat and Rai, Chartered Accountants, and enclosures Ex.P.180 Letter of The Sirsi Urban Sahakari Bank Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.181 Letter of RTO, Devanahalli, and enclosures Ex.P.182 Letter of SBI, Rajajinagar, and enclosures Ex.P.183 Letter of KSSIDC, Bengaluru Rural, and enclosures Ex.P.184 Letter of SBI, Sanjay Nagar Branch,and enclosures Ex.P.185 Letter of Hathway cables Ex.P.186 Letter of TVS Motors Ex.P.187 Letter of KHB, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.188 Letter of APMC, Hunsur Ex.P.189 Letter of Pawan Hans Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.190 Letter of New India Assurance Company Ltd., and enclosures Ex.P.191 Certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and enclosures from Tata Tele Service Ex.P.192 Letter of BSNL, and enclosures Ex.P.193 Letter of RTO, Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru, and enclosures 147 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.193(a) Report of PW31 Ex.P.193(b) Signature of PW31 Ex.P.194 Letter of Sr. Postmaster, Mysuru Ex.P.195 Letter of Sr. RTO , Bengaluru North, and enclosures Ex.P.196 Letter of Sr. RTO, Bengaluru, and enclosure Ex.P.197 Letter of Sr. RTO, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.198 Letter of Sr. RTO, Bengaluru, and B Extract Ex.P.199 Letter of Sr. RTO, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.200 Letter of RTO, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.201 Letter of IDBI Bank, and enclosures Ex.P.202 to Schedule information of the accused P.208 Ex.P.206(a) ITR of son of accused Ex.P.206(b) Salary particulars of son of accused Ex.P.206(c) Certificate of DW12, and enclosures Ex.P.208(a) Affidavit of son of accused Ex.P.208(b) Confirmation letter of Sadiq Ex.P.208(c) Letter of Hafeez Timbers Ex.P.208(d) Signature of DW5 Ex.P.209 Letter of IffcoTokio Insurance Company, and enclosures Ex.P.210 Letter of Veeresh Gas Agency, and enclosures Ex.P.211 Letter of Holiday Dreams, Bengaluru, and enclosures 148 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.212 Letter of Tahsildar Grade II, Tumkur, and enclosures Ex.P.213 Letter of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation South, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.214 Certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.215 Letter of HDFC Bank, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.216 Letter of BESCOM Ex.P.217 Letter of LIC, Sirsi Ex.P.218 Letter of RTO, Sirsi, and enclosures Ex.P.219 Letter of Postmaster, Sirsi Ex.P.220 Letter, 'B' Extract of RTO, Karwar, and enclosures Ex.P.221 'B' Extract of RTO, Bengaluru, and enclosures Ex.P.221(a) Report of PW26 Ex.P.221(b) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.222 Letter of Tahsildar, Pavagada Taluk, and enclosures Ex.P.223 Letter of BESCOM, and enclosures Ex.P.224 Letter of Health Officer, Malleshwaram Ex.P.225 Letter of St. Aloysius college Ex.P.226 Letter of Canara Bank, Kalyan Nagar Ex.P.227 Letter of SubRegistrar, K.R. Puram and Lease cum sale Ex.P.228 Letter of SBI, Sanjay Nagar branch, and enclosures Ex.P.229 Letter of SubRegistrar, Pavagada, and enclosures 149 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.230 Letter of SubRegistrar, Peenya, and enclosures Ex.P.231 Letter of MES college Ex.P.232 Notices of PW25, and copies of invoices of Krishna Borewells Ex.P.233 Details of salary of son of accused and BSNL reimbursement charges Ex.P.234 Reply of accused Ex.P.235 Letter of Canara Bank, and enclosures Ex.P.236 Death Certificate of Alkuraiah Ex.P.237 Letter of accused with enclosures Ex.P.238 Letter of AEE, Bengaluru North Taluk, and enclosures Ex.P.238(a) Signature of PW29 to P.238(e) Ex.P.239 Letter of accused and enclosures Ex.P.240 Letter of accused, and enclosures Ex.P.241 Copy of Rent Agreement and notice of PW25 Ex.P.242 Letter of St. Anthony Higher Primary School Ex.P.243 Certified copy of Sale Deed Ex.P.244 Vijaya Bank, SB A/c. particulars Ex.P.245 Letter of Karnataka State Apex Co operative Bank Ex.P.246 Letter of Maharani Lakshmi Women college Ex.P.247 Educational expenses details of son of accused Ex.P.248 Official Memorandum of ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru 150 Spl C.C. No.20/2018 Ex.P.248(a) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.249 Authorisation letter of ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
DW.No. Name D.W.1 Shravan D.W.2 S. Babu D.W.3 Gonal Bheemappa D.W.4 Nagaraju D.W.5 Mohamed Fasihulla D.W.6 Keshavamurthy D.W.7 Shivakumar D.W.8 Kondareddy D.W.9 Bhagyalakshmi D.W.10 Venkatashivareddy D.W.11 Mohan Reddy D.W.12 Dr. M. Mallappa D.W.13 Raveendra D.W.14 Gurunath D.W.15 Nanjireddy D.W.16 Manjunath
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Exhibit No. Description of the document
Ex.D.1 Gazette Notification
Ex.D.2 P.F. No.29/2014
Ex.D.2(a) Signature of PW22
151 Spl C.C. No.20/2018
Ex.D.3 P.F. No.30/2014
Ex.D.3(a) Signature of PW22
Ex.D.4 Consent letter of DW2
Ex.D.4(a) Signature of DW2
Ex.D.5 Letter of accused
Ex.D.6 Letter of Office of Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka
Ex.D.7 Annual Property Returns of accused
Ex.D.8 Letter of accused
Ex.D.8(a) Signature of DW14
Ex.D.9 Letter of accused
Ex.D.10 Affidavit of DW8
Ex.D.10(a) Signature of DW8
Ex.D.11 Affidavit of DW9
Ex.D.11(a) Signature of DW9
Ex.D.12 Affidavit of DW10
Ex.D.12(a) Signature of DW10
Ex.D.13 Agricultural Certificate of DW12
Ex.D.13(a) Statement of Agricultural Income Ex.D.13(b) Signature of DW13 Ex.D.13(c) Signature of DW13 Ex.D.14 Affidavit of DW15 Ex.D.14(a) Signature of DW15 Ex.D.15 Affidavit of DW16 Ex.D.15(a) Signature of DW16 Sd/ 23.09.2022 Vineetha P. Shetty, C/c. LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH 77).