Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Ps, Kolar vs J V Ramaiah on 29 July, 2024
KABC010233532020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI &
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CASES AT
BENGALURU (CCH-34)
Dated 29th day of July, 2024
-: PRESENT :-
Sri.H.A.Mohan, B.A.L., LL.B.
XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Spl. Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru
Spl.C.C.No.1140/2020
COMPLAINANT : Lokayukta Police
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
-vs-
ACCUSED : J.V.Ramaiah.
S/o Late.Venkatarayappa
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No121, 13th Cross,
17th Main, 5th Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru.
Permanent residence:
Koorigepalli village,
Srinivasapura Taluk.
2 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
Kolar District.
(By Sri.Shanker P Hegde
Advocate)
Date of commission of 29.09.2009 - 30.09.2009
the offence/s:
Date & time of Report of 29.09.2009
the offence/s:
Offences charged: U/S. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
Name of the Lokayukta, Bengaluru
Complainant :
Date of commencement 27.02.2016
of the evidence :
Evidence of prosecution 12.12.2022
closed on:
Statement of accused u/ 03.09.2022
S 313 of Cr.P.C.:
Evidence of accused 21.06.2024
closed on :
Final Verdict: Accused is convicted
(H.A.Mohan)
XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and
Special Judge for CBI & ED Cases,
Bengaluru.
3 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet submitted by Karnataka Lokayukta police, against the accused Sri.J.V.Ramaiah, for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Hon'ble Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Kolar. It is seen that during the course of trial, the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar has passed an order dtd.15.2.2020, by invoking Sec.44(1)(c) of PML Act, 2002, since ED case in Spl.CC.No.69/2018 was pending before this court and accordingly, this court has received entire records from that court.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that, accused while working as Inspector of Transport in the office of RTO, Nagamangala from 4 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 30.9.2009 the day on which raid was conducted and as per further investigation conducted, accused has amassed assets beyond his known source of income to an extent of Rs.1,24,23,929/- which is 169.21% and there by committed the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. In the charge sheet Lokayukta police have furnished list of movable and immovable properties which were acquired by the accused before and during the check period. After having calculated the assets at the beginning of the check period, assets acquired during the check period, income received during the check period and the expenditure incurred during the check period, has assessed the said disproportionate assets and submitted the 5 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 charge sheet along with relevant documents.
4. The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar had taken cognizance of the offence, and secured the presence of the accused and after framing charge, started recording the evidence of witnesses. As per the materials available before this court, till receipt of entire records by this court, 26 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 26 and documents as per Ex.P1 to 121 were marked. Since accused did not make a request for Denova trial, my learned predecessor has started recording the evidence of remaining witnesses. Subsequently this court after receipt of the records has examined witnesses as PW27 to 39 and marked documents Ex.P122 to 254. Some of the witnesses have not been examined on the ground that they are not 6 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 relevant. Thereafter statement as contemplated under section 313 of Cr.PC., has been recorded by putting the incriminating questions to the accused and taken his answers as mentioned in the statement.
5. Thereafter accused has chosen to examine the witnesses for his side as DW1 to 10 and he himself has been examined as DW11 and his wife has been examined as DW2 and got marked documents Ex.D1 to D55.
6. Heard the arguments of learned SPP and Sri.S.P.H., learned counsel for the accused. Learned SPP has submitted his written arguments.
7. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
7 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that during the check period from 20.11.1978 to 29.9.2009 accused who was working in the department of transport in various capacities and places, has acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,24,23,929/- which is 169.21% beyond his known source of income for which he could not give satisfactory explanation?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative to the extent of Rs.1,09,76,929/-
which is 149.50% 8 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Point No.2 : 'As per final order' for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: The learned SPP in his written argument has highlighted as to the assets acquired by the accused during the check period including his known source of income and his expenditure during the check period. It is contended that in order to prove the said aspects, prosecution has examined PW1 to 39 and placed believable materials to substantiate the contentions. It is argued that accused has created and concocted some documents after raid was conducted on 30.9.2009 and placed that false evidence to suit his convenience. It is argued that his wife had no independent source of income to acquire certain 9 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 properties and to construct the houses. But accused out of his ill-gotten money has invested the amounts to purchase the properties in the name of his wife and acquired disproportionate assets.
10. It is further argued that accused is not a trustworthy and that has been already discussed in earlier judgment filed under PML Act which was registered as Spl.CC.No.69/2018. There is no basis for his contention that he had borrowed hand loans from different persons and more over the same was not at all reported to his competent authority nor taken permission from the authorities. Further, there is no basis for Income Tax Returns said to have been submitted by the accused and his wife. Because these IT returns have been fabricated and created after raid was conducted and there was no basis to 10 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 declare so much of income in the IT returns. Therefore the IT returns cannot be considered as gospel truth to prove his contention that he had known source of income.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused Sri.Shanker.P.Hegde, has argued that the disproportionate amount shown by the prosecution is Rs.1,24,23,929/-. But the same has been destroyed by the accused on several grounds. First of all valuation made by the Junior Engineer with regard to three houses is not tenable in law. As per Rule 13.4 of KPWD Code junior engineer was not authorised to value the building. He has valued the building without following due process of law and on the other hand accused has examined competent registered valuer as DW8 and he has given reports.
11 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 As per the said reports difference is Rs.24 Lakhs in respect of 3 houses. So the said Rs.24 Lakhs is required to be deducted from the alleged disproportionate assets.
12. It is further argued that with regard to the alleged Rs.65 Lakhs, prosecution has failed to place any materials. Prosecution has miserably failed to establish the amount of Rs.65 Lakhs. Therefore this amount is also required to be deducted from the alleged disproportionate assets. Further the wife of the accused Smt.Lalithamma has also received Rs.11 Lakhs through gift, which was received as a compensation, Ex.D8 & 9 establishes the said aspect and that has not been disputed by the I.O., therefore, in addition to Rs.3,16,000/- Rs.11 Lakhs also should be taken as income. Hence, same is also 12 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 required to be deducted. Further accused has examined several tenants and through them he has able to establish that he had received rental income of Rs.21,75,700/-. Hence, this amount is also required to be deducted from the alleged disproportionate assets.
13. It is further argued that the wife of the accused used to receive agricultural income and that has been proved through the evidence of DW10. That amount needs to be taken as income of the accused. Further towards expenditure, wrong amount has been taken, actually 1/3rd of the net amount is to be taken towards unverifiable domestic expenditure. Further accused has given clear documents to show that his wife herself used to maintain the family out of her earnings which was 13 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 received from self home made food items. She has declared that income in her Income Tax Returns. Therefore as per IT Rules same is required to be accepted by the court of law. Even towards education of the children, his wife used to spend amount. She used to keep fixed deposit amounts in the name of their children out of the income. She was having lakhs of rupees in her account as per documents and that has been declared in IT returns. But the I.O., did not take all these available income and expenditures and came to a wrong conclusion that there was a disproportionate assets during the check period. If all the said amounts are taken into consideration, then absolutely there is no any disproportionate income and on the other hand, there was minus disproportionate and he had excess income. Accordingly, he prayed to reject the 14 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 claim of the prosecution.
14. In the light of the said arguments, I have carefully perused the materials on record for the purpose of giving findings in respect of the properties in dispute one by one.
15. Having regard to the crux involved in the case and the tenor of arguments submitted on behalf of the accused, I am of the opinion that, it is necessary to commence the discussion with regard to the alleged disproportionate assets with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between State of Karnataka Vs. Selvi.J Jayalalitha and others in Crl.Appeal Nos.300-303 of 2017 and 304-307 of 2017. Since this court is having concurrent charge of the case relating to that Selvi. J.Jayalalitha with regard to disposal of the 15 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 properties, this court had an occasion to go through the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the course of disposal of the appeals filed by State of Karnataka and the complainant Sri.Anbazhagan. From para 138 to 143, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed which reads as follows:
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
138. The preamble of this statute manifests that it is a legislation with the objective of enhanced effective prevention of bribery and corruption. As the Statement of objects and reasons of this enactment demonstrates, it was impelled by the felt necessity for curbing bribery and corruption of public servants which noticeably had enormously increased by the war conditions, lingering at that point of time.
16 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 The post war fall outs bearing on large amounts of government surplus stores and related disbursement of large sums of government money, visibly facilitated wide scope for corrupt practices, which necessitated immediate and drastic initiatives to stamp out the said malady. As the existing law proved to be inadequate to tackle the sprawling menace, the legislation was enacted.
139. Apart from providing the definition of the expression "Public Servant", as contained in Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code, by Section 3, the offence punishable under section 165AS of the said Code was construed to be a cognizable offence for the purposes of the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sec.14 lodged the presumption where a public servant was found to accept or agreeable or attempting to accept / obtain any gratification other 17 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 than legal remuneration. In the eventualities, as mentioned therein, Sec.5 defined criminal misconduct by a public servant. Noticeably, by Sec.6 of Act 40 of 1964 ie., the Anti Corruption Law (Amendment) Act, 1964, amongst others. The following insertions by way of clause (e) was incorporated in Section.5.
"if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, or pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
140. A bare perusal of this extract would reveal that the criminal misconduct of the public servant, as envisaged therein, would ensure if he/she or any person on his/her behalf was in possession or had, at any 18 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 point of time during the period of his/her office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property, disproportionate to his/ her known sources of income, which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account. Significantly, for such misconduct, the possession of the disproportionate pecuniary resources or property, which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account, can be held either by him/her or any person on his /her behalf is essential. This offence thus, enfolds in its sweep a definitive involvement and role of persons other than the public servant, either as a abetter or a co-conspirator in the actualisation of the crime. Consequently, thus such abettors or co-conspirators or partners in this item of offence, if proved, cannot escape the legal consequences for their participatory role. The other segments of Section 5, not being of immediate relevance, are not being referred to.
19 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
141. Section 7A mandated application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (then in force) to any proceeding in relation to any offence punishable under sections 161, 165, 165A of the IPC or Sec.5 of the Act subject to the modifications as enumerated therein. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
142. The 1947 Act was succeeded by a new version of anti corruption law in the form of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988, which seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. The statute, as the prefatory introduction thereof authenticates, retraced the evolution of the law regarding the offence of bribery and corruption amongst public servant, starting from the Indian Penal Code of the 1947 act seeking to respond to the exigencies of time, precipitated by the post World War-II manifestations. Having felt that 20 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 even the 1947 Act had proved to be inadequate to deal with the offence of corruption effectively warranting a result oriented legislation, the 1988 Act was ushered in amongst other by widening their coverage and re-enforcing the provisions thereof. The Bill as a precursor of the 1988 Act was introduced in the Parliament with these objectives.
143. The statement of objects and reasons of this statute, while reiterating the above missoin, referred to the provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with public servants and those who abet the offences mentioned therein, by way of criminal misconduct. The provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 enabling attachment of ill gotten wealth, obtained through corrupt means, was also adverted to. The Bill was clearly contemplated to incorporate all these 21 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 provisions with necessary modifications, so as to make those more effective in combating corruption amongst public servants. With that end in view, the ambit of "Public servant" was sought to be expanded. Additionally, the offences hitherto enumerated in Sections 161 to 165A IPC were recommended to be incorporated in the legislation with enhanced panalties. Finality of the order of the trial court upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution and provision for day to day trial of cases were also integrated as few other unique features of the initiative.
From Para 147 to 153, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed which reads as under:
147. A significant addition to this clause otherwise reproduced from the 1947 Act is the explanation appended thereto which
22 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 exposits the expression "known sources of income" to be the income received from any lawful source, the receipt whereof has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being, applicable to a public servant.
148. Lawfulness or legitimacy of the known sources of income of the public servant, to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources or property, alleged to be disproportionate thereto, is, thus the indispensable legislative edict.
149. Sec.22 of the Act also makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable to a proceeding in relation to an offence punishable thereunder, subject to certain modifications as mentioned therein. Here as well, the applicability of Section 452 of the Code otherwise empowering a criminal court to order for disposal of the property at the 23 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 conclusion of the trial before it, has not been excluded. While Sec.27 recognises a special Judge under the Act to be a Court of Session qua the powers of appeal and revision, conferred by the Code of Criminal Proceedure, 1973 available to the jurisdictional High Court, Sec.28 ordains that the provisions of the Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and that nothing contained therein would exempt any public servant from any proceedings which might be instituted against him/her. By Section 29, amongst others, paragraph 4A of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act, 1944 has bee substituted as under:
"4A - An offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988".
Significantly, prior to the substitution, 24 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 paragraph 4A of the afore-mentioned ordinance read as follows:
"4A. An offence punishable under section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947"
150. Assuredly thus. The offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(for short "1947 Act"), was included in the schedule of offences, appended to the Criminal Amendment Ordinance, 1944 since 18.12.1964 w.e.f. which Anti Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 was enforced.
151. As a consequence of the integration of the offences under sections 161 to 165A contained in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the criminal misconduct of a public servant and the offence of abetment thereof, by Section 31 of the statute, these provisions were omitted from 25 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 the IPC and were construed to have been repealed by a Central Act.
152. The scheme of the Act 1988, thus ensure a stricter legislation to combat and eradicate corruption in public life and takes within its sweep, not only the public servants but also those who abet and conspire with them in the commission of offences, enumerated therein. The avowed objectives of the statute prompted by the compelling exigencies of time and the revealing contemporary realities, thus demanded of a befitting curial approach to effectuate the same sans qua the rule of benefit of doubt on intangible and trivial omissions and deficiencies.
153. A plain perusal of the scheme of the Act presents several noticeable special features thereof in accord with the legislative intendment to achieve the objectives set therefor. Apart from the 26 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 overwhelming backdrop demanding the necessity to consolidate and reinforce the anti corruption law, the main mission being to achieve a catharsis in public offence, the statute besides expanding the notion of "Public Servant" to effect maximum extension of its sweep as envisaged, has ordained the constitution of a court of Special Judge to try the offences thereunder and also the charge of any conspiracy or attempt or abetment in the commission thereof. Thus, an exclusive autonomous adjudicative regime has been put in place. The provisions of the Code have been made applicable subject to the modifications contemplated and the special Judge in particular, while trying an offence punishable under the Act has been authorised to exercise all powers and functions invocable by a District Judge under the Ordinance. Section 7 to 12 of the Act correspond to Section 161 to 165A of 27 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 the Indian Penal Code, thereby integrating the offences in the legislation to be tried by a special forum as envisaged. Resultantly, sections 161 to 165A have been effaced from the Indian Penal Code for obvious reasons. Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) makes it limpid that the known sources of income of the public servant, to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources or the property otherwise alleged to be disproportionate thereto, has to be from a lawful source and further that the receipt thereof had been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rule or orders for the time being applicable to him/her, as the case may be. This prescription indubitably emphasizes the lawfulness or legitimacy of the income to enable the public servant to satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources or property otherwise imputed to be disproportionate thereto. Not only the Act 28 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 entertains presumption against the public servant, in the eventualities as comprehended in Section 20 of the Act, it is clarified in Section 28 that nothing in the statute would exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might apart from the Act, be instituted against him or her. Section 29, amongst others to reiterate, has substituted in paragraph 4A of the Ordinance, an offence punishable under the 1988 Act, in lieu of the offence under Section 5 of the 1947 Act. The legislation thus is a complete code by itself, vibrant with the purpose therefor and animated with the spirit to effectuate the statutory goal. All these predicate a purposive explication of the provisions thereof to further the salutary legislative vision.
16. In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an important case and in the light of the object behind in enacting the 29 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Prevention of Corruption Act, in order to curb corruption in the administration of system, this court has to evaluate the evidence let in by the parties and also the manner in which investigation has been conducted by the Lokayukta Police.
17. One more important aspect to be taken note off while discussing the issues is the trial conducted by this court in Spl.CC.69/2018, in a case filed by Enforcement Directorate under the provisions of PML Act, 2002. Since same properties were involved in the said case and after considering the materials placed in that case and the defence taken by the present accused who was accused No.1 along with his wife as accused No.2, this court allowed the complaint filed by the ED, by concluding that the prosecution has proved that some of the 30 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 properties were acquired out of the proceeds of crime and accordingly, convicted both husband and wife for the offence punishable under section 4 of PML Act by imposing sentences.
18. Now the question before this court is whether the said judgment is having relevancy or not pertaining to this case and whether the conduct of this accused is also relevant to believe or not and the defence taken by him can be accepted or not.
19. In that regard Sec.40 of the Indian Evidence Act is relevant. Since, Sec.531 of BNSS ( Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ) says that in respect of the cases registered prior to 1.7.2024 shall be tried as per Cr.PC, Evidence Act, old Evidence Act is applicable to this case. Hence Sec.40 is referred which reads as under:
31 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of a such suit, or to hold such trial.
20. Further with regard to the conduct of the accused, Sec.54 of Indian Evidence Act deals with previous bad character not relevancy except in reply which reads as under:
54. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply:- In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.
32 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Explanation 1.- This Section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.
Explanation 2.- A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character. Explanation -2 of that Section says that a previous character is relevant as evidence of bad character.
21. In the light of the said provisions and also evidence of this case particularly the defence taken by the accused, the same is required to be discussed.
22. With regard to the first point raised by the accused that since the Executive Engineer as per para 13.4 of KPWD Code has not prepared the 33 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 valuation, valuation report submitted by the junior engineer cannot be received in evidence, it is to be noted that accused has examined one Sri.D.Nagaraj claimed to be approved Government Valuer. He has deposed about his visit to the houses of the accused as per request of the accused on 1.7.2009 and submitted his valuation report as per Ex.D18 to 26. But it is to be noted that against the present accused case under PMLA was also registered by the ED and this court has conducted trial and given a judgment. Since the said matter is also relating to the same properties and issues are common in both cases, the said judgment becomes relevant as per Sec.40 onwards of the Indian Evidence Act. In that case in order to prove this aspect, accused did not chose to examine this witness. Eventhough the alleged report was obtained on 1.7.2009 ie., after 34 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 raid was conducted, but in that proceedings in para 63, this court has not accepted the case of the accused with regard to valuation. The statement u/s50(3) of PMLA of the accused was recorded wherein he has admitted about the valuation. As per Sec.193 & 228 of IPC, the said statement of that provision becomes admissible.
23. Since accused has failed to give any explanation as to what prevented him to examine this witness in that case in Spl.CC.69/208 and where were these documents were lying when the said trial was conducted, the examination of this witness and production of the said documents becomes an afterthought. Therefore, it is not permissible for the accused to produce contrary evidence to that of earlier evidence given by him.
35 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Eventhough there may be some lapses with regard to the rank of the Engineer who valued the buildings. But it should be presumed that the junior engineer must have visited the spot as per the instructions of the higher authorities and got valuation done. In that regard this court has discussed from para 64 to 67 of that judgment and as per said observations, the claim of the accused has been rejected. In para 71 of the judgment by discussing about the scope of Sec.8 of Indian Evidence Act, conduct of the accused has also been discussed.
24. In para 72 of the judgment detail discussion has been made with regard to the conduct of this accused. He admitted that a departmental enquiry was conducted and in the 36 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 departmental enquiry two charges were proved and they have not been challenged by him. Further his conduct shows that eventhough he was not a law graduate, but by suppressing true facts, he had got enrolled as advocate and later in an enquiry it was found that he was not a law graduate and accordingly his sannad was cancelled. Further another criminal case was registered against him and the learned 11th ACMM has recorded the charges on 22.8.2008, but in the attendence register, he had put his signature as if he was on duty. This shows that eventhough he had appeared before court for answering the charges, but he had an adocity to put his signature in the attendance register to show that he was on duty. The observations made in the judgment clearly shows that initially he has not accepted the same, but 37 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 when the very document was confronted, he was forced to accept the same.
25. Further as per the observations made in para 73 of the judgment it is very clear that 3 affidavits marked as Ex.D72 to 74 on behalf of the accused were fabricated and concocted for the purpose of the case. Again this court has secured the file and examined the said documents. It has been observed that stamp papers were generated only on 22.5.2012, but documents ie., so called rent affidavits were created on 11.5.2012 & 18.5.2012 ie., much before the date of generation of stamp papers.
26. Inview of the said conduct on the part of the accused in the other proceedings which is similar to this case and tried against same person, 38 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 in order to ascertain as to whether the same properties were acquired out of legal source or not, this court is required to take note of the matter and to give credence to the documents and the evidence produced by the accused in order to see that claim of the prosecution is not defeated.
27. In view of the said clear findings, eventhough the arguments of Sri.SPH., learned counsel for the accused is so appealable on the face, but having regard to the conduct on the part of the accused, same cannot be believed and accepted by the court of law. Because when the same court has examined the documents produced by the prosecution and the accused in respect of same issues and given a particular findings, in this proceedings, contrary view cannot be taken. Hence, 39 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 the said contention on the part of the accused is not tenable in law and hence cannot be accepted.
28. The next point is with regard to item No.38. Prosecution has shown the expenditure towards construction of the house of wife of accused. In that regard, accused is relying upon Ex.D17 & P244. I wish to discuss this item little later along with other properties.
29. The next point raised is with regard to amount of Rs.65 Lakhs loan lent by the accused and received back after selling JP Nagar Bar and Restaurant. It is argued that no witnesses have admitted about this transaction, therefore prosecution has failed to prove this aspect.
30. On the other hand, prosecution has relied 40 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 upon the evidence of PW31 Sri.K.Prasad. In the examination in chief, he clearly deposed that he knows the accused for the past about 20 years. During 2004, he had purchased the bar and restaurant and running said Bar and Restaurant till 2007. During that period, he was in need of working capital in a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs. In that regard he approached the accused through his father and requested the accused to help him in that regard. Thereafter accused had provided financial help to an extent of 50 Lakhs through some body. Later he has clarified that the total amount of Rs.65 Lakhs was paid to him by the accused in two instalments at Rs.40 Lakhs and Rs.25 Lakhs. He also stated that for the security of the said loan amount his father had issued 4 blank cheques in favour of the accused. He further deposed that during the year 41 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 2007, when he was not able to repay the loan amount and huge interest accumulated, accused started insisting him to repay the loan, therefore he decided to sell the bar and restaurant and in that regard, accused himself had negotiated and finalised the amount of Rs.65 Lakhs and got executed the GPA in favour of one Sri.Amaresh. Thereafter the said Bar and Restaurant was sold in favour of Sri.Sathish Reddy through said GPA holder. Thereafter accused has executed a document as per Ex.P8 stating that he had received the entire amount of Rs.65 Lakhs. Thereafter licence was transferred in favour of Sri.Sathish Reddy after having obtained consent from him. Accused has also executed the document as per Ex.P9 in favour of his father stating that entire amount has been received. He has also identified three licences 42 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 marked as Ex.P135 to 137. He has specifically stated that Lokayukta police have examined him and collected documents and recorded his statement and that statement was true and correct.
31. It is interesting to note that on that day learned counsel for the accused, took adjournment for cross examination and on 5.2.2022, this witness was subjected for cross examination. It appears by that time, accused must have won over this witness due to their long standing friendship and accordingly got all the admissions in his favour to the effect that earlier evidence given by him was not correct. But the learned SPP has conducted re- examination and in the re-examination, this witness has categorically admitted that on 14.1.2022 no body had forced him to come and give evidence in 43 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 such a way and he had come on his own after receipt of summons. He also admitted that name K.Prasad mentioned in Ex.P8 refers to him.
32. This evidence would clearly shows that in order to circumvent from the situation, accused got adjournment for cross examination and later won over this witness and got some admissions. But the way in which this witness has given categorical admissions with regard to Ex.P8 & 9 and transactions with regard to Rs.65 Lakhs, just because some admissions are obtained in the cross examination that too after taking adjournment, does not in any way enure to the benefit of the accused.
33. It is important to note that subsequently, it appears after getting admission from the mouth of this witness, accused must have won over PW34 44 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Sri.P.S.R. Sathish Reddy, PW35 Sri.Mahesh Reddy and got the evidence as per his say. Because they have turned hostile. But they have not disputed about purchasing of bar and restaurant for Rs.65 Lakhs and payment of Rs.65 Lakhs to Sri.K.Prasad son of Krishnappa who has been examined as PW31. PW34 has also admitted that father of Prasad had also come for transferring licence. Of course he had denied the statement as per Ex.P156.
34. PW35 has also turned hostile. But as stated above, the way in which PW31 has given evidence and since he has admitted the documents as per Ex.P8 & 9 and the said documents clearly reveal about the receipt of Rs.65 Lakhs by the accused at the time when the bar and restaurant was sold and since accused has not disputed his 45 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 signatures in Ex.P8 & 9, I am of the opinion that having regard to the conduct of the accused and the manner in which he won over the witnesses, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW31. This evidence itself is sufficient to prove the aspect with regard to this unexplained loan amount of Rs.65 Lakhs. Because, he has clearly deposed that he had given voluntary statement and the same contained true facts. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned counsel Sri.Shanker P Hegde of the accused. Because if this type of conduct on the part of accused is believed and accepted, then the criminal justice delivery will be defeated.
35. Further, another contention taken that as per I.T. Rules morethan Rs.20,000/- cash cannot be 46 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 received, therefore the allegations that Rs.65 Lakhs in cash was received is against the I.T.Rules, therefore the contention of the prosecution cannot be accepted. But, just because there is a rule in I.T., about the limit of cash transaction, the same does not enure to the benefit of the accused, when there is a believable evidence that such a transaction was taken place. In fact, the said transaction amounts to violation of I.T.Rules, on the part of accused. Therefore, the benefit wanted to taken by the accused in that regard, cannot be extended in his favour. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of Sri.S.P.H., the learned counsel for the accused in that regard.
36. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.SPH, has also argued that Smt.Lalithamma, the 47 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 wife of accused had also received an amount of Rs.11Lakhs from her brothers and in that regard they have executed the documents and in fact also admitted about the transferring of amount to the account of Smt.Lalithamma. Further it is also the contention of the accused that, his wife had received agricultural income including sericulture and in that regard, evidence of DW10 becomes relevant. It is also argued that Smt.Lalithamma had declared her individual income in the IT Returns submitted from the year 2004-05 onwards. It is argued that as per Income Tax Rules, income declared by any individual is admissible and that cannot be doubted. It is argued that Smt.Lalithamma was doing home made food business and earning lakhs of rupees and same has been declared in her IT returns. It is argued that in 48 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 respect of petty business, people need not maintain any books of accounts, she had declared morethan Rs.10 Lakhs income. Therefore, same needs to be accepted, because prosecution has not seriously disputed about the said income of the wife of accused.
37. Learned SPP, has argued that there is no documents to prove that Smt.Lalithamma had income of her own, to purchase property in her name. Illegal amount of accused was invested in the name of his wife for purchasing many properties, in order to show that she had independent source of income. No proper explanation has been given to show as to what was the reason for payment of entire compensation to Smt.Lalithamma, even though her father's family 49 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 did not own so much of property and she is having three brothers.
38. In the light of the said arguments, I have perused Sec.13 of Prevention of Corruption Act which reads as under:
Sec.13 Criminal misconduct by a public servant,- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees or attempts to obtain from any person or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for 50 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he, -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains 51 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation,- For the purpose of this 52 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 section, "known sources of income"
means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
39. Since this case was registered in the year 2009, old Prevention of Corruption Act is applicable. As per explanation given to that section "Known Source of Income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules 53 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
40. In that regard, accused is relying upon some IT returns marked as Ex.D2 to 8. She is also relying upon the unregistered Gift Deed dtd.16.9.1990 which was marked as Ex.D70 in Spl.CC.69/2018 and also Ex.D10, same is also certified copy marked in that case, to show that her brothers have gifted this property in her favour. To this point, whether the said alleged gift deed is valid or not, this court has already given findings in Spl.CC.69/2018 in para 86 of that judgment, which reads as under:
But, to substantiate the contention of the Accused No.2, no material has been placed. Estimation has not been filed.
54 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Even bank documents with regard to borrowing of loans have also not been produced. As stated above, the compensation amount was ordered only on 12.05.2000 in favour of the brothers of Accused No.2 and not in favour of the Accused No.2. In order to show that her brothers have transferred the said amount to her account, the accused have not placed any material. They are relying upon Ex.D.70 to D.74. Ex.D.70 and D.71 are the agreements to gifts executed by one Srinivas and Siddamma and others.
These two documents cannot be relied upon, because they are only agreements and not the registered Gift Deeds. As per Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, any gift to be made is required to be done through a registered Gift Deed and therefore the agreements to Gift are not valid in the eye of law. Therefore, these documents cannot be relied upon.
55 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 In view of the said observations, this court cannot take contrary view in this proceedings on the same documents, therefore, the claim of the accused in that regard, cannot be believed and accepted.
41. Further, this court has already given clear findings to the effect that, Smt.Lalithamma has failed to prove her contention that she was preparing home made foods and selling the same and earning lakhs of rupees as her independent income. A categorical finding has already been given to the effect that, initially she had no source of income to acquire any property including agricultural property, therefore any amounts received out of agriculture becomes not legal. Because as per explanation of Sec.13(1) of 56 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Prevention of Corruption Act, admittedly, accused has not reported the said alleged income to his department. Therefore, it does not become lawful source, within the meaning of that Section.
42. That apart the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Selvi.J.Jayalalitha case from para 437 onwards, has given a finding that, declaring any income in the income tax returns is not itself is a proof of lawful source. The income declared in the Income Tax Returns should be supported by any legally acceptable document. Therefore, in the absence of any documents placed to show that Smt.Lalithamma was doing home made food business and earning lakhs of rupees and the same was declared in the IT Return and she herself was maintaining family needs and to deposit the 57 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 amounts in the name of her children, out of her own earnings cannot be believed as gospel truth. Otherwise, any body can come and say that I was doing such business and earning lakhs of rupees and that is a lawful source. In a case of this nature, having regard to the intention of the Act, particularly when conduct of the accused is not fair and moreover, when this court has already given a finding in other case, based upon the same materials placed by the accused and the prosecution, in this proceedings another view cannot be taken. Since this court has come to a definite conclusion that accused had stooped to the level of creating and fabricating the documents, by using old and anti-dated stamp papers to suit his convenience, the evidence given by him, through Dws.1 to 5 also cannot be believed and accepted.
58 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Because, their evidence is not supported by any rent receipts and the alleged rent affidavits were created during the year 2010 ie., after raid was conducted and registration of the case. However, it is seen that the I.O., has taken some rental income having regard to the documents submitted by the accused during the course of investigation. But, after thought, this accused has created these rent affidavits and made the witnesses to come and give evidence, in order to support his case, to over come from the case put forth by the prosecution.
43. The learned counsel for the accused in his subsequent written arguments, has highlighted with regard to the assets at the beginning of check period, assets acquired during the check period, income received during the check period and the 59 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 expenses incurred, in the light of some decisions.
44. The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the decisions of Malliga Selvaraj Vs. State -2007 MLJ (Crl.) 86, B.T.Nagappa Vs. State by Lokayukta Police, Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, Smt.Annakkalanjiam Mathivanan Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2451/Chny/2018 and contended that as per the said decisions, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish that the accused has acquired disproportionate assets during the check period, beyond his known source of income.
45. I have gone through the said principles, in the light of the arguments canvassed. No body can dispute about the principles laid down in the said decisions. It is the fact that, prosecution has to place materials to show that accused has acquired 60 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 the alleged properties in his name or in the name of his family members during the check period. But once, some material is placed by the prosecution to show that the alleged properties were standing either in the name of the accused or in the names of his family members, then onus shifts on the accused to establish, as to what was his legal source of income to acquire those properties either in his name or in the names of his family members.
46. Keeping this aspect in mind only, this court on the basis of the materials placed by the prosecution, as stated above, with regard to acquisition of said disputed items, has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has placed believable materials to discharge the initial burden. The fact that the said properties were available 61 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 during the check period has not been seriously disputed. In fact, I.O., has given benefits in favour of the accused by not conducting proper investigation, by going to the root of acquisition of properties in the name of accused and his wife. But the Enforcement Directorate in their case has thoroughly investigated the matter to ascertain the fact that Smt.Lalithamma, wife of accused did not have any source of income initially to acquire agricultural lands in her name. Accordingly, this court in that Spl.CC.No.69/2018 has come to a conclusion that, Smt. Lalithamma has failed to prove her contention that she was having independent source of income to acquire many properties in her name. Even though proper investigation has not been conducted with regard to the manner in which properties were acquired in the 62 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 name of Smt.Lalithamma and subsequently the manner in which entire compensation amount through 4 parts was deposited to her name, but over all evidence clearly indicates, that by adopting dubious method, accused must have acquired those properties out of his illegal money and get back the same through illegal documents ie., alleged agreement of gift and letter and they are not at all recognised by law. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that, when there is a clear material placed by the accused himself in other proceedings, and that clearly shows that he stooped to that level of concocting and fabricating the documents after the raid was conducted, in order to show that, he had so much of legal source of income, the arguments of learned counsel for the accused does not inspire the confidence of this court.
63 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
47. It is to be noted that admittedly, accused was working in Transport Department in the cadre of Inspector and ARTO and getting some salary, but during that post, he has acquired many assets in his name and also in the name of his wife, clearly indicates that, it is not at all possible to acquire so much of properties out of that small salary amount. He has claimed that he has received hand loans from his relatives and friends and used to do agriculture, sericulture and rearing sheeps and getting lakhs of rupees, without informing to his department as required by law. If these types of vague explanation offered by the accused is accepted by court of law, that too after noticing that, he has got bad character with regard to fabricating documents and placed before court of law and given a false evidence with regard to his 64 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 appearing before another court for answering the charge and subscribed his signature to the attendance register to show that, even on that day, he was on duty, the very purpose of enacting P.C.Act would be defeated. Therefore the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused, do not come to his rescue having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as narrated above.
48. The learned counsel for the accused has also argued about the amount of Rs.11,40,000/- shown towards expenditure. The learned counsel is relying upon Ex.P244, D17 and the evidence of PW36. A perusal of Ex.P244, it discloses that on 7.3.2007, an amount of Rs.11,47,000/- was withdrawn for the purpose of demand draft. It also 65 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 discloses that the said amount was available in the account of Smt. Lalithamma in State Bank of Mysore as on that date. But there is no documents to show, as to in whose favour the demand draft was taken and the amount was paid. According to the accused, the said amount was paid to one Sri.Anand Kumar towards purchase of timber for the construction of the house. Ofcourse, I.O., has failed to answer as to whether he has conducted proper investigation or not to ascertain true facts. But, it has been elicited that during that period, house in the name of Smt.Lalithamma was being constructed. Since, IO., has failed to give proper answers as to whether proper investigation was conducted or not, by applying the principles under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, the benefit can be extended in favour of the accused. Because, when the amount was 66 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 available in the account of Smt.Lalithamma on that day, and the account extract discloses that same was withdrawn for purchasing D.D., I.O., should have properly conducted investigation to ascertain as to in whose favour demand draft was purchased and the amount was transferred. Therefore that benefit is required to be given in favour of the accused pertaining to his expenditure and for that amount, deduction is required to be given in Statement "D".
49. The learned counsel for the accused has also argued that the value shown by the I.O., with regard to the movable properties during the course of raid conducted on 29.9.2009 is not valid. It is argued that proper value in accordance with law has not been ascertained by the IO., by taking any 67 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 approved valuer. It is contended that a vague report has been prepared by the I.O., with regard to the value of the house hold articles. It is also argued that in respect of Koorigepalli properties valuation report has been prepared by the I.O., even though as per evidence of PW13, the same were purchased by the brother of the accused Sri.J.V.Krishna and in that regard the said JV.Krishna has given evidence.
50. With regard to this aspect, I have perused the evidence of PW2 Smt. M.Renuka. She is the punch witness during the course of raid. She has deposed that, after entering the house at Koorigepalli, police have seized some documents and thereafter went to the house of Varadaraju and recovered the properties and documents. In the cross examination, only one suggestion was made 68 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 and in fact it is in the form of admission. It is suggested that the value of the house hold articles were fixed after having discussed with Sri.J.V.Krishna. Therefore it is clear that accused has not disputed the valuation made by the IO., with regard to this aspect. Hence, the arguments of Sri.S.P.H., in that regard also cannot be believed and accepted.
51. Further, with regard to the agricultural income of Smt.Lalithamma and also with regard to the house hold articles, prosecution has examined Sri.J.V.Krishna as PW13. His evidence would show that joint family consisting of 4 brothers and mother and was owning only 4 acres 24 ½ guntas of land. But, in the name of accused and his wife, several agricultural lands and house buildings were 69 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 acquired. Eventhough this witness has deposed that he was also rearing 150 sheeps and doing agriculture on behalf of Smt.Lalithamma and paying lakhs of rupees, and also stated that there were bills and documents available in that regard, but no such documents have been produced.
52. It is important to note that, this witness was twice recalled on 9.1.2018 before Hon'ble Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, and he was subjected for cross examination. But again after thought, at the fag end of the trial ie., on 23.5.2024, he was again recalled and tried to get some admissions with regard to the agricultural income, but in the re-examination conducted by the prosecution, he has admitted that he has not maintained any bills or documents to show that he 70 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 has paid an amount of Rs.19 Lakhs to Smt.Lalithamma.
53. This attempt made by the accused at the fag end of the trial, would clearly indicates that some how, he wanted to bring some evidence to show that his wife was having independent source of income and out of that she was maintaining the family affairs. Therefore, the act on the part of this accused cannot be appreciated by the court of law.
54. Further, accused also made an attempt to get admissions from the mouth of PW15 Sri.B.M.Mallikarjunababu Deputy Director of Horticulture, by way of recalling him on 23.5.2024, eventhough he was first examined on 16.7.2018 and did not elicit any admission in the cross examination. So after lapse of nearly six years, this 71 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 witness was recalled and accused tried to get some admission.
55. Further, PW18 was also recalled on 23.5.2024 ie., after lapse of more than 5 yeas to get some admissions. This type of attempt made by the accused to bring some evidence in his favour, cannot be appreciated by court of law.
56. When nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW2 and in fact suggestions made to the effect that the valuation was fixed after having discussed with PW13 J.V.Krishna, the arguments that proper valuation was not made, therefore, the said amount cannot be accepted, holds no water. That apart, if really, accused has got documents to prove the actual value of the house hold articles and when they were acquired, it was his duty to produce the 72 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 said documents during the course of his evidence to destroy the case of the prosecution in that regard. But, no such document is produced in that regard. Therefore, the said arguments cannot be accepted by the court of law. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of Sri.SPH., learned counsel for the accused in that regard.
57. The learned counsel for the accused has also highlighted about the additional agricultural income that was received by the wife of the accused. In that regard, accused has examined Dw10, Sri.N.D.Bhat who is an agricultural consultant from Sirsi. His evidence would show that after raid was conducted, as per the instructions of the accused, he said to have visited the lands and valued the agricultural income. But his evidence 73 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 would show that no crops were available as on the date of his alleged visit and he has not collected any evidence to know as to how much income was received by Smt.Lalithamma. He admitted that he has prepared chart as per his experience and after discussing with the neighbouring land owners. He has clearly admitted that no supporting document was produced to show the quantity of yield that was received in all the years.
58. It is to be noted that as stated above, accused has made all the attempts to get some evidence in his favour to show that he was having so much of income from all sources, after raid was conducted. It appears that he is very intelligent person and after coming to know about the consequences of the case registered against him by 74 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 the Lokayukta police, he tried his best to fabricate evidence by adopting dubious methods. That apart, this evidence was not produced by him, in Spl.CC.69/2018. When the same issue was involved in the said case, what prevented him to examine this witness and to produce the document, has not been explained by him in the Statement u/s.313 Cr.PC. Moreover there is no basis for the report submitted by DW10 with regard to his assessment. Therefore, the evidence of DW10 cannot be believed and accepted to hold that accused had additional income through his wife.
59. So viewed from angle, the contention taken by the accused in the defence cannot be believed and accepted.
60. As per my above discussion, I hold that 75 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 only submission to be believed and accepted is with regard to the expenditure amount shown in a sum of Rs.11,47,000/- and the same needs to be deducted from out of expenditure. The remaining assets and calculations submitted by the prosecution will have to be believed and accepted.
61. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has also argued with regard to wrong expenditure considered by the I.O., with regard to unverifiable domestic expenditure. According to him, he did not use to spent more amount towards kitchen expenses, since he and his family members used to have vegetarian food. Of course, whether he is a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian does not make out lot of difference with regard to the expenses, but since the I.O., has not considered 76 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 actual net salary income to apply 1/3rd of that net income as per Sajjan Singh's Case by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since, there are small amounts involved and for that I.O., could not give proper explanation, I am of the opinion that over all a lumpsum of Rs.3,00,000/- to be deducted from out of expenses shown by the I.O. Therefore, without much discussion I hold that Rs.3 Lakhs is to be deducted from the expenditure aspect.
62. Inview of the aforesaid discussions, the following calculation is required to be made to ascertain the disproportionate assets.
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1. Assets at the end of the 1,00,75,844-00
check period
2. Assets during the check 1,00,75,844-00
period
77 Spl.C.C.1140/2020
3. Expenditure during the 82,43,228-00
check period
4. Assets and Expenditure 1,83,19,072-00
5. Income during check period 73,42,143-00
6. Difference income 1,09,76,929-00
7. Percentage of disproportion 149.50%
63. As per the said calculation, now
disproportionate assets comes to Rs.1,09,76,929/- which is equivalent to 149.50% which is beyond known source of income of the accused. As discussed above, accused has failed to give satisfactory explanation for that disproportionate assets. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of Sri.SPH., learned counsel for the accused. Now, this court came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that during the check period from 20.11.1978 78 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 to 29.9.2009, accused has acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,09,76,929/- which is 149.50% beyond known source of income of accused. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative to that extent.
64. POINT NO.2: In view of my above said findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
79 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then signed by me on this the 29th day of July, 2024).
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE The Learned SPP submitted that since the accused has committed heinous crime with regard to acquiring disproportionate assets during his service by adopting all dubious and illegal methods, maximum sentence is required to be passed to send a strong message to the society. It is further argued that age of the accused and the 80 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 alleged ill-health ground need not be considered, since he does not deserve any sympathy at all.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that accused is now aged about 72 years and suffering from all old age related deceases like B.P., Sugar etc., and he needs regular health check up and treatment and therefore, same needs to be taken note off while awarding sentence. It is argued that, throughout the trial, accused has appeared regularly and co-operated this Hon'ble Court to conduct the trial. Under the old Act, minimum sentence prescribed is one year and it may be extended upto 7 years. So therefore, having regard to his age, ailments and his good conduct shown during the trial, lenient view may be taken.
In the light of the arguments, I have perused the records. The fact that before 16.1.2014, 81 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 minimum sentence prescribed was one year imprisonment and it may be extended upto 7 years. This case was registered in the year 2009, therefore, old Act is applicable.
It is to be noted that, accused is a senior citizen and he has regularly attended the court during the course of trial and there is no lapse on his part with regard to that aspect. However, having regard to the findings given by this court with regard to his bad character shown while acquiring disproportionate assets and the manner in which he concocted and fabricated documents, even during the course of trial and the way in which he suppressed the material facts and since disproportionate assets is more than 149% to the known source of income, I am of the opinion that, too much leniency shall not be shown to him. In 82 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 other case also, three years imprisonment has been imposed. So considering the said aspect, I am of the opinion that if simple imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, with default clause is imposed, that would meed the ends of justice. Further, disproportionate assets also shall be confiscated to the State. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine of Rs.2 Lakhs for the offence punishable under section 13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, it is ordered that accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
83 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 year.
Further it is ordered that disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,09,76,929/- shall be confiscated to State.
The period of custody already undergone by the accused if any shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to furnish free copy of the judgment to the Accused forthwith. (Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then signed by me on this 29th day of July, 2024).
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII A.C.C. & S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed byMOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2024.07.29 15:00:22 +0530 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION P.Ws C.Ws Name 84 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 P.W.1 CW2 K.N.Sridhar P.W.2 CW4 M.Renuka P.W.3 CW10 R.G.Jagadish P.W.4 CW14 L.P.Shivakumar PW.5 CW52 Govindaraj PW.6 CW12 Srinivasa PW.7 CW50 Murali Mohana PW.8 CW51 Manjunath Bevinakuppa PW.9 CW53 Balakrishna Nayar PW.10 CW55 Jayadevaprakash PW.11 CW61 B.Ramu PW.12 CW63 S.K.Das PW.13 CW68 J.V.Krishna PW.14 CW74 Poornima.P.V. PW.15 CW75 B.M.Mallikarjunababu PW.16 CW73 J.V.Srinivas PW.17 CW76 Byrappa.R PW.18 CW77 M.Munirangappa PW.19 CW56 Y.Shivarama Krishnaiah PW.20 CW58 G.P.Devaraj PW.21 CW57 V.Sridharan PW.22 CW25 Krishnappa 85 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 PW.23 CW26 Krishnamurthy Prabhu PW.24 CW23 S.Arun Kumar PW.25 CW15 K.C.Vishwanath PW.26 CW19 Ashok Kumar PW.27 CW21 K.M.Shantharam PW.28 CW18 P.G.Manjunath PW.29 CW29 S.Ramanna PW30 CW20 K.P.Gopalkrishna PW31 CW70 K.Prasad PW32 CW90 R.V.Gangadharappa PW33 CW91 S.Manjunath PW34 CW72 P.S.R.Sathish Reddy PW35 CW71 Mahesh Reddy PW36 CW92 M.P.Nagaraj PW37 CW1 Shashidhar Shivabasaveshwar Alamelkar PW38 CW6 Subhash PW39 CW83 Ramachandra LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Exhibit No. Description of exhibited document 86 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.1(c) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.3 Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.3(c) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.4 Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW32 on 04.03.2022 Ex.P.5 Report of PW3 Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.6 Report of PW4 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.7 Mahazar Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.8 Agreement letter 87 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.9 Agreement letter Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW35 Signature of PW35 (for the purpose of Ex.P.9(b) identification) Ex.P.7(b), 8(a) 7 & Signature of PW24 9(b) Ex.P.10 Building Valuation Report Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.11 Copy of agreement letter Ex.P.12 Copy of Rental Agreement Ex.P.13 Copy of Rental Agreement Ex.P.14 Report of PW10 (page 1215 to 1217) Ex.P.14(a) Signatures of PW10 to (e) Ex.P.15 Letter of PW11 Ex.P.15(a) Report of PW11 Ex.P.16 Information letter of PW12 Ex.P.16(a) Signature ofe PW12 Ex.P.17 to 4 Requisition letters of Lokayuktha to Tahsildar 20 Srinivasapur Ex.P.21 to 3 Reports submitted by Tahsildar, Srinivasapura 23 Taluk Ex.P.24 to 34 RTC Extracts 57 Ex.P.58 Requisition of Lokayuktha to Asst. Director of 88 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Horticulture, Srinivasapur Taluk (Volume-7, Page 1078 to 1085) Report submitted by AD, Horticulture, Ex.P.59 Srinivasapur Taluk Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.60 to 4 Annexures 63 Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW15 to 63(a) Ex.P.64 Complaint Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.65 Residential Building Photo Ex.P.66 & House Warming Ceremony Invitation 67 Ex.P.68 &69 Photos of H.No.217, HRBR Layout, Banasawadi Photos of H.No.116, 17th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 5th Ex.P.70 Stage, Bengaluru Photo of Bar and Restaurant at Ring Road, Ex.P.71 J.P.Nagar Ex.P.72 Photo of Car No.KA-19/1244 Ex.P.73 Pahani of Sy.No.245/6 Letter of Lokayuktha Police to Director of Ex.P.74 Sericulture, Srinivasapura Volume -7 (1086 to 1089) Letter of Asst. Director of Sericulture, Ex.P.75 Srinivasapura to Lokayuktha Police Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.76 Document furnished by PW17 89 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.76(a) Signature of PW17 Letter of Lokayuktha Police to Asst. Director of Ex.P.77 Agriculture, Srinivasapura dated 25.11.2011 (Volume1090 to 1097) Ex.P.78 Reply given by PW18 to Lokayuktha Police Ex.P.78(a) Signature of PW18 Letter of Lokayuktha Police to the Prl. Sri.Sathya Ex.P.79 Sai Vidya Samsthe, Puttaparthy (Volume-7, 1176) Reply given by PW19 to Lokayuktha Police, Kolar Ex.P.80 (Volume-7 1177) Letter of Lokayuktha Police to District Social Ex.P.81 Welfare Officer, Kolar (Volume-6 1000) Ex.P.81(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.82 Reply given by PW20 to Lokayuktha Police, Kolar Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW20 Letter of Lokayuktha Police to AEE, BESCOM, Ex.P.83 Srinivasapura Letter of AEE, BESCOM, Srinivasapura dated Ex.P.84 7.10.2011 to Lokayuktha Police, Kolar Ex.P.84(a) Signature of PW21 Letter of AEE, BESCOM, Srinivasapura dated Ex.P.85 16.12.2011 to Lokayuktha Police, Kolar Ex.P.85(a) Signature of PW21 Statement showing the payment details of Ex.P.86 to RR.No.GNL3710, GNL 3711, GNL 3712, GNL3714 90 and GNL 3854 Ex.P.86(a) Signature of PW21 to 90(a) Ex.P.91 to Leder account copies of payment details report 90 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 95 Ex.P.91(a) Signature of PW21 to 95(a) Letter of Lokayuktha Police to the Manager, Ex.P.96 Syndicate Bank, Kolar Ex.P.96(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.96(b) Signature of PW36 Letter of Syndicate Bank, Kolar addressed to Ex.P.97 Lokayuktha Police, Kolar Ex.P.97(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.98 C/c of account opening form Ex.P.98(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.99 C/c of SB Account statement Ex.P.99(a) Signature of PW22 Letter of Syndicate Bank, Kolar to Lokayuktha Ex.P.100 Police, Kolar Ex.P.100(a) Signature of PW22 Letter of Lokayukta Police to the Manager, Ex.P.101 Corporation Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.101(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.101(b) Signature of PW36 Letter of Corporation Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.102 to Lokayuktha Police Ex.P.102(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.103 C/c of specimen signature card Statement of accounts (Volume No.4 781 to Ex.P.104
797) 91 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Letter of Lokayuktha Police to the Manager, Ex.P.105 Corporation Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru dated 19.01.2012 Ex.P.105(b) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.105(c) Signature of PW23 Letter of Corporation Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.106 to Lokayuktha Police dated 20.01.2012 Ex.P.106(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.107 C/c of account opening form Ex.P.108 C/c of Driving License Ex.P.109 C/c of PAN Card Ex.P.110 Statement of accounts Letter of Lokayuktha Police to Sub-Registrar, Ex.P.111 Bommanahalli, Koramangala Ex.P.111(a) Signature of PW36 Reply given by Sr Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli, Ex.P.112 Bengaluru Ex.P.112(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.113 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.113(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.114 C/c of sale deed Ex.P.114(a) Signature of PW25 Letter of Lokayuktha Police to the Manager, SBM, Ex.P.115 Koorigepalli Ex.P.115(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.115(b) Signature of PW36 92 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Reply given by Branch Manager, SBM, Ex.P.116 Koorigepalli Ex.P.116(a) Signature of PW26 Statement of account extract in the name of Ex.P.117 Smt.Lalithamma Another extract of statement of account in the Ex.P.118 name of Lalithamma Extract of statement of account in the name of Ex.P.119 Rajesh Letter of Lokayuktha Police to the Manager, SBM, Ex.P.120 Koorigepalli Ex.P.120(a) Signature of PW26 Reply given by the Manager, SBM, Kooregepalli to Ex.P.121 Lokayuktha Police Ex.P.121(a) Signature Karnataka Lokayuktha Police had issued notice Ex.P.122 dated 13.09.2011 to J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.122(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.123 Bank reply letter dated 09.11.2011 Ex.P.123(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.124 Account opening form related to J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.125 Computerized account statement of J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.126 Bank Letter dated 07.09.2011 Ex.P.126(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.126(b) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.127 Notice dated 19.11.2011 Ex.P.127(a) Signature of PW28 93 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.128 Account opening form related to J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.129 Screen Shot of account details of J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.130 Statement of account of J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.131 Pass book extract of J.V.Ramaiah Letter dated 13.09.2011 of office of Karnataka Ex.P.132 Lokayuktha, Kolar Ex.P.132(a) Signature of PW29 LIC Policy No.621140258 relates to J.V.Ramaiah Ex.P.133 letter dated 22.09.2011 Ex.P.133(a) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.134 Status details of the policy Ex.P.135 to 3 Licenses in respect of Bar and Restaurant 137 Order No.Lok/INVG/ALR/SP/07/2009 dated Ex.P.138 01.01.2010 of SP, Kolar Letter dated 02.01.2010 of PW33 to EE, PWD, Ex.P.139 Kolar Ex.P.139(a) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.140 Letter dated 04.01.2010 of SP, Kolakyutha, Kolar Ex.P.140(a) Signature of PW33 Letter dated 03.03.2010 to ARTO, Nagamangala Ex.P.141 to submit salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah Letter dated 06.03.2010 of RTO, Puttur along with Ex.P.142 salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah 3 Letters dated 04.01.2010, 23.06.2010 and Ex.P.143 07.08.2010 Letter dated 19.03.2010 written to the Ex.P.144 Commissioner of Transport 94 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.144(a) Signature of PW33 APR submitted by Commissioner of Transport Ex.P.145 from the year 1984-85, 1992-93 and 2001-05. Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.146 RTO, Jayanagar on 11.05.2010 Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.147 RTO, Indranagar on 17.06.2010 Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.148 RTO, Belagavi on 23.06.2010 Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.149 RTO, Mengaluru on 26.04.2010 Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.150 RTO, Bijapur on 12.07.2010 Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.151 RTO, Kolar on 14.06.2010 Ex.P.152 Schedule Book from P.No.88 to 149 in Ex.D.11 Salary particulars of J.V.Ramaiah submitted by Ex.P.153 ARTO, Nangli on 13.12.2010 Reports of Transport Commissioner on Ex.P.154 05.01.2011 and 11.01.2011 (P.428 to 430, 433 to 444 and 445 to 447) Ex.P.155 Orders of SP dated 15.06.2011 Ex.P.156 Statement u/S 164 of PW34 Ex.P.157 Statement u/S 161 of PW35 before IO Ex.P.158 Permission letter from SP, KLA, Kolar Ex.P.159 Report of RTO, Belagavi Letter dated 25.02.2012 written to the EE, PWD, Ex.P.160 Kolar to submit valuation report 95 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.160(a) Signature of PW36 Letter dated 21.10.2011 written to Secretary of Ex.P.161 BDA to furnish documents pertaining to site at Hennur, Banaswadi Ex.P.161(a) Signature of PW36 Letter dated 12.12.2011 received from BDA along Ex.P.162 with relevant documents Letter written to Sub-Registrar, Chinthamani Ex.P.163 dated 12.09.2011 Ex.P.163(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.164 Letter dated 22.09.2011 of Sub-Registrar Letter received on 22.09.2011 along with c/c of registered sale deed in repsect of property Ex.P.165 standing in the name of Smt.Lalithamma W/o J.V.Ramaiah Letter dated 13.09.2011 written to Manager, Ex.P.166 SBM, Kolar Ex.P.166(a) Signature of PW36 Letter submitted by Manager dated 19.09.2011 Ex.P.167 along with copy of Pass Sheet Letter dated 12.09.2011 written to Sub-Registrar, Ex.P.168 Srinivasapura Taluk to furnish documents standing in the name of Smt.Lalithamma Ex.P.168(a) Signature of PW36 C/c of Registered sale deed received on Ex.P.169 30.09.2011 Letter dated 13.09.2011 written to Manager, Ex.P.170 Syndicate Bank Ex.P.170(a) Signature of PW36 96 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.171 Documents received by PW36 on 01.10.2011 Documents received by PW36 from Syndicate Ex.P.172 Bank, Puttur Branch Letter dated 13.09.2011 written to Manager, SBI, Ex.P.173 J.P.Nagar Branch, Bengaluru Ex.P.173(a) Signature of PW36 Letter received on 31.10.2011 along with Ex.P.174 documents Letter dated 13.09.2011 written to Manager, ICICI Ex.P.175 Prudential Insurance Co.
Ex.P.175(a) Signature of PW36 Documents receiived from Prudential Insurance Ex.P.176 Co.
Letter dated 21.12.2011 written to Company Ex.P.177 Secretary, Karnataka Branch, Mangalore Ex.P.177(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.178 Letter received by PW36 on 03.01.2012 Letter dated 21.12.2011 written to Company Ex.P.179 Secretary, Corporation Bank, Mangalore Ex.P.179(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.180 Letter received by PW36 on 11.01.2012 Letter dated 21.12.2011 written to Manager Ex.P.181 Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.P.181(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.182 Letter received by PW36 on 10.01.2012 Ex.P.183 Rental agreement dated 28.05.2009 Ex.P.184 & Rent agreements in the form of affidavit 185 97 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Rent agreement dated 01.12.2005 executed in Ex.P.186 between Smt.Lalithamma and Sri.Chakaraborty Rent agreement dated 01.12.2005 executed in Ex.P.187 between Smt.Lalithamma nad Sri.Shahan Sha Ex.P.188 & Rent agreements in the form of affidavit 189 Ex.P.190 Lease Deed dated 28.10.2006 Copy of the letter dated 14.10.2011 issued by Ex.P.191 Corporation Bank Documents furnished by RTO Mangalore with Ex.P.192 regard to housing loan obtained by the accused Documents issued by SMB, Koorigepalli Branch Ex.P.193 on 17.11.2011 Copy of statement furnished by SBM, Koorigepalli Ex.P.194 Branch Documents relating to Self Declaration made by Ex.P.195 the family members of the accused before the Income Tax Department Documents relating to Self Declaration made by Ex.P.196 Kum.Manasa, daughter of the accused before the Income Tax Department Documents relating to Self Declaration made by Ex.P.197 Rajesh, son of the accused before the Income Tax Department Letter dated 13.09.2011 written to Post Master, Ex.P.198 Puttur Ex.P.198(a) Signature of PW36 Information received from Postal Department on Ex.P.199 14.10.2011 Information furnished by accused from Page Ex.P.200 No.1098 to 1102 98 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by PW36 to Ex.P.201 BBMP requesting to furnish certain documents Ex.P.201(a) Signature of PW36 Documents furnished by BBMP, Arekere Sub Ex.P.202 Division Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by PDO, Grama Ex.P.203 Panchayath, Koorigepalli Village Ex.P.203(a) Signature of PW36 Documents furnished by the PDO, Grama Ex.P.204 Panchayath, Koorigepalli Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by BWSSB Ex.P.205 requesting the authority to furnish certain documents Ex.P.206 Documents furnished by the BWSSB Ex.P.207 Signature of PW36 Ex.P.209 Documents furnished by the RTO, Mangaluru Ex.P.209(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.210 Documents funished by RTO, Puttur Letter dt. 12.12.2011 written by PW36 to Ex.P.211 Manager, Corporation Bank, Puttur requesting the authority to furnish documents Ex.P.211(a) Signature of PW36 Documents furnished by Corporation Bank, Puttur Ex.P.212 Branch Letter dated 13.09.2011 by PW36 to BESCOM, Ex.P.213 Bengaluru Ex.P.213(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.214 Documents furnished by BESCOM, Bengaluru 99 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Letter dated 30.09.2011 written by PW36 to Ex.P.215 BESCOM, Bengaluru Ex.P.216 Documents furnished by BESCOM, Bengaluru Ex.P.217(a) Signature of PW36 Documents furnished by BSNL Authority, Ex.P.218 Bengaluru Letter dt. 13.09.2011 written by PW36 to Head Ex.P.219 Master, Vivekananda Primary School, Puttur Ex.P.219(a) Signature of PW36 Documents furnished by Head Master, VPS, Ex.P.220 Puttur Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by Head Master, Ex.P.221 Sathya Sai Institute, Bantwala Ex.P.221(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.222 Documents furnished by Head Master Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by PW36 to Ex.P.223 Principal, AMP College, Bengaluru Ex.P.223(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.224 The document furnished by the Head Master Letter dated 03.12.2011 written by PW36 to the Ex.P.225 Head Master, Vivekananda School, Puttur to furnish certain documents Ex.P.225(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.226 The document furnished by Head Master Letter dated 03.12.2011 written by PW36 to the Ex.P.227 Head Master, Higher Primary School, Puttur to furnish certain documents Ex.P.227(a) Signature of PW36 100 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.P.228 The document furnished by Head Master Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by PW36 to the Ex.P.229 Head Master, Government Primary School, Attavara to furnish certain documents Ex.P.229(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.230 The document furnished by Head Master Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by PW36 to the Ex.P.231 Head Master, St.Mary High School, Mangalore to furnish certain documents Ex.P.231(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.232 The document furnished by Head Master Letter dated 13.09.2011 written by PW36 to the Ex.P.233 Manager, Gas Agency, Mangalore to furnish certain documents Ex.P.233(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.234 Document furnished by gas agency Letter dated 30.09.2011 written by PW36 to Ex.P.235 Manager, Gas Agency, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.235(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.236 Document furnished by the Gas Agency Letter dated 30.09.2011 written by PW36 to the Ex.P.237 Manager, Srikanta, World Vision, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.237(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.238 Document furnished by gas agency Letter dated 20.12.2011 along with expenditure Ex.P.239 statement furnished by Joint Director (Statistics), Karnataka Lokayuktha 101 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Report dated 11.01.2012 submitted by the RTO, Ex.P.240 Mangalore with regard to loan repayment in respect of the accused Expenditure declared towards tour foreign Ex.P.241 charges in a sum of Rs.27,000/-
Expenditure declared towards house rent in the Ex.P.242 places where he was working Letter dated 14.10.2011 written to Ex.P.243 G.N.Krishnappa with a request to produce two original documents Statement of account with regard to unverifiable Ex.P.244 expenditure Ex.P.245 Sanction order Ex.P.245(a) Signature of PW39 Ex.P.246 FIR in Cr.No.7/2009 Ex.P.246(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.247 to Letters dated 30.09.
250 Ex.P.247(a) Signature of PW37 to 250(a) Ex.P.251 PF No.13/2009 submitted to the Court Ex.P.251(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.252 Report submitted by the Investigation Officer Letter dtd.28.11.2011 to Director KGID, Ex.P253 Bengaluru (Marked with consent) Letter dtd.30.11.2011 to Dy.Commissioner, Ex.P254 Karnataka Lokayukta, Kolar (Marked with consent) 102 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED D.Ws Name Date DW1 Sriram Murthy 24.02.2023 DW2 B.V.Venkataravanappa 25.03.2023 DW3 J.V.Sathish 25.03.2023 DW4 S.N.Narayana Murthy 25.03.2023 DW5 K.Nagaraju 19.06.2023 DW6 Varadaraju 19.06.2023 DW7 Jaiswal.R.S. 24.06.2023 DW8 D.Nagaraju 19.07.2023 DW9 Krishnappa 27.10.2023 DW10 N.D.Bhatt 11.12.2023 DW11 J.V.Ramaiah 20.01.2024 DW12 Smt.Lalithamma 13.06.2024 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED Exhibit Description of exhibited document No. Ex.D.1 Letter of bank Manager SBM, Koorigepalli Branch to Smt.M.Lalithamma dated 03.06.2009 103 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.D.2 Confirmation letter dated 12.10.2010 Ex.D.3 Confirmation letter dated 14.09.2010 Ex.D.4 Certificate dated 23.09.2010 Ex.D.5 Letter dated 12.05.2000 Ex.D.6 Sale deed dated 14.08.2018 Ex.D.7 Sale deed dated 05.06.1994 Ex.D.8 Challan receipts Ex.D.9 Agreement dated 07.01.1996 Ex.D.10 Certificate and Lease Agreement dated 05.12.2002 Ex.D.11 C/c of Rent Agreement entered into between DW2 and accused Ex.D.12 C/c of Ex.D.40 in Spl.C.C.69/2018 Ex.D.13 C/c of Ex.D.39 in Spl.C.C.69/2018 Ex.D.14 Original letter written by DW3 dated 12.10.2009 Ex.D.15 C/c of Ex.D.4 in Spl.C.C.69/2018, which is Rent Affidavit Ex.D.16 C/c of Rental Agreement in the form of Affidavit Ex.D.17 Valuation report prepared by DW8 pertaining to residential building constructed on Site No.9M-217, which was given to the accused Ex.D.18 Valuation Report pertaining to J.P.Nagar property prepared by DW8, which was given to the accused Ex.D.19 Valuation report prepared by DW8 pertaining to Koorgipalli Village property, which was given to the accused Ex.D.20 Notarized copies of Degree Certificate issued by to 23 Bengaluru University, License issued by Institute of 104 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Valuers with regard to Diploma Membership, License dated 10.02.1995 issued by Commissioner of Income Tax Ex.D.24 Schedule of Rates issued by Bengaluru Circle, PWD to 26 Office for the year 1985-86, 1990-91 and 2006-07 Ex.D.27 Account statement of DW2 issued by Canara Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch(Earlier it was Syndicate Bank) Ex.D.28 Certificate issued by DW10 with regard to gross income and net income along with calculation sheet, property documents, panchaname and photos Ex.D.29 Aadhar card copy of DW10, certificates issued by University of Agriculture, Dharwad, copies of summons received from the Court in various cases by DW10 Ex.D.30 Certificate dated 25.02.2011 issued by Department of Sericulture, Srinivasapura in the name of wife of DW11 Ex.D.31 Certificate dated 18.12.2023 issued by State Bank of India, Kurigepalli Branch with regard to electricity charges.
Ex.D32 Salary details for the period from December 1979 to 30/9/20209 (21 sheets) Ex.D33 Certified copy of letter from Corporation Bank. Ex.D34 Another Account statement in the name of DW.11's wife.
Ex.D35 Another account statement in the name of DW.11's wife in Corporation Bank.
105 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.D36 Another account statement in the name of DW.11's wife in Corporation Bank.
Ex.D37 Certified copy of RD Account in the name of DW.11's wife.
Ex.D38 Certified copy of RD account in the name of DW.11's wife.
Ex.D39 Certified copy of RD account in the name of DW.11's wife.
Ex.D40 Certified copy of RD in the name of DW.11's wife. Ex.D41 Certified copy of pass book issue by post office in the name of DW.11's son J.V.Rajesh. Ex.D42 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11's wife.
Ex.D43 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11's daughter Manasa Rani. Ex.D44 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11.
Ex.D45 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11.
Ex.D46 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11.
106 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Ex.D47 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11's son J.V.Rajesh. Ex.D48 Certified copy of pass book issued by post office in the name of DW.11's daughter Manasa Rani. Ex.D49 Income Tax Returns pertaining to DW.11 Ex.D50 Income Tax Returns submitted by DW.11's son. Ex.D51 Bank Statement in the name of DW.11's wife issued by Karnataka Bank.
Ex.D52 Affidavit submitted by Sendil Kumar with his letter and details of trading account. Ex.D53 Certified copy of lease deed dated 5/12/2002 between DW.11's wife and Sri D.N.Chandra. Ex.D54 Certified copy of the sale agreement dated 27/8/1998 between Padmakumari and DW.11. Ex.D55 Certified copies of proceedings of 8 criminal cases filed by Sri.J.V.Srinivas brother in law of DW12.
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
107 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 Orders on sentence pronounced in the open court vide separate orders. The operative portion reads as under:
ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine of Rs.2 Lakhs for the offences punishable under section 13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, it is ordered 108 Spl.C.C.1140/2020 that accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further it is ordered that disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,09,76,929/-
shall be confiscated to State.
The period of custody already undergone by the accused if any shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to furnish free copy of the judgment to the Accused forthwith.
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII A.C.C. & S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2024.07.29 14:58:47 +0530