Bangalore District Court
State By Seshadripuram Police Station vs Person Has Committed The Offence ... on 18 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 18th day of June 2018
Present: Sri. Laxman R. Kurane, B.Com., LL.B (Spl).,
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 5457/2003
2. Date of offence : 30.10.1998
3. Complainant : State by Seshadripuram Police Station
4. Accused : B.N.Parijatha W/o C.R.Kumar
54 years, r/at No. 62/Y,
13th Main Road, 3rd Y Block,
Rajajinagara, Bangalore-560 010.
5. Offences complained of : Sec. 408, 477 (A), 420 IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused is
acquitted
The PSI of Seshadripuram Police Station has filed the final report as
against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sec. 408, 477 (A),
420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the accused being
the FDC in Bruhut Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and working as the Govt.
2
servant from 11.1.1997 to 12.8.1998 collected the amount from public for
change of katha, registration of katha, but without remitting to the BBMP
caused loss of Rs 7,25,835.40 as per the audit report by falsifying the account
and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused person appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on
bail. Prosecution papers are furnished to the accused person in compliance of
207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing before charge, since no grounds were made out
for his discharge, charges were framed, read over to the accused person in the
language known to him. The accused person having understood the same,
denied it to be false and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter was set down
for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused person had
cited C.W.1 to 23 as its charge sheet witnesses, among whom
C.W.2,1,3,9,10,12,6 and 23 are examined as P.W.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1
to P.14. The accused was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the
incriminating circumstances appeared against her. She denied the same and not
chosen to adduce evidence on her behalf. As such, the matter was posted for
arguments.
3
5. Heard the learned Sr. APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel
for the accused person. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Following points arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused person has committed the offence punishable under Sec.
408, 477 (A), 420 IPC ?
(2) What order ?
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1 :
8. P.W.1 Devendra, Assistant Revenue Officer, has stated in his evidence
that accused was working as FDA in Revenue Department during the year
1996 to 1998 has misappropriated Rs 8,94,000/- and odd and after coming to
know about it, they searched the house of accused for the books such as receipt
and cash books and recovered three cash books and brought the same to the
office for verification and found the entries in the book, but accused has not
deposited the amount to the Bank, but only repaid Rs 1,69,000/-.
4
9. P.W.2 Ramakrishnappa, Retired Asst. Revenue Officer has stated in
his evidence that accused person was working as FDC in Rajajinagar office of
BBMP and the job responsibility of accused was to collect money with regard
to katha transfers, khata certificate, khatha extract, khatha clubbing and khatha
bifurcation and suppose to remit the amount in the bank on the next day and
issue receipt for having collected the amount.
10. P.W.3 Rathnamma, Revenue Officer, BBMP, has stated in her
evidence that she does not know anything about misappropriation of amount
and she came to know only after lodging of complaint with regard to
misappropriation of money. The evidence of P.W.4 Ravimario, Stenographer,
BBMP, P.W.5 Narasimhamurthy, Driver, BBMP and P.W.6 Ramaiah, Retired
Revenue Assessor are in line with the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.4 to 6 have
turned out hostile to the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W.7 Suresh, Deputy Commissioner, BBMP has stated in his
evidence that accused person was working as FDA in his office Rajajinagar
during 2003 to 2006 and the job responsibility of accused was to collect money
with regard to khatha transfer, khata certificate, khatha extract, khatha clubbing
and khatha bifurcation and collection of fees fixed by the Government, issuance
5
of receipt for collecting money and remittance of the money to the Bank and
out of Rs 7,25,000/- to be remitted to the Bank, but accused person has
misappropriated Rs 6,93,000/- and then the police recorded his statement and
he came to know that accounts books and ledger books were seized from the
house of accused.
12. PW.8 Lakshmipathigowda, Retired ACP has stated in his evidence
that on 13.9.2002 he obtained case file from P.I. and perused the investigation
and requested the concerned departments to submit original documents
pertaining to this case, recorded statements of C.W.13, C.W.11, C.W.12,
C.W.15 and 16 and after taking permission from ADP filed the charge sheet
against accused person.
13. Except the evidence of these 8 witnesses, the prosecution has not
examined any other witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1 Asst. Revenue Officer
is not corroborated by any other witnesses. P.W.2 Retired Asst. Revenue
Officer has stated about duties and responsibilities of the accused. P.W.3
Revenue Officer, BBMP, has stated that she does not know anything about
misappropriation of amount. P.W.4 to 6 Stenographer, Driver and Retired
Revenue Assessor have turned out hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.7
Deputy Commissioner, BBMP in his cross-examination has stated that he does
6
not know how the accused was performing her duties in the office and he came
to know about misappropriation of money from his Manager. P.W.8 is the
retired ACP has stated about investigation of the case. Therefore, there is no
evidence against the accused person that she has committed the alleged
offences. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond all
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative.
Point No. 2 :
14. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 408, 477 (A), 420 IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and his surety shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 18th day of June 2018) (LAXMAN R. KURANE), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
7ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Devendra P.W.2 : Ramakrishna P.W.3 : Rathnamma P.W.4 : Ravikoria P.W.5 : Narasimhamurthy P.W.6 : Ramaiah P.W.7 : P.Suresha P.W.8 : S.R.Lakshmipathigowda
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Notes Ex.P.2 : Office order Ex.P.3 to 5 : Notice seeking explanation Ex.P.6 & 7 : Challan Ex.P.8 : Complaint with notes Ex.P.9 : Complaint Ex.P.10 : Letter Ex.P.11 : Report Ex.P.12 : Memorandum Ex.P.13 : Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.14 : Statement of P.W.6
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Nil For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU. 8 9 10