Bangalore District Court
Puttenahalli Police Station vs Smt Sripraveen on 12 September, 2025
KABC030701582022
Presented on : 30-08-2022
Registered on : 30-08-2022
Decided on : 12-09-2025
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 12th day of September-2025
:Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G B.A., LL.B.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.27942/2022
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 10.12.2024
Complainant State by Puttenahalli Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Smt. Sripraveen,
W/o. Praveen,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. No.05, 1st Cross,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.27942/2022
6th Phase, BTM Layout,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,. 3, 4, 5, 6 of ITP Act.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 30.10.2023 and the
accused is Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of 10.09.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 12.09.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th Addl.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Puttenahalli Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec,. 3, 4, 5, 6 of ITP Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The case of the prosecution is that, On 10-12-2021 at 03- 00 PM, the accused, rented a space on the 2nd floor of Judgment 3 C.C.No.27942/2022 Building F-4, Wind Sir, Bannerghatta Road, Puttenahalli, from Cw-10 Srinivas Rao and were running Aveda Holistic Health Care and Spa at the said place. With the intention of earning money illegally from the said health care, the accused along with Cw4 Mrs. Rekha, Cw-5 Mrs. Lakshmi, Cw6 Mrs. Rohini, Cw7 Mrs. Kajal, Cw-8 Mrs. Anish Roy and Cw-9 Mrs. Geetha Reddy to engage in prostitution business and Since they were taking customers to the care center, and letting Cw-4 to Cw-9 engage in prostitution, they were taking money from the customers and running the prostitution business in order to make an unlawful gain and thereby the accused has committed the above said alleged offence which is punishable U/sec,. 3, 4, 5, 6 of ITP Act.
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/sec,. 3, 4, 5, 6 of ITP Act. against the accused. The accused was released on bail. Copy of the Judgment 4 C.C.No.27942/2022 prosecution papers furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the accused language known to her wherein she has denied the same and claim to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
4. In order to secure the Cw.1, 4 to 10, 15 and 16 this court repeatedly issued Summons, NBW and Proclamation, even though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they have failed to secure these witnesses. Moreover, this case is 04 years old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to prosecution. In this regard relied on the following Hon'ble High Court, full bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
Judgment 5 C.C.No.27942/2022
2. Of the two questions which have been referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely, whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a Magistrate can acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to apply for the issue of summons to any witness and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunity to serve the summons or to produce the witnesses, is the one that directly arises for determination in these appeals. The second question which arises for determination by us incidentally is whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution does not apply for the issue of summons to any of the witnesses and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve the summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunities to serve the summons on the witnesses or to produce the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though the cases had been posted for hearing on various dates and summons had been issued to the witnesses for all the hearings, the Judgment 6 C.C.No.27942/2022 witnesses were not produced on any of the hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued that the case would be disposed of without examining the witnesses if they are not produced the prosecution did not choose to let in any evidence and as such the Magistrate found that the prosecution had no evidence to let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar, 1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows: "It was the duty of the prosecution to make necessary arrangements for the production of its witnesses.... The Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court. When nobody appeared in t he court to inform what the reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which was a minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh Judgment 7 C.C.No.27942/2022 summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen. When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".
16. There are quite a number of decisions in which it had been held that an acquittal of the accused on the failure of the prosecution to produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v. Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ 1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v. Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v. Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ 1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973 Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.27942/2022 Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v. Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker); State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965 Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ 1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v. Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker); Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad 25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960 Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR 1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S. Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR 1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these decisions, there are the following decisions in which it has been held that acquittal on the ground of non-production of witnesses by the prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution failed to produce their witnesses, a Division Judgment 9 C.C.No.27942/2022 Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)'2 Cri LJ 537 (2), as follows: "Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."
" In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was Judgment 10 C.C.No.27942/2022 concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed Khan's case, it was found on the facts that the prosecution was not at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully considering all the aforesaid decisions and the views expressed therein, we are of the view that if the prosecution had made an application for the issue of summons to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as already indicated by us and if still the presence of the witnesses could not be secured Judgment 11 C.C.No.27942/2022 and the prosecution also either on account of pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the Court had given it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then the Court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons cases, and we answer the two questions referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, Cw.1, 4 to 10, 15 and 16 are dropped, they are not secured since long time. Further, the Cw.12 & 13 are given up as prayed by the learned Sr. APP. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked 03 documents as Ex.P1 to 3 and got marked Mo.1 to 3.
5. Thereafter examination of the accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused has denied the incriminating Judgment 12 C.C.No.27942/2022 evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead her side evidence. No documents are got marked on her behalf..
6. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
7. The following points would arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, On 10-
12-2021 at 03-00 PM, the accused, rented a space on the 2nd floor of Building F-4, Wind Sir, Bannerghatta Road, Puttenahalli, from Cw-10 Srinivas Rao and were running Aveda Holistic Health Care and Spa at the said place.
With the intention of earning money illegally from the said health care, the accused along with Cw4 Mrs. Rekha, Cw-
5 Mrs. Lakshmi, Cw6 Mrs. Rohini, Cw7 Mrs. Kajal, Cw-8 Mrs. Anish Roy and Cw-
9 Mrs. Geetha Reddy to engage in prostitution business and Since they were taking customers to the care center, and Judgment 13 C.C.No.27942/2022 letting Cw-4 to Cw-9 engage in prostitution, they were taking money from the customers and running the prostitution business in order to make an unlawful gain and thereby the accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 3,4,5,6 of the ITP Act?
2. What order.?
8. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
9. Points No.1: I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint here also, since I have already narrated the same at the inception of this judgment.
10. The Cw.2 Kiran Kumar, who is examined as Pw.1, the Cw.3 Bharath, who is examined as Pw.2 and they are mahazar witnesses in this case, they have deposed in their Judgment 14 C.C.No.27942/2022 evidence before the court stating that, before two years ago they had put their signatures on Ex.P1(a)(b) regarding the raid conducted near Bannarghatta Road Spa and during the raid the concerned police have seized Rs. 2,000/- denomination of Rs.500/- from the accused and further denied the contents of the above said document and nor he had given any statement before the police.
Further, the Ld.Sr.APP treated this witnesses has hostile to the prosecution case and cross examined the said witnesses in length but, nothing worthwhile was elicited from their mouth. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross examined the said witnesses, where they have stated that, since 2020 they knows the puttenahalli police station people and they had put their signature on Ex.P1 in the police station Judgment 15 C.C.No.27942/2022 and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.
11. The Cw.11 Manjunath.A.N, who is examined as Pw.3 and the eye witness to the case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 10-12-2021, Cw-1 called Cw-16, 12, 14 and 13 to the police station and told us that there was a information about the prostitution business was going on in a spa on Bannerghatta main road. We, Cw-1 and 2 other people were called to the police station and Cw-1 informed the same to pancha's and we all left the police station in 2 jeeps of the department at around 02-10 pm and reached the place where the prostitution is going on Aveda Health Care Spa, situated on the 2nd floor of the Windsurfer F-Floor Building on Bannerghatta main road, at around 02-30 pm. Then Cw-1asked the Cw-14 into acting as a decoy and gave him 4 notes of Rs. 500 denomination, marked with a pencil, Judgment 16 C.C.No.27942/2022 and told him to inform us by hand signals if, there was any prostitution going on inside the spa and sent them inside the said spa. Then we went inside the said spa and after 5 minutes, Cw-14 called us by hand signals. Then we all went inside the said spa with Cw-1 along with Pancha's and saw that there was a girl at the reception, Cw-1 informed him about the information and suspected that there was a prostitution going on in the said spa and asked him to call the owner of the said spa, then he showed someone who was in a room her name was Mrs. Sripraveen, Then Cw-1 informed the woman about the incident and asked for her mobile phone and her purse. After checking the purse, Cw-1 marked it with a pencil and sent it to Cw-14. There were 4 notes of Rs. 500 denomination. After confirming that prostitution was going on here, one of the 12-13 rooms in the spa was checked and a girl was found to be staying there with a man in an Arab costume.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.27942/2022 The room was checked and a condom pack was found there. Later, the girl in the room was questioned and told that the owner of the spa had called us and told us to do this, saying that she would pay us more money. Later, another room was similarly checked and there were about 4 girls there too, and they were also questioned and they too said that the owner of the spa had called us and told us to do this, saying that she would pay us more money. Later, there were 3 men near the reception of the spa, and when they were questioned, they said that the owner of the above spa, Sripraveen, had told us when we called him that if you pay him money, he would call girls at the spa. Later, when Cw14, who was sent as a decoy by Cw-1, was questioned, he said that he had told him that he would pay Rs 3,000 for sex and Rs 2,000 for a happy ending, and that he had paid Rs 2,000. Then, after getting confirmation that prostitution was going on in the spa, Mrs. Sripraveen, the Judgment 18 C.C.No.27942/2022 owner of the above spa, seized the mobile phone and Rs 2,000 from the woman and the condom packets in the room. Then, in the presence of the five pancha's, Cw-2 and 3, a raid and search operation was conducted from 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM. After obtaining the signatures of the five officers on the search warrant, the above items, the owner of the spa, Mrs. Sripraveen, the girls and 3 men in the room there, were taken into custody by Cw-1 and brought to the police station.
Further, the said witness has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused, where in he stated that, the said spa might be given treatment of skin and hair which he do not know and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.
12. The Cw.14 Rawool Kenchaiah Golal, is examined as Pw.4 and eye/incident witness in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 10-12-2021, Cw-1 called Judgment 19 C.C.No.27942/2022 Cw16, 12, 11 and 13 to the police station and told us that there was information a prostitution business was going on in a spa on Bannerghatta Main Road. We, Cw-1 and two other people, Cw-2 and 3, were called to the police station. Cw1 informed the said pancha's and we all left the police station in 2 jeeps of the department at around 02-10 pm and reached the place where the prostitution business was going on ie., Aveda Health Care Spa, situated on the 2nd floor of the Windsurfer F-Floor Building on Bannerghatta Main Road, at around 02-30 pm. Then Cw.1 had given him 4 notes of Rs. 500 denomination marked with a pencil and told him to inform them by hand signals if, there was any prostitution going on inside the spa and sent them inside the said spa. Then he went inside the said spa and inquired at the reception and asked if there was any cross massage there and they said yes and said 2 thousand for it. As per that, he gave the 4 notes of Judgment 20 C.C.No.27942/2022 Rs. 500 denomination marked by Cw-1 to the woman at the reception. Then the said woman sent them to a room in the spa. The woman who came to the said room had placed a condom packet on the bed for sexual intercourse. Then after confirming the said information, I called Cw-1 and other police staff members, who were standing outside by his hand signals. Later, the girl in the room was questioned and told that the owner of the spa had called us and told us to do this, saying that he would pay us more money. Later, another room was similarly checked and there were about 4 girls there too, and they were also questioned and they too said that the owner of the spa had called us and told us to do this, saying that he would pay us more money. Later, when he was questioned by Cw-1, who had sent him as a decoy, he told them him that he had paid Rs 3,000 for sex and Rs 2,000 for a happy ending, and that I had paid Rs 2,000, and that he had sent me to a Judgment 21 C.C.No.27942/2022 room. Then, after Cw-1 and he confirmed that prostitution was going on in the spa, Cw-1 seized the mobile phone and Rs 2,000 from the woman and the condom packets in the room. hen, in the presence of the five pancha's, Cw-2 and 3, a raid and search operation was conducted from 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM. After obtaining the signatures of the five officers on the search warrant, the above items, as well as the spa owner, Mrs. Sripraveen, and the girls in the room there, were taken into custody by Cw-1 and presented to the police station.
Further, counsel for the accused had cross examined the said witness, where in he had denied suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.
13. The Cw.17 Smt. Yellamma, who is examined as Pw.5 and IO in this case, she had deposed in her evidence before the court that, On 10.12.2021, she had received the said case file from Cw-15, verified it and continued the Judgment 22 C.C.No.27942/2022 investigation. On the same day, she had recorded the statements of Cw-2 and 3. On the same day, she had recorded the statements of Cw-4 and 9, the victim women. Later on the same day, on the basis of Cw-1 presenting the accused to the police station, she had interrogated him and obtained his voluntary statement, taken action for arrest and released him on appropriate bail. Later on the same day, she had recorded the statements of Cw-11 to 14 and 16, then she had received a copy of the rental agreement from Cw-10, the owner of the building where the crime took place, and attached it to the file. Then, the case file has been taken over by Cw-18 for further investigation.
Further, counsel for the accused had cross examined the said witness, where in he had denied suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.
Judgment 23 C.C.No.27942/2022
14. The Cw-18 Siddaraju, who is examined as Pw.6 and IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, he had received the said file from Cw-17, examined it and continued the investigation. Since the investigation of the case has already been completed and the charges against the accused have been prima facie found, he had submitted the final report to the Honorable Court.
15. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
16. In order to secure the Cw.1, 4 to 10, 15 and 16 this court repeatedly issued Summons, NBW and Proclamation, even though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they have failed to secure these witnesses. Hence, the said Judgment 24 C.C.No.27942/2022 witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to prosecution.
17. Further the evidence of Pw.1 and 2 who are the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile to the case and their evidence is not proved with cogent and believable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Further, the Pw.3 and 4 who are the police official and eye witnesses, who participated in the raid and they both deposed as per their statements. Further, the Pw.5 and 6, who are the IO witnesses in this case, they have deposed as per their investigation and their evidence is also not proved with any cogent and believable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to Ex.P1 and 2. On the other hand, the owner of the said Spa owner, where the alleged incident took place has not been secured by the concerned police. Further non examination of the material witness is Judgment 25 C.C.No.27942/2022 fatal to the prosecution case. Moreover, in the absence of the independent and eye witnesses, the court can not relay on the police officials evidence and their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove their case as cogent evidence. As such the accused has certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt at the initial stage itself. Regarding this relied on the following Judgment.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 - AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon'ble Apex held thus hereunder:
''56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ''may be true''' but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of ''must be true''. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a Judgment 26 C.C.No.27942/2022 situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.''
18. Thus, the above Hon'ble Apex Court decision has opt to the present case on hand and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not able to prove the alleged offence against the accused beyond all Judgment 27 C.C.No.27942/2022 reasonable doubt. Therefore, I Answer to the Point No.1 in the Negative.
19. Point No.2: In view of the Negative findings on the above points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused is Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable U/sec,. 3,4,5,6 of the ITP Act.
The bail bond of Accused and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
The Properties seized by the IO in P.F.No.132/2021, the Item No.1. Samsung Mobile Phone and Item No.2 total amount of Rs. 2,000/- denomination notes are hereby ordered to be confiscate to the state, after the appeal period is over, in accordance with law, Item Judgment 28 C.C.No.27942/2022 No.3, 01 condom packet, is worthless is hereby order to be destroy the same, after the appel period is over in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of September-2025.
(Thimmaiah.G) 30 A.C.J.M., B'lore.
th ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Kiran Kumar
P.W.2 : Sri. Bharath
P.W.3 : Sri. Manjunath.A.N
P.W.4 : Sri. Rawool Kenchaiah Golala
P.W.5 : Smt. Yellamma
P.W.6 : Sri. Siddaraju
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of Pw.2
Judgment 29 C.C.No.27942/2022
Ex.P2 : Statement of Pw.1
Ex.P3 : Statement of Pw.2
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Mo.1 : Samsung Mobile Phone
Mo.2 : Rs.2,000/- cash
Mo.3 : 01 pocket Condom Digitally
signed by
THIMMAIAH
THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.09.23
17:14:04
+0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th Addl.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 30 C.C.No.27942/2022