Bangalore District Court
State By Registrar vs Sri.C.P.Yogeshwara on 29 June, 2019
mIN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH82)
Dated: This the 29th day of June, 2019
Spl. CC No. 196/2018
-: Present :-
Sri RAMACHANDRA.D.HUDDAR, B.Com., LLM., (Spl)
LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)
Complainant :- State by Registrar
Karnataka Lokayukta
(Represented by Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- 1.Sri.C.P.Yogeshwara
Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly
Channapattana Constituency,
No.61, "Navasuma" 20th main
Muneshwara Block,
Girinagara, Bengaluru-85.
Date of offence 27-03-2004
Date of report of offence 03-03-2007
Name of the complainant Sri.Ravindra Beleyur
Date of commencement of 2-05-2013
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 19-01-2019
Offences complained of U/s. 177 of IPC
2 Spl.CC No.196/2018
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by By Sri. V.K.Jain.
JUDGMENT
This complaint arises out of an order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha in complaint dt:31-03-2005 against the accused upon the complaint filed by one Sri.Ravindra Beleyur against accused person.
2. The allegations made in the complaint are that the accused being the sitting member of the legislative assembly from Chennapattana consitutency has shown statement of assets and Liabilities in Form No.4 for a period from 2004-05 and 2005-06 as per the affidavit filed before the Election Commissioner as under:
i) Cash - 12 Lakhs - 10 Lakhs in his
name and Rs.2 lakhs in his wife's name.
ii) 50% shares in Megacity Company.
iii) LIC Policy estimated - Rs.5 lakhs.
3 Spl.CC No.196/2018
iv) Vehicle - Scorpiobearing No.KA-02-MF-
1234
v) Gold - 750 gms (including in his wife's
name and Children's name)
vi) Agricultural land: 40 acres 9 guntas
(including in his wife's name and share of joint family property)
vii) Loan of Rs.5 crore received frim Megacity (Bengaluru)Developers & Builders Limited (this was wrongly shown as asset instead of liability).
viii) Loan from Shrinidhi Co-opertive Society Rs.9,02,687/-
So also it is alleged that before the Lokayuktha, he submitted his Assets and Liabilities Stated for the year ending 31-03-2005 and as on 31-03-2006 as under:-
Particulars As on 31-03- As on 31-3-
2005 2006
a) Cash and Bank NA NA
Balance
b) Investment in Shares - Rs.25 lakhs Rs.35
Megacity lakhs
c) LIC Policy estimated Rs.30 lakhs Rs.35
lakhs
d) Gold 1.5 kgs 1.75 kgs
e) Agricultural lands 40 acres 50 acres
f)Loan/Liabilities Nil Nil
4 Spl.CC No.196/2018
3. Based upon the aforesaid affidavit, it is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that, the accused has not shown loan amount of Rs.5crore received by him from Megacity(Bengaluru)Developers and builders Ltd., as on 31-03- 2005 and as on 31-03-2006 and by giving false information that investments of Rs.25,000 shares and 35,00,000 shares in Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers and Builders Ltd., Bengaluru and his wife invested in the said company shares worth Rs.1.5 lac. It is further alleged in the complaint that though the income of the accused ranges from 4 to 6 lakhs during the year 2003- 06, how he was able to increase LIC amount from Rs.5 lakhs as on 27-03-2004 to Rs.30 lakh as on 31-03-2005 and Rs.35 lakh as on 31-03-2006. It is further stated by the complainant that accused bought 750 grams of gold in the year 2004-2005, 2005-06 with his annual income of Rs.5 to 6 lakhs and how come he could purchase. It is further alleged that accused has not declared his Scorpio vehicle bearing No.KA-02; MF-1234 as on 31-03-2005 and 2006.
5 Spl.CC No.196/2018
4. It is further complained by the complainant that, how the accused purchased 10 acres of land which would worth Rs.1.5 crore to 2 crores which has been located in between Bengaluru-Mysore Road and he has not declared the existence of loan amount due to Sreenidhi Co-operative Society in Assets and Liabilities Statement filed before the Lokayuktha. Thereby, it is alleged by the complainant that accused has filed false assets and Liabilities Statement before the Lokayuktha authority.
5. On receipt of the said complaint, the Hon'ble Lokayuktha called for the comments from the accused. He has submitted his comments stating that, there is no substance in the allegations made by the complainant and they are based upon the imagination only. Based upon this, rejoinder was called for by Hon'ble Lokayuktha. The complainant submitted his rejoinder and reaffirmed that the accused has submitted false assets and Liabilities statement before the Lokayuktha.
6. The Hon'ble Lokayuktha after carefully perusing the complaint allegations noticed in the Assets and Liabilities and 6 Spl.CC No.196/2018 documents, passed a detailed order on 1-03-2007 which reads as under:-
ORDER
i). The respondent has furnished false information to the Lokayuktha by not disclosing the existence of loan of more than Rs.5 crores received from Megacity (Bengaluru)Developers & builders Limited, Bengaluru as on 31-03-2005 and as on 31-
03-2006 and by giving false information that there were no liabilities in his assets and liabilities statements for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and thereby committed offence punishable under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
ii) The respondent has furnished false information that he has invested Rs.25,00,000/- shares and Rs.35,00,000 shares in Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers & Builders Limited, Bengaluru in his assets and liabilities statements for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively whereas he had declared in Annual Return for the year 2003-04 filed before the Registrar of Companies that he had invested 2500 shares of Rs.100/- each in his name of his wife and thereby 7 Spl.CC No.196/2018 committed offence punishable under section 177 of Indian Penal Code.
iii) The respondent has not disclosed that he has got a Scorpio vehicle and has given false information that he has no vehicle in his assets and liabilities statements for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and thereby committed offence punishable under section 177 of Indian Penal Code.
iv) The respondent has not disclosed the existence of loan in Srinidhi Co-operative Society and has submitted false information that he has no liabilities in his assets and Liabilities statements for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and thereby committed offence punishable under section 177 of Indian Penal Code.
Hence, acting under Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, I hereby direct the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha to file a complaint against the respondent before the jurisidictional Magistrate for the above said offences.
7. By virtue of this order the complainant, the then Registrar of Lokayuktha filed the complaint against the accused person 8 Spl.CC No.196/2018 by invoking the provisions of section 200 of Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Magistrate, VIII ACMM, Bengalure.
8. It is stated in the complaint by the complainant that, in the capacity of Registrar of Lokayuktha, he has filed the complaint based upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha on 01- 03-2007. The complaint was filed against the accused and it was enquired into by the Lokayuktha. The complainant Ravindra Beleyur alleged that, as accused has not shown the proper assets and Liabilities Stated as stated supra and clear finding is given by the Lokayuktha that how accused has suppressed his Assets and Liabilites Statement. Re-iterating the contents of the order as well the contents of the complaint, it is alleged that, as accused being the sitting MLA under supervision of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act has to submit his assets and Liabilities Statement on or before the 30the June of every year. The provision is made under the Karnataka Lokayuktha Rule and as per the same he ha submitted . but it is false statement as per the allegations made by the complainant and a clear fining is given by Lokayuktha. 9 Spl.CC No.196/2018 Therefore, this complaint is filed alleging that, the accused has committed the offence u/s 177 of IPC and it is prayed by the complainant to take necessary action in accordance with law.
9. After filing this complaint, the Jurisdictional Magistrate i.e, 8th ACMM, Bengaluru, took the cognizance of the offence. The process came to be issued to the accused person. In pursuance of the summons accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. Copies of the papers were furnished to the accused person. The said Court framed the charge. Substance of the accusation u/s 177 of IPC came to be framed read over and explained to the accused person in the language known to him on 27-10-2012. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. To prove the case made out against the accused persons, prosecution has examined in all two witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 with respective to signatures there on. During the cross-examination Ex.D1 to D7 are marked. Closed the prosecution evidence.
10 Spl.CC No.196/2018
11. After establishment of this Court to deal with the cases against MP and MLA, the entire records of this case are transmitted to this Court and renumbered as above.
12. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused is questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not chose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
13. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused persons at length. Meticulously, perused the records.
14. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that accused being the sitting member of Legislative Assembly from Channapatna Constituency furnished false information to the Lokayuktha in his Assets and Liabilities Statement commencing for the period from 2004-05 and 2005-06 nd 11 Spl.CC No.196/2018 based upon the complaint file by one Sri. Ravindra Beleyur supported by an affidavit, it is revealed that the accused has submitted false information as under:-
ix) Cash - 12 Lakhs - 10 Lakhs in his
name and Rs.2 lakhs in his wife's name.
x) 50% shares in Megacity Company.
xi) LIC Policy estimated - Rs.5 lakhs.
xii) Vehicle - Scorpiobearing No.KA-02-MF-
1234
xiii) Gold - 750 gms (including in his wife's name and Children's name)
xiv) Agricultural land: 40 acres 9 guntas (including in his wife's name and share of joint family property)
xv) Loan of Rs.5 crore received frim Megacity (Bengaluru)Developers & Builders Limited (this was wrongly shown as asset instead of liability).
xvi) Loan from Shrinidhi Co-opertive Society Rs.9,02,687.
xvii) And after detail verification by the authority, it was revealed that you have not shown the loan of more than Rs.5 crore received from Megha City Developers and Builders Ltd., as on 31- 03-2005 and as on 31-03-2006.
xviii) You have mentioned investment of shares in Megha City Developers Ltd., as Rs.25 lakhs as on 31-3-2005 and Rs.35 lakhs as on 31-03-2006, where as 12 Spl.CC No.196/2018 the actual investment as per annual return of the Megha City Developers is only Rs.3.50 lakhs and investigation in the name of your wife in the said company to the extent of Rs.1,50 lakhs.
xix) You have not declared owning of Scorpio vehicle as on 31-03-2005 and as on 31-03-2006.
xx) You have not disclosed the existence of loan amount due to Srinidhi Co-op.
Society in your assets and Liability Statement filed before the authority and you have filed false assets and Liability statement before the authority.
and thereby failed to give proper satisfactory answers and there are omissions in the said statement and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 177 of IPC?
2. What order or sentence?
16. My answer to the above points are as under;
Point No.1: - In the Negative Point No.2: - As per the final order, for the following REASONS
17. Point No.1: In this case, it is specifically alleged by the prosecution that this accused being the sitting member of the 13 Spl.CC No.196/2018 Legislative assembly furnished false information to the Lokayuktha in the Assets and Liabilities filed by him for the period from 2004-05 and 2005-06. The records of this case do reveal that, one Ravindra Beleyur filed a complaint along with affidavit before the Lokayuktha alleging that this accused has furnished false information before the Lokayuktha as well as the election commission. After filing the complaint the Hon'ble Lokayuktha called comments from the accused. Accordingly accused submitted his comments on 22-11-2006. After the investigation the Hon'ble Lokayuktha have passed an order as under:-
ORDER
i). The respondent has furnished false information to the Lokayuktha by not disclosing the existence of loan of more than Rs.5 crores received from Megacity (Bengaluru)Developers & builders Limited, Bengaluru as on 31-03-2005 and as on 31-
03-2006 and by giving false information that there were no liabilities in his assets and liabilities statements for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and thereby committed offence 14 Spl.CC No.196/2018 punishable under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
ii) The respondent has furnished false information that he has invested Rs.25,00,000/- shares and Rs.35,00,000 shares in Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers & Builders Limited, Bengaluru in his assets and liabilities statements for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively whereas he had declared in Annual Return for the year 2003-04 filed before the Registrar of Companies that he had invested 2500 shares of Rs.100/- each in his name of his wife and thereby committed offence punishable under section 177 of Indian Penal Code.
iii) The respondent has not disclosed that he has got a Scorpio vehicle and has given false information that he has no vehicle in his assets and liabilities statements for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and thereby committed offence punishable under section 177 of Indian Penal Code.
iv) The respondent has not disclosed the existence of loan in Srinidhi Co-operative Society and has submitted false information that he has no liabilities in his assets and Liabilities statements for 15 Spl.CC No.196/2018 the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and thereby committed offence punishable under section 177 of Indian Penal Code.
Hence, acting under Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, I hereby direct the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha to file a complaint against the respondent before the jurisidictional Magistrate for the above said offences.
18. It is opined by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha that the explanation was offered by the accused with regard to the omissions are not at all satisfactory and it is held by Lokayuktha that there is suppressed information by the accused resulting in false declaration for the period from 2004-05 and 2005-06, thereby it is alleged by the prosecution that this accused is uilt of the offence punishable u/s 177 of IPC.
Sec.176 of the criminal code speaks omission to give notice or information to the public servant by person legally bound to give it. This section 177 have got certain ingredients. They are:-
16 Spl.CC No.196/2018
i. that a person must be legally bound to furnish information on a particular subject to a public servant.
ii. That he must furnish, as true, information on that subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false.
'Legally bound' words used in this section covers the provision of section 39 and 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein it legally bind the person to give information regarding certain offences.
19. In Order to prove the cases of the present nature the prosecution is under the obligation to prove
i) that the accused was legally bound to furnish the information in question as a public servant;
ii) that he did furnish certain information in pursuance of such application.
iii) That information so furnished was false.
iv) That he furnished it as true although he knew, or had reason to believe, it to be false.
For the second clause of the section prove further -
v) That such information was with respect to the commission of an offence.
If we read the provisions of section 177 of IPC, so also the provisions of section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, law mandates that 17 Spl.CC No.196/2018 complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or some other public servants to whom he is subordinate, is necessary.
20 . Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C lay down that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 except on the complaint in writing of the Public servant is concerned. The provisions of section 195(1) of Cr.P.C are mandatory and therefore in the absence of a complaint by public servant concerned, the cognizance taken is without jurisdiction. It is also not curable by section 465 of Cr.P.C as it goes to the root of the matter.
21. In this case as stated supra prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused examined 2 witnesses i.e, the then Registrar by name L.Subramanya as PW-1 and the original complainant Ravindra Beleyur as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 with respective signatures. Even defence got marked Exs.D1 to D7.
22. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 he has reiterated the contents of the complaint in material particulars in his examination in Chief. He has been intensively cross-examined 18 Spl.CC No.196/2018 by the counsel for the accused. His cross-examination is worth reading.
23. Ex.P1 is the complaint filed by the then Registrar alleging that this accused has suppressed the material aspects with regard to the income, therefore he is guilty. This complaint is based on the findings given by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha as per its order dated 01-03-2007. Several questions are redirected to PW-1 by the counsel for the accused with regard to the officers working as additional Registrar, Enquiry. This PW-1 stated that he do not know remember that who was the ARE-5 prior to 2007 or during 2007.
24. It is the question to PW-1 that without looking in to the ordersheet of the complaint No. BCD 238/06 ARE-5 he cannot say what enquiry was done. For this PW.1 states orders of Lokayuktha itself is sufficient. It is stated by PW-1 that this accused has given admissions in the comments so submitted, that is sufficient according to the orders of Lokayuktha and they need not call for any of the documents from any of the authorities. He says that whatever the statements given by the 19 Spl.CC No.196/2018 accused are the admissions. It is elicited that complaint was filed for the period ending on 31-03-2005 to 31-03-2006. Ex.P4 is relied upon by the counsel for the accused and this PW-1 admits this period. Ex.P4 is not for the above period. Ex.P4 is marked in this case. It is an affidavit filed by the accused before the Election Commission. It is true copy. The original is summoned by the enquiry officer of the Lokayuktha
25. As an affidavit is filed by the accused before the election commission, it is true copy. The original is summoned by the enquiry officer of the Lokayuktha. Thus Ex.P4 shows that accused has shown his landed property as well as cash in hand in his Assets and Liabilities Statement. He has shown the same as loan of Co-operative Society of Rs.9,02,687/- But this PW-1 says that Ex.P-4 is not pertaining to this case . It is stated that whenever there is change in the previous statement that has to be declared in the subsequent statement. Further, this PW-1 admits that no order sheet is maintained by the ARE- 5 is produced in this case. It is further admitted by him that, if any one is actuaated in the discharge of his duties, as such 20 Spl.CC No.196/2018 public servant by personal interest improper or corrupt notices, in those circumstances Lokayuktha has authority to investigate the matter.
26. It is admitted by him that if public servant is guilty of the corruption, favouritism or lack of interity in his capacity as a public servant. In those circumstances Lokayuktha has authority to investigate the matter, it is further admitted that upon receiving the complaint from any person the Lokayuktha investigates regarding the fact that whether to take revenge against the persons the complaint has been registered. A question is directed to PW.1 that there any impediment to produce order sheet of 'ARE-5' of the relevant period. But this PW-1 says, that orders of the Lokayuktha itself sys that about the investigation date done by Lokayuktha therefore, the order sheet is not necessary. So this evidence by PW. 1 shows that, certain documents ought to have been summoned by the enquiry officer have not been summoned to know the truthfulness of the allegations made by the complainant. 21 Spl.CC No.196/2018
27. Ex.D1 is confronted to PW-1. This PW.1 admits that in the said Ex.P1, it is mentioned by the Lokayuktha that, the complainant has made certain allegation with regard to the evidence produced by the Registrar i.e, accused before the Election Commissioner and that election doe not relate to the statement of Assets and Liabilities filed by the Registrar before this authority and the same cannot be investigated under Karnataka Lokayuktha Act. Portion in Ex.D1 is marked as Ex.D1(a). This Ex.D-1(a) is an observation made by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha so also Ex.D1(b). So this observation made by Hon'ble Lokayuktha falsifies the very case of the prosecution as per the counsel for the accused. So it is observed that with regard to the allegations of the investment in the Mega City Bangalore Developers is concerned complainant ha not produced any material to show that there is suppression of fact in this regard so also the allegations do not rely to the statements of the assets and Liabilities filed by the accused before the Lokayuktha and hence, it is held that it cannot be investigated. So when there is clear observations as per 22 Spl.CC No.196/2018 Ex.D1(a) and Ex.D1(b), once again enquiry was directed to be conducted. So submission of the Public Prosecutor that this PW.1's evidence has to be accepted cannot be appreciated. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that Ex.P7 shows that how many similar complaint have been filed by the complainant Ravindra Beleyur before the Election Commission. He is not aware of the fact that what the election commission has taken steps with regard to the complaint as per Ex.P7.
28. According to his evidence, he do not agree as the complainant suppressed to produce the entire order sheet in the enquiry. He further states that he compared the contents of the affidavit of Ex.P4 submitted before the Lokayuktha Ex.P-10 & Ex.P11 and Ex.P4 is affidavit filed by the accused before the Election Commission. He does not know on which date Ravindra Beleyur came to know about filing of Ex.P11 by the accused before the Lokayuktha for the period 2004-05.
29. Further, it has come in the evidence of PW-1 that accused did not produce any document before the Lokayuktha whatever the documents produced by the complainant have 23 Spl.CC No.196/2018 been taken into consideration by Lokayuktha. Thus, this evidence of PW-1 shows that, only based upon the documents produced by the complainant, finding is given.
30. While initiating the criminal proceedings against the accused person documents are required to be summoned but have not been summoned by the enquiry officer. Even, he has not ascertained from the authority at the time of lodging complaint. This Ex.P5 is the summary report which is having only one sheet. Ex.P6 is the Annual report and it does not contain any other particulars. So it is argued by the counsel for that the accused and the case of prosecution suffers from material particulars. He has not summoned the officers of Mega City Developers and Builders to produce the entire balance sheet for the year 2003-04. Even Ex.P6 the facing sheet of the annual balance sheet for the year 2003-04 shows the entire documents are not summoned or produced by the complainant.
31. It is admitted that balance sheet will be submitted before the Registrar of Companies. Thus, nothing prevented the enquiry officer of Lokayuktha to summon the relevant 24 Spl.CC No.196/2018 documents and compare them with the documents produced by the complainant and ascertain the real truth in the documents, but it is not done. Repeatedly, this PW-1 has stated that they have taken into consideration the admissions of the accused in his comments. When such an allegation is tested before the criminal Court, the law says that the allegations made in the complaint had to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Based upon the comments which are not tested before the Lokayuktha are main ground to book a case against the accused person as per the submission of the counsel for the accused.
32. It is denied that, he has suppressed delivery note pertaining to Scorpio vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 . Ex.D-5 is confronted to him which is a delivery note, so also Ex.D6. It has come in the evidence of PW-6 again that when ever properties are transferred, it is by way of delivery possession. Once possession of the immovable property is given to the buyer, he will become the owner Scorpio vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 is a movable property. So 25 Spl.CC No.196/2018 also he states that, loan amount of Sreenidhi Co-operative Society was obtained in the name of accused before filing the complaint. He did not ascertain the details of the loan amount from Sreenidhi Co-operative Society. Ex.D-7 is confronted to him, it shows that Rs.19,94,076/- is paid to the Srinidhi Co- operative Society against loans. He did not collect the details of the accounts pertaining to Mega City Bangalore Developers to ascertain that amount of Rs.5,28,48,464/- was transferred in to the account of the accused. Ex.P10 and P11 have been given by the accused.
So on scrupulous reading of the entire evidence of PW-1, it shows that the case of the prosecution suffers from material particulars, documents ought to be summoned have not been summoned. Based upon the documents produced by the complainant proceedings are initiated.
33. PW-2 is the complainant. He too, corroborates the evidence of PW .1 and material particulars. But in the cross- examination he has deposed so many ignorance. From Single sheet of Ex.P5, he cannot say as whether Mahindra Scorpio 26 Spl.CC No.196/2018 bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 was transferred to Megacity Bangalore Builders and Developers Ltd., He did not ascertain the bank details, he did not request the Lokayuktha authority for details about Mega City Bangalore Builders and Developers. He has lodged 4 to 5 complaints before the Lokayuktha against the accused person so also before the Sampangi Ram Nagar Police Station and 3 to 4 complaints were lodged before the Registrar of Companies. His complaint before the Lokayuktha came to be rejected. He admits that Ex.P-4 is an affidavit which states the discrepancies of Assets and Liabilities Statement of the accused for the year 2004-05, 2005-06. He did not produce entire records before the Lokayuktha. Further, admits that his complaint filed was dismissed by Lokayuktha. He also filed a complaint before Lokayuktha against the accused in which investment for the year 31-12-2007 is Rs.35,00,000/- was mentioned. He further admits that an affidavit was filed before the Election Commissioner as per Ex.P4, relying on the affidavit so filed, complaint filed by him was rejected. He does not know whether accused has sold the 27 Spl.CC No.196/2018 Scorpio vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 was transferred to Megacity Bengaluru Developers and Builders Pvt Ltd., but alleges that accused has not declared his assets before the Lokayuktha. In this case documents confronted by Pws.1 and 2 do envisages that, accused in his comments has stated so many things but have not been appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha in W.P.NO.4972/07 dated 15-07-2009 wherein issuance of the notice by Election Commissioner to provide additional documents have been rejected. Appeal have been preferred by the Election Commissioner, but it also dismissed as per Ex.D-3. With regard to the transfer of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF- 1234 Mahindra ScorpioEx.D4 and D5 are produced. They show that the said vehicle was transferred or possession is handed over on 20-03-2004 itself. Ex.D-6 is another document. Ex.D7 is the bank statement.
28 Spl.CC No.196/2018
34. So on scrupulous reading of this documentary evidence, they do demonstrate that, the ingredients of the offence are not properly proved with legal evidence.
45. In this case the counsel for accused places reliance on the following judgments.
1. 2007(5) SCC 730 2.2016(16) SCC 483 3.2011(4) SCC 240
4. 2009(15) SCC 200 5.2017 AIR (SCW) 540
6. 2012 ILR (Karnataka)4393
35. These judgments speak with regard to the production of secondary evidence. In this case photo copies are produced and therefore, unless the prosecution makes a ground for producing secondary evidence, these documents cannot be relied upon. Some documents are marked subject to objections. But objections so raised is not properly explained by the prosecution.
29 Spl.CC No.196/2018Counsel for the accused also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2012 Kar Page 4393 in the case between Veeranna Versus State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court have held as under:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 177 Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984, Section 14 - Petitioner alleged to had furnished false information before the Election Officer - Omission to give information was without any intention or 'mens rea' - furnishing of false information is distinct from the omission to give information-Both are distinct and are triabl separately - Section 177 of Indian Penal Code makes it clear that a person who is legally bound to furnish the information, furnishes the information as true and fully agrees that he has reasons to believe it to be false, only then it amounts to commission on his part under section 177 of Indian Penal Code - Petitioner had already disclosed the ownership of his two wheeler in the statement of assets and Liabilites furnished for the relevant year - Though the same was found in the balance sheet, by oversight he omitted to mention the same in the 30 Spl.CC No.196/2018 assets and Liabilities declaration submitted u/s 22 of the Act - Held, that it cannot be considered as an offence u/s 177 of the Act, because there was no reason for him to suppress the ownership of the scooter as the same ha been declared in the previous year and for the relevant year, the balance sheet discloses the same - therefore, Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted-Complaint lodged against the petitioner quashed.
36. In the course of the judgment Hon'ble High Court has held that how the offence u/s 177 of IPC is to be proved. As Stated supra, the ingredient of the offence are not property proved by the prosecution with legal evidence. There are discrepancies, material contradictions, omissions and admissions in favor of the defence which shake the basic case of the prosecution. Therefore, if all these factual features are put together it can be stated that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal by giving 31 Spl.CC No.196/2018 benefit of doubt. Hence, I record my findings on point No.1 in the negative.
POINT NO.2: As a result by foregoing discussions and reasons stated there on accused is entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C, I pass the following ORDER Accused is acquitted of the charges u/s 177 of IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled.
He is set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, same is corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 29th day of June, 2019) (RAMACHANDRA.D.HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) 32 Spl.CC No.196/2018 ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
PW1 L.Subramanya PW2 Ravindra Beleyuru
Witnesses examined by the defence/accused. -- NIL Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.2 Karnataka Lokayuktha Letter date 01-03-2007
Ex.P.3 Lokayuktha order dt:21-10-2016
Ex.P.3(a) Form No.1
Ex.P.3(a)(1) Form - II
Ex.P.3(a)(2) Enclosure - 1
Ex.P.3(a)(3) Enclosure - 2
Ex.P3(a)(4) Enclosure-3
Ex.P3(a)(5) Complaint letter
Ex.P.4 Accused affidavit dt.21-10-2016
Ex.P.4(a) Enclosures
Ex.P5 Copy of Sundry debtors
Ex.P6 Annual report
Ex.P7 Complaint submitted to Chief Electoral officer
33 Spl.CC No.196/2018
Ex.P.8 Balance Sheet
Ex.P.9 R.T.C Extract
Ex.P.10 Copy of Form No.4
Ex.P11 Copy of Form No.7
Ex.P12 Copy of complaints
Ex.P13 Rejoinder of complaint
Ex.P13(a) Annexures 27-11-2006
Ex.P13(b) Letter dated 11-02-2006
Ex.P.13(c) Copy of details of land
Documents exhibited by the defence/accused. - NIL Ex.D.1 ARE(2) order dt:26-06-15 to 6-01-18 Ex.D.2 Orders of Lokayuktha Ex.D.3 Orders of Lokayuktha Ex.D.4 W.P.No.4972/07 C.C.Copy Ex.D.5 W.P.No.3519 & 3520/09 C.C Ex.D6 CC of Mutation Register Ex.D7 Delivery note Ex.D8 Form - 29 extract Ex.D9 S.S.S.Bank statement extract List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- NIL LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82).34 Spl.CC No.196/2018