Bangalore District Court
State By Cbi/Acb vs 2. Sri. Abdul Hameed Ismail on 26 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BENGALURU (CCH-4).
Spl. C.C. No.61/2013
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
PRESENT : Sri. Bheemanagouda K. Naik,
B.Com., LL.B., (Spl.)
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
Complainant: State by CBI/ACB, Bengaluru
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: 2. Sri. Abdul Hameed Ismail,
S/o. Sri. Ahammed Ismail,
R/o Kalapu, Mogar House,
Peramanoor Post, Mangalore,
Karnataka.
3. Shri. Mohammed Ateed Kola,
S/o Mohiddin Kola,
R/o No.31, Church Road,
Marappa Garden, Bangalore.
(By Sri. Mamatha Roy, Advocate for A-2,
Sri. Sri. A.V.Ramakrishna, Advocate for A-
3)
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB Bengaluru has filed a charge sheet against the accused No.2 and 3 for the offences 2 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J punishable under Sec. 120B r/w Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that: -
(a) Accused No.1-Sri. H. Ramakrishna and accused No.4-
Sri. Byrappa, were the public servants, accused No.2-Sri. Kalapu Abdul Hameed Ismail and accused No.3-Sri. Mohd. Ateed Kola are the private persons. During August-October 1994 accused No.1 to 4 entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Customs Department in the matter of Levying Custom Duty on the un-accompanied baggage cleared from Air Cargo Complex at MSIL, Bengaluru, under Transfer of Residence Scheme which entitles a consignee a lesser rate of Customs Duty for which accused No.2 or accused No.3 is not eligible.
(b) In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy of accused No.1 to 4, accused No.3 arranged to book a consignment of Contraband and other items from Dubai on 30/08/1994 in the name of accused No.2. Accordingly, the accused No.3 booked the consignment of contraband and other items from Dubai on 30/08/1994. The said consignment arrived at Cargo division of Bengaluru Customs were accused No.1 and 4 where working as Superintendent and Inspector of Customs respectively. 3 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
(c) On 05/10/1994 accused No.2 and 3 went to Air Cargo Complex at MSIL, Bengaluru, and submitted declaration of the consignment which had arrived in the name of accused No.2. The declaration was given to accused No.1. The accused No.1 endorsed the same to the accused No.4 for his Inspection Assessment. Accused No.2 and 3 knowing fully well that the consignment contained articles worth more than Rs.11-lakhs with dishonest fraudulent intention declared as Rs.67,630/-. Accused No.4 knowing fully well that he was expected to open the consignment and carry out 100% check on the items and prepare an inventory and assess the duty to be levied, dishonestly and fraudulently and by abusing his official position, without even opening the consignment assessed the goods to be worth Rs.75,000/- and accused No.1 and 4 thus levied a duty of Rs.29,000/- from accused No.2.
(d) Further, accused No.1 and 4 by abusing their official position and with a dishonest and fraudulent intention prepared the relevant papers and forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner and thus, caused clearance of the consignments. Thereafter, the consignment was transported in the mini lorry bearing Registration No. CAK-1472 and accused No.2 was traveling in the said mini lorry by sitting by the side of the 4 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J driver. The accused No.3 was traveling in the Maruthi van bearing No. KA-03-M-3192 by driving personally.
(e) CW-2 Sri. Kiran Gaikwad Intelligence Officer in Directorate of Revenues Intelligence, Bengaluru, received credible information that contraband articles have been brought from Dubai and transporting to a particular place, he secured his colleagues and independent pancha witness and waiting for the arrival of Mini lorry No.CAK-1472 and after the mini lorry and the Maruthi van coming out of Air Cargo Complex at MSIL, Bengaluru, chased them and stopped those vehicles near Rajeswarai theatre on Air port road, Bengaluru, and informed the inmates about the purpose of stopping and also informed to check the baggage and to co-operate and due to security problem took the mini lorry and the Maruthi van to the office of DRI, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, and checked the baggage and prepared the mahazar, prepared the list of articles and seized them found to be worth of Rs.11,19,400-00. Then CW-2 arrested accused No.2 and 3 and registered the case under the Customs Act. CW-3 Sri. Varadaraju, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, recorded the statements of accused No.2 and 3.
5 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
(f) On 31/05/1995 Sri. A.P. Gopala Krishnan, (CW-27) Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB Bengaluru, received source of information and on the basis of information, he registered a case in RC.No.11(A)/1995 against accused No.1 to 4 named in the FIR and submitted FIR to the court. Thereafter, the investigating of this case was entrusted to CW-28 Sri. S.K. Vijaya Rajiv, Police Inspector, CBI/ACB Bengaluru, as per the orders of Superintendent of Police, CBI. CW-28 collected the records, recorded the statements of the witnesses and made efforts to secure accused No.2 and 3 and they were not traced. Since CW- 28 took voluntary retirement, he entrusted the case file to Sri. B. Paneer Selvam, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru, as per the order of Superintendent of Police, CBI and he took up the case file, since the investigation was already completed he filed a charge sheet before the court against the accused No.1 to 4 by showing accused No.2 and 3 as absconding.
3. After filing the charge sheet, looking to the material forthcoming against the accused No.1 to 4, cognizance was taken against them. The efforts were made to secure the presence of accused No.2 and 3 and since they were not traced the case against them came to be split up by the Order dated:10/08/1998 and separate case came to be registered 6 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J against them. The main case against accused No.1 and 4 registered as Spl. C.C. No.15/1998 was tried against accused No.1 and 4 and after the trial, accused No.1 was acquitted by this court and accused No.4 was convicted. Thereafter, the accused No.4 had preferred a criminal appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.1158/2005 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal preferred by accused No.4 and acquitted him by the Judgment dated:13/01/2012.
4. After the split up the case was registered against accused No.2 and 3 in the above number and supplementary charge sheet came to be submitted against them on 19/03/2013. The accused No.2 and 3 voluntarily surrendered before this court and they have been granted bail and necessary police papers have been furnished to them.
5. Thereafter, accused No.2 had filed application u/Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. praying for his discharge. Then the court after hearing the arguments on the said application, the arguments of learned counsel for accused No.3 passed an order on 07/09/2013 and rejected the application of accused No.2 and ordered for framing of charge against them for the offences 7 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J punishable u/Secs. 120(B) and 420 of IPC. The accused No.2 being aggrieved by the order passed by this court on his application had preferred Crl. Rev. Petition:895/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and his Criminal Revision Petition came to be dismissed by the order dated:30/04/2015. The Hon'ble High Court directed this court to dispose off the present case within one year from the date of communication of the order. From the date of communication of the order the matter has been expedited for early disposal within the time frame fixed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Then, the charge has been framed against accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable U/sec. 120(B) and 420 of IPC.
6. Then the prosecution examined in all 19 witnesses as PWs.1 to 19, got exhibited 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and closed its side. Then the statements of accused No.2 and 3 have been recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., after explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused No.2 submitted his written statement and both the accused have not entered any defence evidence on their behalf. 8 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
7. Then, I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by learned Special PP and learned counsel for the accused No. 2 and 3 and both sides submitted their notes of arguments and memo with citations.
8. The points that would arise for my consideration are;
I) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No. 2 and 3, during August-October 1994 entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Customs Department in the matter of levying Customs Duty on the un- accompanied baggage cleared from the Air Cargo Complex at MSIL, Bengaluru, under transfer of Residence Scheme, which entitled a consignee a lesser rate of customs duty for which accused No.2 or accused No.3 were not eligible and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec. 120(B) of IPC?
II) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy the accused No. 2 and 3, on 05/10/1994 went to MSIL Air Cargo Complex at MSIL, Bengaluru and submitted declaration of the consignment, knowing fully well that the consignment contained articles worth Rs.11,19,400-00 with dishonest and fraudulent intention declared as Rs.67,630-00 and paid Customs Duty of Rs.29,000-00 only and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Customs Department and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 420 of IPC?
III) What Order?
9 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1: In the Negative.
POINT No.2: In the Negative.
POINT No.3: As per final order, for the following REASONS
10. POINT No.1 and 2: - Both these points have been taken up together for consideration and discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
11. Looking to the defence of accused No.2 and 3, it is an admitted fact that, accused No.2 had brought consignment from Dubai to Bengaluru said to be containing the house hold articles. It is further admitted tha, on 05/10/1994 accused No.2 went to Air Cargo Complex at MSIL, Bengaluru, and submitted declaration claiming concession of Custom Duty under Transfer of Residence Scheme. It is further admitted that after following the procedure, the concession was extended to accused No.2 and after collecting the Custom Duty of Rs.29,000/- the consignment was released to his custody.
12. It is alleged that the said consignment was booked by accused No.3 in the name of accused No.2 for transportation from Dubai to Bengaluru and the said consignment was 10 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J containing the contraband articles, to evade the Custom Duty wrong declaration was given by accused No.2 to get the concession of Custom Duty under Transfer of Residence Scheme and after collecting the Custom Duty of Rs.29,000/-, the consignment was released and while transporting the same in a mini lorry bearing No. CAK-1472 the same was intercepted by PW-1 and his staff in the presence of independent pancha witness and on examination of the baggages in the DRI Office Indiranagar, the baggages were containing contraband articles worth Rs.11,19,400-00 and the same were seized and action was taken by PW-1 under the Customs Act.
13. It is clearly admitted by the accused No.2 about the consignment brought by him under Transfer of Residence Scheme and declaration submitted by him and concession extended to him. He has seriously disputed that the consignment brought by him was containing the contraband articles so as to evade Custom Duty and he has submitted false declaration before the Custom Authority to avail the concession. The accused No.3 has disputed that he arranged for booking and transportation of the consignment in the name of accused No.2 from Dubai to Bengaluru and accordingly, the consignment was 11 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J booked on 31/08/1994 at Dubai and the same had reached to Bengaluru, HAL.
14. Now, I will consider the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case. Under the oral evidence firstly the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 Sri. Kiran Gaikwad, retired Superintendent of Customs, who was Intelligence Officer in DRI, Zonal Unit, Bengaluru, during 1994. He has deposed that on 05/10/1994 he received information that certain goods were illegally brought under Transfer of Residence rules to Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru Air port and it was arranged by accused No.3 and they were also informed that the vehicle would be coming out of Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru Airport carrying such goods. Thereafter, himself and his colleagues waited outside the Air Cargo Complex and saw one vehicle Cargo van (Mini lorry) bearing registration No.CAK-1472 coming out from the Air Cargo Complex and they followed the said vehicle and they found one more Maruthi van just going behind the mini lorry and the registration number of Maruthi van was KA-03-M-3192. Near Rajeswari theatre they over took both the mini lorry and Maruthi van and signal them to stop and that place was HAL Air port road. The driver mini lorry was Muniswamy and accused No.2 12 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J was sitting next to the driver in the lorry and accused No.3 was sitting in the Maruthi van and he was driving the van. They (PW-
1) informed the purpose of stopping the vehicles and information received by them and took both vehicles to their office at Indiranagar (Zonal office of DRI) for security purpose of the baggage. In the DRI Office Complex at Indiranagar they opened the baggage contained in the mini lorry and they listed all the contents of the baggage and it was the annexure to the mahazar drawn at that time. On verification of the baggage and the articles they noticed that majority of the goods like watches, watch movements, perfumes etc., were in commercial quantity and liable for confiscation. There he seized the entire contents of the mini lorry and at that time, the accused No.2 produced some packing list, unaccompanied baggage declaration form, challan for having paid some amount of custom duty and the details are listed in the mahazar. After seizing the goods as well as the documents produced by accused No.2, he handed over the same to his senior Mr. Varadaraju, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI for further investigation.
15. He has further deposed that the goods seized were worth Rs.11,94,000/- approximately and the party had declared that the goods transported were only worth around Rs.75,000/- 13 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J and the duty paid was around Rs,28,000/- to Rs.30,000/- only. Most of the items transported were not permitted to be transported under the Transfer of Residence. Then he has deposed that his colleague Sri. Chandramouli, was the scribe of the mahazar and his another colleague Sri. Sachidananda has written the annexure to the mahazar. The mahazar was prepared in the presence of two independent witnesses and the seized articles were mentioned in the annexure of the mahazar. The goods transported belong to accused No.3 and it was arranged by him in the name of accused No.2 who was a carrier. By transporting commercial quantity of goods under the transfer of Residence scheme there was loss of revenue to the Customs Department and the loss was approximately to the extent of the value of the goods transported.
16. Further he has deposed that, Ex.P.1 is the mahazar, Ex.P.2 is the annexure to mahazar and transfer of Residence form declaration along with enclosures containing eight sheets is at Ex.P.3.
17. Secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 Sri. Varadaraju, Retired Superintendent of Central Excise and Custom, who was working as Senior Intelligence Officer in DRI Bengaluru, during 1994. He 14 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J has deposed that on 05/10/1994 his officers PW.1 and CW.1 had seized baggage items which were cleared from Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru, under Transfer of Residence Scheme and brought the accused No.2 and 3 to his office situated at Indiranagar at that time. The goods were mis-declared items namely goods which were not declared at the time of clearance for payment of Customs Duty. As a gazetted officer he enquired accused No.2 and 3 and the driver of the mini lorry and recorded their statements and registered a case under the Customs Act.
18. Thirdly, the prosecution has and adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 Sri. M. V. Subba Reddy, retired Additional Commissioner of Customs, who was Assistant Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru, during 1994-95. He has deposed that Ex.P.3 is the declaration submitted by the passenger declaring the goods brought by him under transfer of Residence Scheme, the same was be filed before Superintendent of Customs for assessing the customs duty and who marked the declaration to the Inspector for examination and assessment of custom duty. Ex.P.3(a) has been filed by accused No.2, the amount declared is Rs.75,550/- and duty assessed was Rs.29,000/- and the declaration was submitted to him for granting TR concession and after examining 15 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J the same he has granted TR concession. Subsequently, he came to know that after the clearance of consignment from customs, DRI intercepted the consignment and found many contraband goods not declared by the passenger.
19. Fourthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.4-Sri. D.S. Parashuramappa, Supervisor MSIL., who was serving as clerk in MSIL Air Cargo HAL, Bengaluru, during 1994. He has deposed that during 1994 he was maintaining import bonding and clearance register at MSIL Air Cargo HAL, Bengaluru, and Ex.P.4 is the said register. After custom's clearance the passenger would come to him and after verifying the custom clearance by collecting the demurrage charges and handling charges he used to clear in the register. Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b) are in his handwriting and the name of importer is mentioned as Kalyan A.H. instead of Kalapu Abdul Hameed Ismail and due to rush of work the name is wrongly mentioned.
20. Fifthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.5-Sri. S. Maranna, retired Supervisor, MSIL., Air Cargo, who was serving as Godown Assistant during 1994 in MSIL Air Cargo Bengaluru. He has deposed that he is 16 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J acquainted with the hand-writing of his colleagues PW.4 and Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b) in Ex.P.4 are in the hand-writing of PW.4.
21. Sixthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.6-Sri. M. Muni-Nanjappa, who is retired clerk, MSIL., Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru, from 1994 to 1996. He has deposed that after collecting the handling charges, finally UB Form was coming to him for issue of gate pass and the gate pass will be signed by the party and himself and in the gate pass the date and time would be mentioned. Ex.P.5 is the original gate pass, written in his own hand writing, signed by him and the party as per Ex.P.5(a) and 5(b).
22. Seventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.7-Sri.S. Madhureshwar, Security guard, MSIL., Air Cargo, HAL, Bengaluru, from 1985 to 2004. He has deposed that his duty was to count the parcel and to deliver the same to the passenger at the security gate and Ex.P.5 is the gate pass along with copy and he has put his initial, date and time as per Ex.P.5(c) and obtained the signature of party to whom the parcel was delivered on the back side of Ex.P.5 as per Ex.P.5(d).
17 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
23. Eighthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.8-Sri. R. Laxminarayan, who was Head guard at MSIL., Air Cargo Complex, HAL, Bengaluru, from 1984 to 2004. He has deposed that during 1994 his duty was to enter in the register called as baggage Inspection register and in that register he was mentioning the name of passenger, airway bill number, weight of the goods and number of parcels and Inspector's name. Ex.6 is the Baggage Inspection register, entry dated:05/10/1994 at Sl.No.1 is Ex.P.6(a) wherein it is mentioned about number of parcels, airway bill, G.M. number, and name of Inspector and name of passenger.
24. Ninthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.9-Sri. N. Dinesh Kumar, who was Supervisor in Freight Wings and Travels Private Limited, Bengaluru, from 1989 to 2012. He has deposed that during 1994 his duty was to issue Air Cargo arrival notice and on 23/09/1994 he has issued Ex.P.7 to Kalupu Abdul Hameed Ismail and his signature is at Ex.P.7(a) and Ex.P.8 is the airway bill, Ex.P.9 is the copy of house airway bill and Ex.P.10 is the delivery order.
25. Tenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.10-Sri.Sathyanarayana V.S., who was 18 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J Deputy Manager in Fright Wings and Travels Private Limited, Bengaluru from 1991 to 2006. He has deposed that his counter- part in overseas BIN JASIM Cargo International Forwarders was booking the Cargo from Dubai to Bengaluru, under consolidation service. Further, he deposed that after getting intimation from Airlines their staff was collecting the documents from the concerned airlines and enter into their register and their staff was issuing arrival notice to the concerned individual party and after coming of party to their office, he used to collect their dues and issue delivery order and Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10 are issued by him.
26. Eleventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.11-Sri. D.P.Nagendra Kumar, who was Assistant Collector of Customs, Bengaluru Air Port, from 1994 to 1997. He has deposed that any passenger who arrives with unaccompanied baggage, who intends to clear the baggage under Transfer Residence rules is required to file a baggage declaration form and such form should be obtained from M/s MSIL., on paying a nominal fee and in such form the passenger needs to declare particulars such as his name, passport number, the airway bill number, the house Airway bill number, total number of baggages along with weight, description, quantity 19 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J etc., Further, he has deposed that such declaration form has to be produced before the import admission clerk for assigning the IGM number and the line number and once the clerk assigns the IGM number and line number, the form will be marked to the baggage examination section for further action. A passenger who files such form has to produce this form to the Superintendent in-charge of baggage section who in turn mark such form to an Inspector for further necessary action. Officer to whom the baggage declaration form was marked shall verify the particulars furnished in such form, after his initialization, the passenger is required to produce the form before the MSIL authorities for making available the baggage for detailed examination by the custom authority. Thereafter the MSIL., custodian will make available the parcel before the custom officer for examination and the custom officer examine the same in detail and in case of clearance claiming under Transfer of Residence, the officer is to examine only 10% of baggage and if such description tallies with the physical examination, he shall proceed to assess the documents for duty purpose accordingly. In case of claim for clearance under unaccompanied baggage, the officer needs to examine every item and assess such goods to duty. Once the T.R. goods are examined on percentage basis and assessed to 20 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J duty, the declaration form duly countersigned by the Superintendent incharge of baggage section, shall forward to the concerned Assistant Collector for granting T.R. concession. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector scrutinizes the passport, satisfy himself on admissibility of T.R. to the passenger and pass an order in that baggage declaration form granting such concession and based on such approval the Inspector concerned prepares the challan calculating the duty to be remitted through the bank and after payment of duty, the challan will be produced before the officer who shall grant the custom pass-out order and with such order the passenger approach M/s MSIL, for delivery of the parcel for ultimate clearance. Normally their Inspector prepares only one challan and in the present case he came to know that two challans have been prepared as per Ex.P.3.
27. Twelvethly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 -Sri. D. Bhaskar Rai, who was Inspector in Central Excise and Custom Department from 1981 to August 2012. He has deposed that during 1994 in customs Air Cargo MSIL, Bengaluru, his duty was to inspect the declared goods entrusted to him by his superintendent of customs. After examining the goods they were processing for put up before the Superintendent for approval of duty. Normally for payment of 21 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J custom duty only one challan will be prepared and in the present case two challans have been prepared as per Ex.P.3. If the passenger stays for more than two years in the abroad, he was entitled to claim concession for Transfer of Residence in respect of particular item and at that time, there was no provision for bringing any watch modules in the guise of house hold articles since, it was banned articles and the importer was entitled to import such articles under license by paying proper duties.
28. Thirteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.13-Sri. M.G. Prasad, who was Inspector in Central Excise, Air Cargo Complex, MSIL building, Air port, Bengaluru, from 1995 to 1997. He has deposed that normally for assessment only one challan will be prepared for payment of duty but in the present case two challans have been prepared and at that time watch modules were not covered under baggage rules and concession was not entitled for watch modules.
29. Fourteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.14-Sri.K.S.Srinivasan, who was Superintendent, Air Cargo Complex, Baggage Section, Bengaluru, from 1995 to 1997. He has deposed that Ex.P.3 contains two challans and preparing of two challans is unusual 22 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J and Ex.P.3(a) is the baggage declaration for Transfer of Residence along with packing list and the packing list should have been written on the back in the T.R. form where there is enough space to write the package list.
30. Fifteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.15-Sri. M.V. Nagaraj, who was Intelligence Officer, DRI, Bengaluru, from 1994 to August 1997. He has deposed that since he knew Kannada he has recorded the statement stated by accused No.2 before him, as required under Section 108 of Customs Act.
31. Sixteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.16-Sri.B. Siddaramaiah, who was FDA, at RTO Office, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, from 1998 to 2002. He has deposed that he produced B-Register extract in respect of vehicle No.CAK-1472 registered on 21/06/1985 in the name of Sri.T. Jayaraj, and then transferred it to Sri. Radha Shekar on 29/08/1994 as per Ex.P.11.
32. Seventeenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.17-Sri. R.S.N. Rao., who was Security Supervisor, MSIL, Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru, from 1983 to May 2000. He has deposed that during 1994 he was supervising 23 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J the incoming international and domestic cargo and checking the articles as per the manifest prepared by the baggage carriers and Ex.P.12 is the Air Cargo Manifest signed by him.
33. Eighteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.18-Sri.B. Panneer Selvam, who was Sub-Inspector as well as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, from 1994 to 2002 and presently Dy.S.P. CBI, Chennai. He has deposed that his Superintendent of Police, CBI., entrusted the case file to him and since the investigation of the case was already completed, he submitted charge sheet against accused before the court by showing accused No.2 and 3 as absconding.
34. Nineteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.19-Sri. S. K. Vijay Rajiv, who was Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, from 1993 to 1998. He has deposed that on 30/10/1995 he took up investigation of this case as per the orders of S.P. CBI., and Ex.P.13 is the FIR registered by their Inspector of Police-Sri. A.P.Goplala Krishnan. Further, he has deposed that on coming to know that the original documents of this case relating to customs are lying with DRI Bengaluru, and he sent a notice to them to produce those 24 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J documents and he also wrote to Bengaluru Passport Office to furnish the passport details of accused No.3 and deputed a police constable to trace accused No.2 and 3, but reported that they were not traced. Further, he has deposed that during the investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and colleted the documents of this case.
35. Coming to the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution Ex.P.1 is the alleged mahazar dated:05/10/1994 regarding seizure of the alleged contraband articles from the possession of accused No.2 and 3. Ex.P.2 is annexure to the mahazar alleged to have contained the list of contraband articles seized. Ex.P.3 is the T.R.Challan dated:05/10/1994 in duplicate, receipt of MSIL, carbon copy of packing list and original T.R.Form declaration dated:05/10/1994. It is clearly admitted the challans written in duplicate and the enclosures to Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 is the import bonding and clearance register and Ex.P.4(a) and 4(b) are relevant entries at page 464 and there is no dispute about the register and the entries made therein. Ex.P.5 is the gate pass dated:05/10/1994 of MSIL, Bengaluru, Air Cargo Complex, with copy, Ex.P.5(a) to P.5(d) are the signatures of party concerned and PW.6 and 7 and there is no dispute. Ex.P.6 is the baggage inspection register and relevant 25 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J entry dated:05/10/1994 is at Ex.P.6(a) and there is no dispute. Ex.P.7 is the original Air Cargo arrival notice dated:23/09/1994 and Ex.P.7(a) is the signature of PW-9 and there is no dispute. Ex.P.8 and P.9 are the carbon copies of Air Way Bills of BIN JSMIN Cargo and there is no dispute about them. Ex.P.10 is the copy of delivery order dated:23/09/1994, Ex.P.11 is the B- Register extract for vehicle No.CAK-1472, Ex.P.12 is the Air Cargo Manifest, Ex.P.13 is the original FIR, Ex.P.14 is the original MSIL gate-pass dated:05/10/1994, Ex.P.15 is the Hotel Ashoka original receipt, Ex.P.16 is the original cash memo issued by Mohd. Mirza Trading, Ex.P.17 is the original letter dated:12/06/1996 of M/s. Freight Wings and Travels Limited and there is no dispute regarding these documents. Ex.P.18 is the attested copy of Import Godown Register of MSIL and Ex.P.18(a) is the original import godown register of MSIL, Ex.P.19 is the attested copy of import bonding and clearance register, Ex.P.20 is the attested copy of baggage inspection register, Ex.P.21 is the attested copy of TR/UB/BE issue register and Ex.P.21(a) is the original TR/UB/BE register, Ex.P.22 is the letter of MSIL, Ex.P.23 is the T.R.Register and Ex.P.24 is the UB register maintained at Bengaluru Air Cargo Complex and there is no dispute about these documents and the entries made therein. 26 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
36. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused No.2 has given his written statement which reads as follows:
"I have not got any contraband articles nor undeclared articles. I have got only those articles which were declared in the Declaration Form, entitled for T.R. concession. These baggaes were released and T.R. concession was granted only after due inspection by the Customs Authority. Thereafter, DRI officials registered a false case against me. Further, undeclared goods/articles mentioned in the mahazar does not belong to me, nor were they in my baggages."
37. Considering the allegations of the prosecution and the admitted facts, its case is mainly based on the alleged interception of the contraband articles in the baggages transported by accused No.2 from Dubai to Bengaluru. In this regard the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-1 who was a Intelligence Officer in the Customs Department at the time of alleged interception. In his evidence PW-1 has deposed that he received credible information about the baggages containing contraband articles, secured his colleagues and independent pancha and intercepted the mini lorry carrying the articles brought by accused No.2 near Rajeswari Theatre and took the vehicle to the DRI Office, Indiranagar, opened the 27 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J baggages and found the contraband articles and listed them, seized them by writing the mahazar as per Ex.P.1.
38. Admittedly, the prosecution has relied upon the solitary evidence of PW-1 to prove the mahazar-Ex.P.1 and its contents. It is alleged that the mahazar was written in the presence of independent pancha witnesses CW-5 and CW-25. It is reported that CW-5 is expired and the present whereabouts of CW-25 is not known therefore, their evidence is not available to the prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P.1. It is alleged that CW-1 T. Chandramouli, has written the contents of Ex.P.1 but he has not been examined by the prosecution and he has been given-up stating that his evidence is not necessary.
39. When the prosecution has solely relied upon the evidence of PW-1 in support of Ex.P.1, his evidence has to be appreciated and see that whether his evidence alone is sufficient to prove the contents of Ex.P.1 and the case of the prosecution for alleged seizure of the contraband articles. In his evidence PW-1 has deposed that majority of the goods like watches, watch modules and perfumes etc., were in commercial quantity. Further, he has deposed that the goods seized were worth Rs.11,94,000/- approximately and the details of the goods 28 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J seized are mentioned in the annexure to the mahazar. Further he has deposed that without looking into the annexure he cannot say how many items of goods were seized. He has also deposed that he cannot remember how many boxes were there without seeing mahazar. Further, he has deposed that Sri. Chandramouli has written the contents of the mahazar and his another colleague Sri. Sachidananda has written the annexure to mahazar Ex.P.2. Further he has deposed that one of the pancha witnesses is Desikan and he does not remember the name of other pancha witness.
40. Admittedly PW-1 was a Intelligence Officer in DRI, Bengaluru. As seen from his evidence he has not deposed at what time he received credible information, at what time he secured the independent pancha and his colleagues and ready for the alleged interception. He has deposed that they stopped the mini lorry and Maruthi van near Rajeswari Theatre on Air port road and took the mini lorry and Maruthi van to DRI Office , Indiranagar where they checked the baggages. It is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that interception and mahazar proceedings was conducted from 2-00 p.m. to 8-30 p.m. As per his evidence the alleged interception was around 4-30 p.m. near Rajeswari Theatre. When PW-1, his colleagues and independent panchas 29 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J intercepted the vehicles on the public road in the broad day light certainly number of public persons and the neighbouring shop keepers would observe the same. The prosecution has not brought a single independent witness to speak about the alleged interception of the vehicles on the public road near cinema theatre. There is no effort of the Investigating Officer to visit the said place during the investigation and to enquire the neighbouring people to ascertain the fact. If the neighbours would have been enquired, certainly their version would have been helpful to corroborate the testimony of PW-1. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 who was a Custom Officer is neither supported from the evidence of panchas nor from any independent witnesses.
41. In his evidence PW-1 has deposed that without looking to the annexure to the mahazar he cannot say how many items of goods were seized. Can be it be said that such evidence of PW-1 who has not deposed about the description of the goods alleged to have been seized is helpful to the prosecution. Further, it is strange to note that PW-1 has deposed that he cannot remember how many boxes were there without seeing mahazar. When such is the evidence deposed by PW-1 how to 30 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J believe that the articles mentioned in the Ex.P.2 were there in the baggages and same have been seized.
42. It is a investigation procedure that the baggages have to be checked on the spot where the vehicle mini lorry was alleged to be intercepted. In the present case under the pretext of security of the baggages the mini lorry was said to be taken to the office of DRI at Indiranagar, Bengaluru, and there the baggages were alleged to have been checked. This procedure followed by PW-1 as a Custom Officer appears to be strange and unusual. Absolutely, there was no difficulty for PW-1 to check the baggages on the spot and to prepare the mahazar. The very evidence of PW-1 that vehicles were taken to his office and there the baggages were checked creates doubt in the mind of the court about the contents of baggages.
43. Assuming that the vehicles were taken to DRI Office and there baggages were checked, it is mandatory on the part of PW-1 as a seizing officer to depose in detail the description of the articles and the number of baggages so as to believe or disbelieve his evidence. The bear evidence of PW-1 without saying the number of boxes and nature of articles and their quantity how to say that his evidence is an acceptable evidence 31 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J to prove the case of the prosecution. PW-1 has not deposed in detail all the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1 and also not deposed the description of articles mentioned in Ex.P.2. The evidence of PW-1 is not forth coming as per the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1 and not proving the description of articles mentioned in Ex.P.2. His evidence appears to be superficial evidence and such evidence cannot be said as reliable evidence to prove the case of the prosecution and the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
44. It is deposed by PW-1 that annexure Ex.P.2 was written by his colleagues Sri. C.V. Sachidananda. It is pertinent to note that the said person is neither cited as a witness in the charge sheet nor examined before the court to prove the contents of Ex.P.2 has written by him in his own hand writing. The pancha witnesses who alleged to have signed on Ex.P.2 is not examined for the reason that CW-5 is expired and present whereabouts of CW-25 is not known. As per the evidence Ex.P.1 and P.2 are simply marked in the evidence of PW-1 and the contents are not proved by examining the scribe or independent pancha witnesses. Mere marking of documents without proving the contents cannot be said to be the contents are proved. PW-1 has simply deposed that Ex.P.1 and P.2 are written by his colleagues. The persons who have written the contents of Ex.P.1 32 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J and P.2 are not before the court. Therefore, the evidence of PW- 1 who is in the status of Investigating Officer under the Customs Department cannot be said as proving the contents of Ex.P.1 and P.2 as required by law. PW-1 himself has deposed that he seized the articles and initiated action under the Customs Act. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be said as acceptable evidence to prove the contents of Ex.P.1 and P.2 in the absence of any piece of evidence to corroborate his testimony before the court.
45. Regarding the requirement to prove the contents of the documents produced before the court by the prosecution our Hon'ble High Court, laid down the principles regarding proof of contents of documents in the recent decision reported in 2015 (1) KCCR page 898 in the case of Sri.N.A.Suryanarayana @ Suri Vs. State by Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/Bangalore, wherein it has been held that mere production and marking of document not sufficient, they have to be proved to corroborate their contents. The principles of this decision are well applicable to the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
46. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of PW-1 is sufficient to prove the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and corroborated from the evidences of PW-2 and 33 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J PW-3 and the same cannot be disbelieved. If PW-1 has deposed his detail evidence narrating the entire allegations and the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, then his evidence would have been acceptable evidence to some extent. The evidence deposed by PW-1 before the court is not consistent, vague and incomplete evidence. Therefore, such evidence cannot be said as acceptable evidence in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned Public Prosecutor cannot be said as acceptable argument.
47. When it is deposed by PW-1 that he received credible information and waited out side the Air Cargo Complex. If he had really received information he would have intercepted the vehicle immediately after the gate-pass is issued to the baggages. It is further deposed by PW-1 that his senior Intelligence Officer was present in DRI Office at Indiranagar, and before whom he produced the accused No.2 and 3, articles and he recorded the statements of accused No.2 and 3. If PW-2 was present in the office, he would have spoken about the checking and contents of the baggages. He has not spoken anything about the checking of baggages and nature of articles found in the box. When he has not deposed about the articles how his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW-1 for the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. It is said 34 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J that the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated from the evidence of PW-3. On the other hand, PW-3 has deposed about the T.R. concession granted by him. How his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW-1 for the alleged interception, checking and the articles alleged to have been seized as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Therefore, the evidence of PW-3 is not corroborating the evidence of PW-1 for the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Therefore, the solitary evidence of PW-1 relied upon by the prosecution cannot be said as sufficient and acceptable evidence to prove the alleged interception and seizure of articles as per Ex.P.1 and mentioned in Ex.P.2.
48. As seen from the evidence of PW-2 he has only deposed that PW-1 and CW-1 had seized the baggage items which were cleared from Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru, under T.R. Scheme and they brought the goods along with two accused persons and he recorded the statements of the accused persons. During the trial of the case while recording the evidence of PW-2 the prayer of the prosecution to mark the statements alleged to have been given by accused No.2 and 3 before PW-2, has been rejected. It is pertinent to note that statements recorded during any enquiry or proceedings under the Customs Act 1962 are applicable only to the proceedings initiated under the Customs Act 1962. Those 35 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J statements may be relevant in the proceedings initiated by PW-1 under the Customs Act, but those statements which are in the form of confession cannot be said as relevant in the criminal case instituted by the CBI for the offences under IPC and PC Act. In this regard the court has already consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 852 (Noor Aga V/s. State of Punjab and another) wherein it has been held as follows:
"(B) Customs Act (52 of 1962), S.108, S.138B- Seizure of heroin-Confessional Statement made by accused to custom authorities-Cannot be made use of in any manner u/S. 138-B - Even otherwise, such evidence is considered to be of weak nature-
Placing explicit reliance upon S.108 not justified."
49. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 who has deposed that he recorded the statements of accused No.2 and 3, which is in the form of confessional statement cannot be said as relevant in the present proceedings to support the case of prosecution.
50. As seen from the evidence of PW-3 he has deposed that he has granted T.R. concession based on the inspection report of baggages. In his cross examination he has admitted that as per 36 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J the recommendation of the Superintendent of Custom he has granted concession to the passenger but after examining his passport. Further, he has admitted that he has not personal knowledge about the interception of consignment by the DRI.
There is no dispute about the concession granted by him to the consignment brought by accused No.2 on the basis of the recommendation of his Superintendent. He does not know anything about the alleged interception of PW-1 and alleged seizure of contraband articles, therefore his evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution to prove its allegation against accused No.2 and 3 as alleged. Therefore his evidence is of no use to the prosecution in the present case.
51. As seen from the evidence of PW-4 he has deposed about the bonding and clearance register Ex.P.4 and the entries made therein in his hand writing as per Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b). His evidence is not disputed in any manner. Further, his evidence proves that after verification and proper entries in the register the consignment was released to the passenger accused No.2.
52. As seen from the evidence of PW-5 he has only deposed that Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b) are in the hand writing of his colleagues PW-4. His evidence is not disputed in any manner. It 37 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J is strange to note that the author of Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b) has been examined and he has spoken about his hand writing for Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b). Therefore, the evidence of PW-5 is irrelevant as per Rules of Evidence.
53. As seen from the evidence of PW-6 he has deposed about the gate-pass Ex.P.5 and signature of the passenger as per Ex.P.5(a) and his signature Ex.P.5(b). There is no dispute about the gate-pass issued by PW-6.
54. As seen from the evidence of PW-7 he has deposed that as per the gate-pass he delivered the consignment to the concerned party by obtaining the signature as per Ex.P.5(d). His evidence is only proving the delivery of the baggages as per the gate-pass from the MSIL, Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru.
55. As seen from the evidence of PW-8 who has deposed about the baggages Inspection register Ex.P.6, contents and the entries made therein and there is no dispute.
56. As seen from the evidence of PW-9 he has deposed about issue of notice to the party about the arrival of baggage and to collect the same from their possession and there is no dispute about his evidence.
38 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
57. As seen from the evidence of PW-10 he has deposed about the booking of baggages from Dubai to Bengaluru, by their counter part M/s BIN JASMIN Cargo and arrival of Cargo and collection of documents by their staff, issue of notice to the party to take delivery of the parcel and his evidence is not disputed.
58. As seen from the evidence of PW-11 he has deposed about the procedure that being followed by the Custom Department for giving concession in respect of Transfer of Residence Scheme on the house hold articles. He has further deposed that in the present case the Inspector inspected the baggage, Superintendent recommended for concession and accordingly he has granted the concession. In his cross examination he has admitted that the Inspector was required to inspect only 10% items for random checking declared in the baggage description form. He has not deposed that their Inspector did not inspect the baggages and simply submitted the report. Further he has not deposed that in respect of grant of concession to the articles declared by accused No.2 there was any irregularity, lapses and dishonest intention on the part of any of the officials of Custom or by the passenger accused No.2. Therefore, the evidence of PW-11 proves the procedure and the concession accorded by him in favour of baggage of accused 39 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J No.2 by following the proper procedure contemplated under the Customs Act. Further, he has deposed that normally their Inspector prepares only one challan for payment of Custom Duty and in the present case two challans have been prepared. He has not deposed that two challans have been prepared by their Inspector with malafide intention to suppress the fact of the description of the articles in the declaration. When the Inspector noticed that the value of the articles declared by the passenger is more then on his own he can prepare two challans for the payment of the Custom Duty. Simply because two challans have been prepared nothing malafide is forth coming in preparing two challans as per Ex.P.3. There is no evidence to prove that there was any dishonest intention in preparing the two challans by the Custom Inspector and accused No.2 and 3 have played any role in such act. None of the witnesses examined from the Custom Department have deposed that the declaration submitted by the accused No.2 for claiming the concession is a false declaration, made by suppressing the true contents of the baggages and accused No.2 has played any dishonest act on his part. Therefore, the evidence of PW-11 is only proving the procedure and not proving any wrong on the part of accused No.2 and 3 40 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J and contents of contraband articles in the baggages got released by the accused No.2.
59. As seen from the evidence of PW-12 he has deposed about his duty as Inspector of Custom and duty of his colleagues in the Air Cargo Complex. Further, he has deposed that Sri. Byrappa, Inspector has prepared two challans and normally only one challan will be prepared by the Inspector. Further he has deposed to which transfer of residence the concession was available under Transfer of Residence Scheme. In his cross examination he has admitted that there is no bar for payment of duty through two challans and there is no irregularity in writing the two challans for payment of duty. Further he has admitted that the passenger has paid the Custom Duty as per the calculation made by the Inspector. Further he has admitted that if the duty calculated by the Inspector is not satisfactory to the Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner then they can personally examine the goods and reassess the duty. He has not deposed any fault on the part of his colleague Sri. Byrappa Inspector of Custom. He has deposed that his colleague prepared two challans as per Ex.P.3 and normally one challan will be prepared. As per his admission made in the cross examination there is no bar for preparing two challans and it is 41 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J not an irregularity. If the value of the goods declared by the passenger is not satisfactory and found more then the Inspector can prepare two challans. His evidence was only relevant to prove the allegations against the public servants who were already prosecuted, tried and acquitted. He has not deposed any dishonest intention on the part of his colleague in preparing two challans. Simply because two challans were prepared for payment of Custom Duty, no inference can be drawn by the court that they have been prepared with dishonest intention and to cause wrongful loss to the Custom Department by the public servant. He has not deposed anything against the present accused No.2 and 3 that the declaration submitted is false and the baggages were containing contraband articles. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused No.2 and 3.
60. As seen from the evidence of PW-13 he has deposed that normally for assessment of Custom Duty one challan will be prepared for payment of duty, but in the present case two challans have been prepared. In his cross examination he has admitted that after granting the concession there is no bar for writing two challans for payment of duty. Further he has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the challans 42 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J because he was not working at that time. The evidence of PW-13 shows that which of the articles were not covered under Baggage Rules and not entitle for concession under Transfer of residence Scheme. Further, he has deposed nothing against the public servant who has been already acquitted or against the present accused No.2 and 3 that with malafide intention to avoid the payment of Custom Duty, two challans have been prepared. Therefore, his evidence was relevant to the allegations against public servant and not relevant in respect of the accused No.2 and 3.
61. As seen from the evidence of PW-14 he has deposed that preparing of two challans as per Ex.P.3 is unusual and Ex.P.3 (a) is a baggage declaration for Transfer of Residence along with packing list. Further he has deposed that the packing list should have been written on the back on the TR form there is enough space to write the packing list. In his cross examination he has clearly admitted that there is no bar for preparing two challans, if there is change in the valuation or correction and challan will be issued only after approval of Assistant Commissioner for Transfer of Residence. Further he has admitted that the approval for Transfer of Residence will be given after the assessment by the Superintendent of Customs. As per his 43 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J evidence in the present case only after following proper procedure concession has been granted to the articles declared under Transfer of Residence Scheme. PW.-14 has not deposed any evidence stating that there were lapses on the part of the Custom Officers in the procedure and grant of concession. Further he has admitted that if there is change in the valuation or correction it is permissible to prepare two challans. In the present case after the approval of the Assistant Commissioner the concession has been extended and challans have been prepared. None of the Custom Officers have raised any objection for preparing two challans nor any action was taken against the public servants on the allegation of administrative lapses or deviation from the procedure. The evidence of PW-14 is not proving any allegations against the accused No.2 and 3. On the other hand, PW-14 has also admitted that by following the procedure the concession has been granted to accused No.2. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW-14 cannot be considered as incriminating against accused No.2 and 3.
62. As seen from the evidence of PW-15 he has deposed that since he knew Kannada he has recorded the statement of accused No.2 as per Section 108 of Customs Act. Already I have discussed about the admissibility of such statement in the 44 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J proceedings before this court. The prayer of the prosecution to mark the statement of accused No.2 alleged to have been made before PW-15 has been already rejected. The evidence of PW-15 is relevant in the proceedings instituted under the Customs Act subject to admissibility as per Rules of Evidence. When the alleged statement of accused No.2 is in the form of confession, such statement recorded for the proceedings under the Customs Act cannot be said as relevant and admissible in the present proceedings by trial of the case for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the evidence of PW-15 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner in the present case.
63. As seen from the evidence of PW-16 he has deposed that he has produced the B-Register extract of vehicle No. CAK- 1472 as per Ex.P.11 and there is no dispute about the registration, transfer and ownership of the vehicle alleged to have been seized by PW-1. His evidence is only proving the RC particulars of the mini lorry.
64. As seen from the evidence of PW-17 he has deposed that he was checking the articles as per the Manifest prepared by the baggage carriers and signing on the Air Cargo manifest Ex.P.12. There is no dispute about his evidence and the 45 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J procedure following by him. He has not deposed that there was any contraband articles transported in the baggages and he noticed at the time of checking.
65. As seen from the evidence of PW-18 he has only filed charge sheet before the court as the investigation was already completed. Therefore, his evidence is formal.
66. Lastly, as seen from the evidence of PW-19 he has collected the documents from the Custom Department and recorded the statements of the witnesses during his investigation. Even PW-19 has not deposed any incriminating evidence against accused No.2 and 3. As per his evidence whatever already alleged to have been done by PW-1 he has taken the records and recorded the statements. He has not made efforts to visit the spot and not prepared any mahazar of the spot where alleged interception was made. Further he has not recorded the statements of any neighboring shop owners of the spot to ascertain about the alleged interception of vehicles on the alleged date and time. Further, he has nowhere deposed that he has seen the alleged contraband articles alleged to have been seized by PW-1. Further he has not gone to DRI Office to ascertain where such articles were really seized by the PW-1 46 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J from the baggages of accused No.2. Simply collection of documents and recording of statements of Customs Officers/Officials cannot be said as proper investigation in the present case by the Investigating Officer. He has further recorded the statements of other witnesses who were working in the Cargo and security gate. None of the witnesses except PW-1 examined by the Investigating Officer have deposed any evidence against the accused No.2 and 3. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer when the case was registered on the source of information to make sincere efforts to ascertain about the alleged transportation of contraband articles in the baggages of accused No.2, but no such effort is forth coming from the PW-19 in the present case. He has simply relied upon the investigation done by the Custom Authority against accused No.2 and 3. Since this proceeding is entirely different there is a duty casted upon the Investigating Officer to investigate independently and to collect the evidence. Even the alleged seizure of articles is not reported to this court and they are not brought before this court during the trial of the case. Therefore, there is serious lacuna in the investigation of the present case by the Investigating Officer. It is forth coming from the investigation records collected by the Investigating Officer that he has done the work of a postman to 47 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J collect the records from the Custom authority and to place them before the court in this proceedings. In the present case the interception, alleged mahazar and seizure of the contraband articles as per Ex.P.2 is not done by the PW-19. He is only placing reliance on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 which are alleged to have been done by PW-1. Therefore, the evidence of PW-19 which is in the manner of postman cannot be said as helpful to the prosecution in the present case.
67. The learned counsel for accused No.2 and 3 vehemently argued that the alleged seizure of contraband articles is not established by the prosecution by placing acceptable evidence and further no nexus is established between the accused No.2 and 3 for booking of baggage and no evidence is forth coming against accused No.3 to show his role played by him. Therefore the evidence of prosecution is totally lacking to prove the alleged seizure, conspiracy and cheating of accused No.2 and 3.
68. As seen from the entire oral and documentary evidence of prosecution placed before the court the evidence of the prosecution is not acceptable and sufficient to prove the alleged mahazar and seizure of contraband articles as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. In this case the important fact of interception, 48 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J mahazar and seizure of articles as per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 is not established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
69. In this regard it is pertinent to refer the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1158/2005 in para No.36 with regard to defect in the seizure which reads as follows:
"The other defect in the prosecution case are that, there is no convincing evidence placed to show that the boxes which were seized near Rajeswari Theatre were the boxes which were examined at the DRI Office at Indiranagar by the DRI officials. There is also no evidence to show that markings and the other details on the parcels found at the time of seizure of the parcels tallied with the markings and other details at the time of conducting seizure mahazar at DRI office".
70. The above observation made by the Hon'ble High Court with regard to defect in the seizure is certainly helpful to the defence of accused No.2 and 3. Therefore, the seizure of articles mentioned under Ex.P.2 is not established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
49 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
71. Secondly, I will consider whether the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are established against accused No.2 and 3. There is no evidence of the prosecution to show any nexus between the accused No.2 and 3. None of the witnesses have deposed that it is accused No.3 who booked the consignment in the name of accused No.2 by using his pass- port. Therefore, there is no evidence forth coming to prove that it is accused No.3 who booked the consignment in the name of accused No.2 for transportation from Dubai to Bengaluru by using the passport of accused No.2. It has come in the evidence that there was different passport numbers mentioned on the baggages brought by accused No.2. It is stated by one of MSIL witness that due to over sight the passport number was wrongly mentioned. There is no investigation in that regard by the Investigating Officer. When the two passport numbers are mentioned on the baggages that is also a serious lacuna and not explained satisfactorily by the prosecution.
72. There is no agreement forth coming in between accused No.2 and 3 to do an illegal act of transport of the alleged contraband articles in the guise of transportation of residential articles under the scheme of Transfer of Residence in the name of accused No.2 from Dubai to Bengaluru.
50 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
73. The learned counsel for accused No.3 relied upon a decision reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 215 in the case of P.K.Narayan V/s. State of Kerala, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. But if those circumstances are compatible also with the innocence of the accused persons then it cannot be held that the prosecution has successfully established its case. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn 51 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation".
74. Secondly, the learned counsel for accused No.3 relied upon a decision reported in 2015 CRI.L.J. 4759 (Supreme Court) in the case of State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Nitin Gunwant Shah, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 120B, 300
- Conspiracy- proof - Murder case - To prove criminal conspiracy meeting of mind is essential, mere knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient - Only because all accused were present in city on date of occurrence, and that alleged motor-bike and car used in incident belonged to accused - It would not establish prior meeting of mind of accused -
Neither any prior meeting of mind of accused was proved, nor any action, individually or in concert, was proved against any of accused".
75. Thirdly, the learned counsel for accused No.3 relied upon a decision reported in 2015 CRI.L.J.901 (Supreme Court), in the case of Balkar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as fllows:
" Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.300, 120B, 34 - Murder - Conspiracy -
Circumstantial evidence - No evidence to 52 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J support circumstance that appellant-accused was responsible for procuring car and gun and handing over both to main accused, his nephew - No reliable evidence to prove that accused was escaping with acquitted accused
- Prosecution case that at instance of head conspirator, accused executed plan - Not proved as head conspirator was acquitted- No evidence to suggest that accused held conspiracy with main accused. Thus in circumstance accused cannot be held, guilty of conspiracy- Consequently could not be charged under S.302 read with S.34".
76. Fourthly, the learned counsel for the accused No.3 relied upon another decision reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3691 in the case of Subhash alias Dhillu V.s State of Haryana wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
" Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 120B- Criminal Conspiracy-Proof-Allegations against appellants that they had informed other accused persons of fact that complainant is carrying money in a motorcycle and that they could loot him- Received a share of Rs.1000/-
each from looters- Disclosure statements made to police thereby alleging role of appellants as informers of group have been denied by all accused persons- No specific evidence as to where and when conspiracy was hatched and what was specific purpose of 53 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J such conspiracy- Offence under S. 120B not made out".
77. Regarding the criminal conspiracy it is pertinent to note the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512, in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, Vs. K. Narayan Rao wherein it has been held as follows:
" E-Penal Code, 1860,-Ss.120A and 120B-
Criminal conspiracy -Elements of -Basis for
extending criminal liability to co-conspirators- Held, essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both-Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available-accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about complicity of the accused- Offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence; Held; the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence 54 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence".
78. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.
79. In the light of the Principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case if the evidence of the prosecution of the present case is appreciated the ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy are not established in the true spirit of the law. In the present case absolutely neither there is a 55 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J direct evidence nor there is a circumstantial evidence forth coming to connect the accused No.2 and 3 to the offence of criminal conspiracy. Further no evidence to establish that there was prior meeting of mind between the accused No.2 and 3 before transporting the consignment from Dubai to Bengaluru. Therefore the basic element of criminal conspiracy "meeting of minds" is not forthcoming from the evidence of any of the witnesses.
80. In the charge sheet the prosecution has alleged criminal conspiracy between accused No.1 to 4 to do an illegal act and to cheat the Government of India, Custom Department by evading the Custom Duty equivalent to the value of articles alleged to have been seized under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. In the earlier case this court has held that the allegation of criminal conspiracy against accused No.1 public servant was not established by the prosecution. Further, in the criminal Appeal the Hon'ble High Court held that no criminal conspiracy is established against accused No.4 public servant. When it is held that allegation of criminal conspiracy is not established against the public servants accused No.1 and 4, how to believe that the criminal conspiracy between the public servants and the private persons accused No.2 and 3 remain. No evidence is forth coming 56 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J to establish the allegation of offence of criminal conspiracy against accused No.2 and 3.
81. Thirdly, I will consider the allegation of offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the ingredients:
i) Accused cheated the complainant;
ii) Accused did so dishonestly;
iii) thereby induced the complainant
(a)to deliver some property to accused or to some other persons.
(b)to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed sealed and which was capable of being converted into valuable security.
82. In the present case the prosecution has basically held to prove that there was criminal conspiracy between accused No.2 and 3 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy accused No.3 booked the consignment containing the contraband articles mentioned in Ex.P.2 in the name of accused No.2 from Dubai to Bengaluru. Further, the prosecution has not established the alleged interception, seizure of articles as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 from the possession of accused No.2. When the prosecution has failed to prove the baggages were containing 57 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J alleged contraband articles listed in Ex.P.2 it cannot be said that there was any dishonest intention on the part of accused No.2 and 3 with regard to transportation of baggages and baggages were containing alleged contraband articles mentioned in Ex.P.2 and the same was done with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the Customs Department and to cheat the said department.
83. In this regard it is pertinent to rely upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 129, in the case of S.W.Palanitkar and others Vs- State of Bihar and Another
-wherein it is held as :
"D-Penal Code(1860)Ss.420 and 415-cheating
-Stage at which fraudulent or dishonest intention should exist in order to make out the offence of cheating-held, such intention must be shown to exist at the time of making of the inducement-Otherwise, mere failure to keep up promise subsequently , held, cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating".
84. As per the above decision the burden is upon the prosecution to prove the fraudulent or dishonest intention was existed at the beginning of the alleged booking of the consignment at Dubai on the part of accused No.2 and 3. There 58 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J is no acceptable evidence forth coming to establish that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of accused No.2 and 3 while booking the consignment at Dubai and accused No.2 actively co-operated for transportation of the consignment in his name by using his passport. The court cannot presume that the act of accused No.2 transporting the house hold articles and claiming concession under Transfer of Residence Scheme leading to cheating.
85. Further onus of proof of existence of every ingredient of charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts on the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused No.2 and 3 have not disputed the alleged seizure of articles and evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore the prosecution has proved the ingredients of offence of cheating. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused No.2 and 3 argued that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove the ingredient of charge and the accused have seriously disputed the alleged seizure of articles and evidence of witnesses and it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden and established the charge against accused No.2 and 3. 59 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
86. In this regard it is pertinent to rely upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 Supreme Court Cases (CRI)546-in the case of Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar V/s State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) and Moreshwar hari mahatma V/s State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu)- wherein it is held as-
"Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947- Section 5(1) (d)-mere disregard of relevant provisions of General Financial Rules as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, in absence of showing beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt, may raise strong suspicion against the accused but would not constitute offences under-General Financial Rules, Rules 133 and 141;
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-'Proved'- Suspicion, however strong cannot be a substitute for proof-
Evidence Act 1872-Section 102-Onus proof of existence of every ingredient of charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts on the accused".
87. Looking to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision they are well applicable to 60 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J the facts of the present case. The onus of proof of existence of every ingredient of charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts on the accused. In the light of these principles the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted and the argument of the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 holds water.
88. In this case the learned counsel for accused No.2 and 3 argued that there is abnormal delay in registering the case by the CBI on the source of information and the delay is not properly explained and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that from the date of source of information as early as possible the CBI has registered a case and investigated the matter. Therefore, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The evidence of the prosecution shows that thee alleged interception was done on 05/10/1994 and customs authorities initiated action under the Customs Act. The CBI registered FIR on 31/05/1995 on the source of information. Certainly from the date of alleged interception there is delay of seven months in registering the case by the CBI. Why there was delay in lodging the FIR by the CBI is not whispered by the Investigating Officer PW-19 or by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Mere delay 61 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution if the delay is satisfactorily and properly explained. In the present case, the delay of seven months is not explained in any manner by the prosecution. Therefore, the unexplained delay of seven months is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore there is no justification in the argument of learned Public Prosecutor justifying the delay in lodging the FIR.
89. On the point of delay in lodging the FIR the Hon'ble High Court has made observation in Criminal Appeal No.1158/2005 which reads as follows:
"The delay in lodging the complaint long after the incident and almost for 7 months therefore also assumes importance in the light of the aforesaid defects in the prosecution case. No doubt, mere delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground to throw out the prosecution case out of door, but in the instant case, in the light of the pecuniary facts and circumstances and serious infirmities pointed out and the complainant was not being examined and the delay of 7 months also not being properly explained and delay in the instant case also will have to be taken into consideration and the possibility of A4 alone being made as scapegoat also cannot be ruled out".62 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
90. Regarding the delay in filing of FIR the learned counsel for accused No.3 has relied upon a decision reported in 1975 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 357 in case of Anne Nageswara Rao V/s Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 154- F.I.R.- Delay in filing of - Seriously affects the credibility of the story stated therein".
91. Therefore, in the present case the unexplained delay of nearly 7 months is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution to believe the case of the prosecution. Hence the argument of the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 addressed with regard to delay in lodging the FIR holds water.
92. Therefore, the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property is also not established by the prosecution as required by law.
93. Viewed from any angle there is no tangible evidence of the prosecution to estabnlish the offences alleged under Section 120B and Section 420 of IPC against the accused No.2 and 3. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused No.2 and 3 as alleged. Hence, the accused 63 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J No.2 and 3 are liable to be acquitted. Hence I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
94. Point No.3: In view of my findings to the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 and 3 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B and 420 of IPC.
The bail bonds and the surety bonds of accused No.2 and 3 executed for their appearance during the trial of this case are hereby cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me personally and incorporated additional paragraphs directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of February, 2016) (BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.64 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1: R. Kiran Gaikwad.
PW-2: G. Varadaraju PW-3: M.V. Subbareddy.
PW-4: D.S. Parashuramappa.
PW-5: S. Maranna.
PW-6: Muninanjappa.
PW-7: S. Madhureswar PW-8: R. Lakshminarayana PW-9: N. Dinesh Kumar PW-10: V.S.Sathyanarayana PW-11: D.P.Nagendra Kumar PW-12: D. Bhaskar Rai.
PW-13: M.G.Prasad.
PW-14: K.S.Srinivasan PW-15: M.V.Nagaraj PW-16: B. Siddaramaiah PW-17: R. S.N. Rao.
PW-18: B. Pannir Selvam PW-19: S.K. Vijay Rajiv.
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Mahazar Dated:05/10/1994. Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Annexure to the mahazar dated:05/10/1994. Ex.P2(a): Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Duplicate T.R.challans, dated:05/10/1994, receipt of
MSIL Dated: 05/10/1994, Carbon copy of packing list Dated: 05/10/1994 and Original T.R. Form declaration Dated: 05/10/1994.
Ex.P.3(a): Original T.R. Form dated:05/10/1994. Ex.P.3(b): Signature of PW.3. Ex.P.3©: Original MSIL bill for Rs.661/-. Ex.P.4: Import bonding and clearance register. Ex.P.4(a) & (b): Two relevant entries at page No.464. Ex.P.5: MSIL, Bengaluru, Air Cargo Complex gate-pass 65 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J Dated: 05/10/1994 with copy.
Ex.P.5(a): Signature of the party (A.2) Ex.P.5(b): Signature of PW.6. Ex.P.5(c): Initials of PW.7 with date and time. Ex.P.5(d): Signature of the party.
Ex.P.6: Baggage Inspection register. Ex.P.6(a): Relevant entry dated:05/10/1994 at Sl.No.1 in page 26 Ex.P.7: Original Air Cargo arrival notice dateds: 23/09/1994. Ex.P7(a): Signature of PW.9 Ex.P.8: Carbon copy of master airway bill issued by BIN JASMIN Cargo.
Ex.P.9: Carbon copy of Air way bill No.0832 of Bin Jasmin Cargo. Ex.P.10: Copy of delivery order dt.23.09.1994. Ex.P.11: B-Register extract for vehicle Number CAK-1472. Ex.P.11(a): Signature of RTO. Ex.P.12: Air Cargo Manifest No.1071/94, dated: 22/09/1994. Ex.P.12(a): Signature of PW.17. Ex.P.12(b): Signature of custom Inspector.
Ex.P.13: FIR Ex.P13(a): Signature of A.P. Gopala Krishnan. Ex.P.14: Original MSIL daily pass No.9251 dated: 05/10/1994. Ex.P.15: Original Hotel Ashoka Receipt No.731 for Room No.4 Ex.P.16: Original Case memo No.0218 of Mohd. Mirza Trading. Ex.P.17: Original letter dated: 12/06/1996 of M/s. Freight Wings & Travels Limited addressed to CBI. Ex.P.18: Attested copy of import godown register of MSIL, printed Page 465.
Ex.P.18(a): Original import godown register of MSIL. Ex.P.19: Attested copy of import bonding & clearance register, Printed page No.464.
Ex.P.20: Attested copy of printed page No.26 dated: 05/10/1994 of Baggage Inspection register. Ex.P.21: Attested copy of TR/UB/BE issue register of MSIL-1 sheet Ex.P.21(a): TR /UB/BE issue register of MSIL. Ex.P.21(b): Original of Ex.P.21 i.e., relevant page in Ex.P.21(a). Ex.P22: Original letter dated:01/08/1996 of MSIL addressed to CBI for furnishing documents. Ex.P23: TR register for the period dated:23/08/1994 to 21/10/1994 maintained at Bangalore Air Cargo Complex Ex.P24: UB Register for the period 06/09/1995 to 18/10/1994 maintained at Bangalore Air Cargo Complex.66 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
-NIL-
LIST OF MATERAIL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: -
-NIL -
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.67 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J
Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate detailed order.
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 and 3 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B and 420 of IPC.
The bail bonds and the surety bonds of accused No.2 and 3 executed for their appearance during the trial of this case are hereby cancelled.
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.68 Spl.C.C.No.61/2013 J