Bangalore District Court
The State By P.I vs Kempegowda @ Gowda on 22 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 22nd Day of September, 2021
C.C. NO.3028/2017
Complainant:
The State by P.I.
Cubbon Park Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused:
1. Kempegowda @ Gowda
s/o late Javaregowda
Age 39 years, R/at No.15
6th Cross, Jai Maruti Nagara
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru.
2. Ganesh s/o Srinivasa
Age 40 years, R/at No.168/A,
Shivakrupa, 7th Cross,
Anandagiri Layout, Hebbala,
Bengaluru - 560 026.
2 C.C.No.3028/2012
3. Uday G s/o Gangaiah
Age 38 years, R/at No.51,
Anjananagara, Magadi Main Road
Vishwaneedam Post
Bengaluru - 560 091.
(By S.Chetan Nag, Advocate for A1)
(By M.Gireesh, Advocate for A2 and A3)
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 3028/2017
2. The date of commission 11042015
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant Balakrishan C
4. Name of the accused Kempegowda and 2 others
5. The offences complained U/s. 420 r/w 34 of IPC
of or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused 1 to 3 are acquitted
8. Date of such order 22092021
3 C.C.No.3028/2012
JUDGMENT
The Police SubInspector of Cubbon Park Police Station has filed the final report against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.420 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 11042015 in between 2.45 p.m., to 3.00 p.m., in front of Chinaswamy Stadium Gate No.6 & 7, accused No.1 to 3 with dishonest intention to get wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to the general public were selling T20 Cricket Match Tickets to the public for higher rates for the Match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru v/s. Sunrises Hyderabad, which was scheduled on 13042015 and cheated the public as well as Karnataka State Cricket Association. Accordingly, the case was registered and after investigating the matter the IO has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the above said offences. 4 C.C.No.3028/2012 Meanwhile, the accused were arrested and produced before the court and they were remanded to JC and by moving bail application they obtained bail.
3. After taking the cognizance the summons were issued and accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the court. The prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1 to 3 in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing both the side the charges were framed and read over to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, so the case was posted for trial.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to 10, got marked 7 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 7 and material objects as per MO1 to 3. The learned Sr.APP has given up CW7, 9 and 10. Inspite of taking coercive 5 C.C.No.3028/2012 steps the prosecution has not secured CW.5 and 12, so the prosecution side evidence taken as closed. The accused got marked Ex.D.1 during the crossexamination of PW.9.
6. The accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and not chosen to lead their defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11042015 in between 2.45 p.m., and 3.00 p.m., in front of Chinnaswamy Stadium at Gate No.6 and 7 the accused No.1 to 3 with dishonest intention to get wrongful gain selling the T20 Cricket Match 6 C.C.No.3028/2012 Tickets of T20 Cricket Match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru Vs Sunrises Hyderabad, which was scheduled on 13042015 and cheated the public as well as Karnataka State Cricket Association and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined the first informant who was raided on accused and drawn mahazar as PW1, the public to whom accused No.1 was negotiating to sell tickets as PW2 and 3, the mahazar witness 7 C.C.No.3028/2012 as PW4, the police official who has typed the mahazar as PW5, the Head Constable who is the member of the raid team as PW6, the employee of Ticket Genie organisation as PW7, the further investigating officer who has arrested the accused as PW8, the IO who has filed the charge sheet as PW9, the ASI who has registered the case and issued FIR as PW10.
10. PW1/Balakrishna the then PI of Cubbon Park PS, deposed that on 11042015 when he was at Gate No.8 and 9 of Chinnaswamy Stadium at 2.45 p.m., he received information that one person was selling the tickets in black market, immediately he secured his staff CW7 and 8 and went to the Gate No.7 and by hiding himself saw that one person was selling the tickets in black market immediately he secured panchas i.e., CW4 and 5 and rushed to the spot and caught hold the person who was selling the tickets and seized cash of 8 C.C.No.3028/2012 ₹ 18,150/ as per MO1, 2 tickets of ₹ 825/ each as per MO2 and 4 tickets of ₹ 550/ each as per MO3 and drawn the mahazar between 3.15 p.m., and 4.00 p.m., as per Ex.P1. After returning to the station along with the accused he gave his report to the SHO as per Ex.P2. He identified accused No.1 before the court.
11. During the cross examination he admitted that in Ex.P1 he has not mentioned the serial numbers of the currency notes seized and he has not put MO1 by affixing separate seal. So also MO2 and 3 were seized by affixing separate seal. He also admitted that he has not mentioned in the Ex.P1 about the serial numbers of MO1 to 3. He also admitted that in Ex.P2 he has not mentioned the names of Panchas and also the name to whom the accused No.1 was selling the ticket. He denied the other suggestions made to him.
9 C.C.No.3028/2012
12. PW2/Jai Shankar and PW3/Bharath Kumar have deposed that both of them were friends and on 11042015 they had been to Chinnaswamy Stadium to purchase the ticket of IPL Match fixed on 13042015 but they were told that tickets of ₹ 825/ were all sold out. Then accused No.1 came there and stated that he is having the tickers of ₹ 825/ but he will give it for ₹ 1,300/, while they were talking with him the police came and caught hold accused No.1 and taken way.
13. During the cross examination they denied that they have not gone to Chinnaswamy Stadium on 11042015. They stated that they have not given any statement before the police. They also denied that they were the stock police witnesses.
14. PW4/Sachin Kumar being the witness to the mahazar has only admitted his signature on Ex.P1 as per Ex.P1(b), but he do not know the contents of Ex.P1. He further states that as 10 C.C.No.3028/2012 per the instruction of police he put his signature, no mahazar was drawn and nothing was seized in his presence and he has not given any statement before the police. Thus, he was treated hostile and cross examined by Sr.APP wherein he denied the conducting of mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P1 and for having given his statement as per Ex.P3. He also denied that in order to help the accused he was deposing falsely.
15. PW7/K.T.Mazeed being the employee of Ticket Genie Organization deposed that he was not the employee of Ticket Genie but he is employee of its mother concern organization i.e., DNA Networks. During IPL Tournament more number of workers required as such he worked under Ticket Genie organization. Police have called him to the station and by showing some tickets asked him to whom they were sold for that he enquired with his subordinate employees who states 11 C.C.No.3028/2012 that they were given to one Uday who is working at KSCA. This information has given by him as per Ex.P4 since police required him to furnish it in writing. The copy of the invoice was marked as Ex.P5 subject to objections raised by the advocate for accused with regard to certificate u/s 65 of Evidence Act.
16. During the cross examination he admitted that the police have not requested him by writing, he also stated that he has not furnished any record to show that the Ticket Genie Solutions Organization was having the right to distribute the tickets for 2020 matches held at Chinnaswamy Stadium. He clearly admitted that he is not the authorised signatory to the Ticket Genie Solutions organization. He also admitted that he has not produced any document to show the existence of the Ticket Genie Solutions organisation. He also admitted that 12 C.C.No.3028/2012 Ex.P5 is not original document and it does not bear his signature and he do not know the signature appearing on it. He clearly admitted that as per the request of the police he has prepared Ex.P4 and he has no personal knowledge about the tickets mentioned in Ex.P4.
17. PW5/M.Veeresh being the then Police Constable of Cubbon Park police has deposed that as per the direction of PW1 he went to the spot along with laptop and printer and he typed the mahazar and taken out its print out as per Ex.P1.
18. During the cross examination he admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P1 about that it was typed by him. So, also it is not mentioned in his statement that he has typed Ex.P1 as per the instruction of PW1. He also admitted that in Ex.P1 ticket numbers were not mentioned and they were not separately sealed. He also admitted that he has not mentioned in the 13 C.C.No.3028/2012 station dairy. He admitted that in Ex.P1 there are 7 signatures and it is mentioned as PC8961. He also admitted that in the charge sheet copy furnished to the accused wherein the signature of CW7 was not there in the mahazar. He also admitted that in Ex.P1 the serial numbers of the currency notes were not mentioned and there is no problem to mention the same. He denied the rest of the suggestions put to him.
19. PW6/Ramakrishna being the then Police Constable deposed that he was called by PW1 and he also accompanied with PW1 to raid the accused and stated in the same line as of PW1.
20. PW10/Subramani being the then ASI has deposed that on 11042015 PW1 submitted first information statement as per Ex.P2, accordingly he has registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P7 and he received the panchanama and the 14 C.C.No.3028/2012 property seized there under and he has filed the PF No.46/2015 in this regard.
21. PW8/Naveen Supekar the then PSI has deposed that he has received the case file from CW13 and recorded the statements of CW2 to 8 and voluntary statement of accused No.1 to 3. He recorded the statements of CW9 and 10 and received the letter from Ticket Genie organisation as per Ex.P4.
22. PW9/Thippeswamy being the then PSI deposed that he received the case file from PW8 and received the letter as per Ex.P6 wherein it is mentioned that accused No.2 and 3 are the employees of KSCA and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet.
23. During the cross examination all of them have denied the suggestion that though the accused have not committed any 15 C.C.No.3028/2012 offence, they have registered false case as per the say of their higher officer and were deposing falsely.
24. In the present case, prosecution has emphasized on Ex.P.1 the seizure Panchanama. It is pertinent to mention that, attesting witnesses to Ex.P1 are PW4 and CW5. In order to ensure transparency in seizure mahazar, the prosecution called one independent witness i.e., PW4, but the prosecution has not secured the another mahazar witness. In that event, it is expected that, attesting witness to Ex.P1 must speak in consonance with the prosecution case. In the absence of supporting of prosecution case by the above witness, the version of other challan witnesses is neither wholly believable nor wholly unbelievable. These circumstances, call for corroboration from the independent witness. 16 C.C.No.3028/2012
25. According to PW1, the pancha witnesses have put their signatures on Ex.P1 at the spot during conducting the seizure mahazar, whereas PW4 the only pancha witness examined by the prosecution stated that he put his signature in the police station at the request of the police and he has not know the contents of it. In that case Ex.P.1 looses its sanctity as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 73 Varun Choudhary V/s State of Rajasthan.
26. In this case, PW2 and 3 is deposed as independent witnesses and identified the accused No.1 stating that he was selling the tickets in black market. If at all the PW2 and 3 were there at the spot at the time of raid made by PW1 then PW1 ought to have mention the same in Ex.P1 the mahazar or in Ex.P2 the first information statement but it was not find in the above documents. Therefore, the contention of the advocate for 17 C.C.No.3028/2012 accused cannot be ruled out that the PW2 and 3 are the stock witnesses of the police station. The PW1 has not at all whispered in his evidence about the presence of PW2 and 3 at the time of raid made by him on accused No.1. As per the case of the prosecution, when PW2 and 3 were talking with accused No.1 with regard to ticket the police came and took the accused No.1 to the police station. So, no mahazar was drawn at the spot as per the version of PW2 and 3. If at all the mahazar was drawn as alleged by the prosecution definitely the PW2 and 3 would have spoken about the same. Therefore, the presence of PW2 and 3 at the spot at the time of alleged raid itself doubtful. Under such circumstances, their evidence will not inspire the confidence of the court.
27. Coming to the another point raised by the advocate for the accused that in Ex.P1 the serial numbers of the notes of 18 C.C.No.3028/2012 currency seized and the tickets were not mentioned. Of course, it is difficult to mention the serial numbers of the currency notes of ₹ 18,150/ but there is no problem to write the serial numbers of tickets seized from the accused which were in all 6 tickets. So, in the Ex.P1 neither the serial numbers of currency notes nor the tickets were mentioned so also in Ex.P2 the first information it was not mentioned. This also creates serial doubt in the case made out by the prosecution.
28. In Ex.P1 it appears that there is a signature of one PC 1896 whereas in the copy furnished to the accused the said signature was not find place which was confronted to the PW9 the IO and the same was marked as Ex.D1. Therefore, the seizure mahazar produced along with the charge sheet is showing one thing and the copy furnished to the accused is 19 C.C.No.3028/2012 showing another thing, this also creates serious doubt in the case made out by the prosecution.
29. Of course the PW1, 5, 6 and 8 to 10 being the police witnesses have deposed as per the case of the prosecution. The PW7 who has issued Ex.P4 and P5 has categorically admitted that he has issued Ex.P4 as per the request of the police and he has no personal knowledge about the tickets mentioned in Ex.P4 were given to whom. So, far as Ex.P5 is concerned it is only photocopy but its original was not produced and it was not proved by furnishing certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Therefore, the documents at Ex.P4 and P5 will not help the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
30. First of all the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure mahzar Ex.P1 as required by law because the mahazar witness has not at all supported the case and the independent 20 C.C.No.3028/2012 witnesses examined by prosecution i.e., PW2 and 3 were not signatories to the mahazar and there is no mention about their presence in any document produced by the prosecution. So, the evidence of all the independent witnesses examined in this case do not inspire the confidence of this court. Only on the basis of the evidence of official witnesses it is not safe to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Viewed from any angle, the material placed on record by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold the accused persons are guilty for the alleged offence. So in that case as per the settled principle the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, I answer the above point in the negative.
31. Point No.2: For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above point, I proceed to pass the following: 21 C.C.No.3028/2012
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 420 r/w 34 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., Their bail bonds stand cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
MO1 the cash of ₹ 18,150/ is confiscated to the state and MO2 and 3 being worthless shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 22nd day of September 2021.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU.22 C.C.No.3028/2012
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : Balakrishna s/o Chandrashekar P.W.2 : Jayashankar s/o Prakash Reddy P.W.3 : Bharat Kumar s/o Mohandas P.W.4 : Sachin Kumar s/o Nagaraj P.W.5 : M.Veeresh s/o M.Aadeppa P.W.6 : Ramakrishna s/o Elanagaiah P.W.7 : K.T.Mazeed s/o Kamaal P.W.8 : Naveen Supekar s/o Vittal Rao P.W.9 : Thippeswamy s/o late Mallappa P.W.10 : Subramani s/o Nagara Mariyappa
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW4
Ex.P1(c) : Signature of PW5
Ex.P2 : First Information
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW10
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW4
Ex.P4 : Letter of Ticket Genie
Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW7
Ex.P4(b) : Signature of PW8
Ex.P5 : Copy of Invoice
Ex.P6 : Letter of KSCA
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW9
23 C.C.No.3028/2012
Ex.P7 : First Information Report
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW10
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : Photocopy of Mahazar
5. Material Objects:
MO1 : Cash of ₹ 18,150/
MO2 : 2 tickets of ₹ 825/ each
MO3 : 4 tickets worth of ₹ 550/ each
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru
24 C.C.No.3028/2012
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 420 r/w 34 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., Their bail bonds stand cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
MO1 the cash of ₹ 18,150/ is confiscated to the state and MO2 and 3 being worthless shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.