Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch vs No.1 And 2 In Furtherance Of Their Common on 7 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of April 2022.
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.2625/2010
Date of Offence : 15-12-2006
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch
(F and M), N.T. Pet, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : 1. H.R.Prabhakar
@ Prabhakar Vashishta
S/o H.P.Ramaswamy
aged 44 years,
Managing Director
(Infoscience)
R/o Sri Ganesh Krupa,
No.174/18, 13th cross,
III Phase, Girinagar,
Bengaluru 85.
2. B.N.Radhamani
W/o Prashanth,
aged 33 years,
R/at No.214,
Srirama Nilaya,
1st cross, Girinagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. G.Desi Reddy Advocate)
2 C.C.No.2625/2010
Offences complained off: U/s.420 R/w Sec.34 of
IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused are acquitted
Date of Order : 07-04-2022.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector, CCB (F and M) Squad has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that :-
Accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to illegally earn huge money opened a Company by name M/s High Gain Enterprises at 3rd Stage, Banashankari, BDA Extension and later in the year 2004 they renamed said company as Icons. Further they opened office of said company at 9/1, 1 st floor, Suvarna Mahal, 50 feet road, Muneshwara Block, Girinagar T Block, 3 C.C.No.2625/2010 Banashankari 3 rd Stage and at No.77, N.R. Towers, 2nd floor, E Wing ring road, Ittamadu road cross, Banashankari, III Stage without registration of said company. Further accused No.1 represented himself to be owner and accused No.2 represented herself as Manager of said company. Further accused No.1 and 2 induced customers to invest money in their company towards on-line share market and real estate business and they assured to repay 9 to 15% of profits on such investments. Further both accused assured to double the investment within one year and they falsely represented that several other persons have made huge profits by investment of money in their company. Further both accused assured to refund money on prior notice of 30 days and they also assured to issue receipts, agreements towards such investments. Thus by aforesaid false inducement and assurance, accused persons fraudulently induced C.Ws.1 to 38 to invest 4 C.C.No.2625/2010 Rs.2,16,06,318/- in their company and later they cheated them by not paying returns as agreed by them. Further accused No.1 and 2 absconded by closing their office and thereby committed above offences. Thereafter, C.W.1 who is one of investor-
cum-victim of accused persons lodged first information before Girinagar PS on 30-4-2009, which was registered by them in their P.S. Cr.No.155/2009 and FIR is issued. After
recording statements of materials witnesses, after collecting material documents and after completion of investigation, I.O. filed charge sheet against accused persons for above offences.
3. The records depict that accused No.1 was arrested during crime stage and he is enlarged on bail. It further shows that accused No.2 has also appeared during crime stage and she is also enlarged on bail as per order of anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.1754/2009. After filing of this charge 5 C.C.No.2625/2010 sheet, cognizance of above offences is taken, accused No.1 and 2 appeared before this Court. Charge sheet copy is furnished to accused persons u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed. Accused have not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and they have claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 21 documents as per Exs.P1 to P21. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence against them and they have not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that from the year 2004 to 2008 accused No.1 and 2 6 C.C.No.2625/2010 opened an unregistered company by name High Gains, which was renamed by them as Icons. Further accused No.1 represented himself to be owner and accused No.2 represented herself as Manager of said company, they both induced C.W. 1 to 38 to invest money in their company towards online share market and real estate business, by assuring to repay 9 to 15% of profits on such investments and to double the investment within one year. Further both accused assured to refund money on prior notice of 30 days, they also assured to issue receipts, agreements towards such investments and by aforesaid false inducement and assurance accused persons fraudulently induced C.W.1 to 38 to invest Rs.2,16,06,318/- in their company and later they cheated them by not paying returns as agreed by them. Further both accused absconded by closing their office and thereby accused No.1 and 2 have committed offence punishable under section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What order ?
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused persons. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the 7 C.C.No.2625/2010 prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- P.W.1, Sheshagiri S. S/o. M.S.Nagabhushan Rao, has testified in his evidence that accused were running Icon company, they issued an advertisement in Vijaya Karnataka news paper assuring to give good rate of returns on investments. Thereafter he approached at address given in said advertisement, he inquired accused no.1 and he informed him that accused would give profit sharing of Rs.9% on investment of Rs.50,000/-. He has further testified that accused assured to issue Receipt and Company agreement. Further in view of good business of shares at that time, he invested total amount of Rs.1,30,000/- at 3 times from 2006 to 2007 and in that regard the company issued receipt and 8 C.C.No.2625/2010 agreement to him. P.W.1 has further testified that as per agreement he has to keep investment for 3 years and he will receive profit share of 9% and after expiry of said period they will return the investment. He has further stated that accused paid 9% return for 15 months and thereafter they stopped paying returns. He has further stated that on inquiry, accused persons insisted him to pay 42% income tax at income tax office and when he said asked for details to pay said tax himself, accused did not give information. P.W.1 has further testified that thereafter he visited the office of accused, it was closed but their office in 3rd stage of Banashankari was open. Said office was in the name of Infoscience and accused no.2 Radhamani used to be present in said office. Thereafter he came to know that several other people had invested money like him and they were similarly insisted by accused persons to pay tax of 42% and thereafter accused used to not come to office. Further when accused were not 9 C.C.No.2625/2010 available in office, he inquired in office of Registrar and came to know that aforesaid firms of accused persons were not registered. P.W.1 has further testified that he himself had invested Rs.1,30,000/- in the name of his wife Hemalatha and accused had issued Receipt and agreement. After 4-5 months, accused did not repay amount and committed fraud. Hence he lodged first information as per Ex.P1 before Girinagar Police station and he has identified his signature on it as per Ex.P1(a). Further P.W.1 has identified 3 receipts of his investment as per Exs.P2 to 4, Certified copies of receipts issued in the name of C.W.2 towards investment of Rs.1,30,000/- as per Exs.P5 to P7, six agreements entered between himself and accused persons as per Exs.P8 to P13 and his signature on Ex.P14 mahazar as per Ex.P14 (a). He has further testified that Police opened office of accused situated in Muneshwara block and seized a printer, a big Almirah and documents kept inside said 10 C.C.No.2625/2010 Almirah under Ex.P14 Mahazar. However, in relevant portion of his cross-examination P.W.1 admits that he has approached accused persons and enquired about investment in shares. He has admitted that accused had agreed to refund principal amount on 30 days prior notice and he also admits to have received receipts towards his investments. Further he has clearly admitted that he received 50% of profit on his investment and such profit receipts are not collected by police during investigation. He has further admitted that subsequently it was difficult for accused to pay profits and he did not issue any notice to them at that time. He has further admitted that on approaching accused seeking release of profit, they expressed financial difficulty, but denies that accused asked him to pay income tax of 42%. Further P.W.1 asserts to have invested Rs.1,30,000/- in the name of his wife in the year 2007 and 2008 and accused had paid profit of Rs.45,000/- towards said investment also. Though 11 C.C.No.2625/2010 he asserts that the accused were in due of Rs.70-80 thousand share profit, he has admitted that he has not issued any notice in that regard nor he has paid income tax on such profits. It is suggested to him that he forcibly received cheque from accused persons with the assistance of police and admits that the said cheque case is dismissed before Hon'ble Sessions Court. Though he asserts to have preferred Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, he has not produced any documents in that regard. Further P.W1 has clearly admitted that in agreement, the profit is not mentioned as 9%. The entire evidence of P.W.1 is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that accused were not in due of any profit to him and he has received entire profit from them. However, it clearly shows that P.W.1 has received good returns initially as per his own version and he has not produced documents to show exact returns received by them. Further his evidence further depicts that 12 C.C.No.2625/2010 there was some dispute with regard to tax amount settlement, which is not explained by him convincingly. These all aspect raises doubt with regard to allegations made by this witness with regard to alleged act of fraud by accused.
8. P.W.2 Sunanda B. W/o. Srikantha Reddy has testified in her evidence that she invested Rs.18 lakhs and said firm has issued receipts to her in that regard. She has further testified that said company had assured to pay return of 9%, she had met accused no.1 prior to investing money and after investing amount said company has paid returns from some days. She has further stated that said company had assured to pay interest of 3% on her investment and she has paid said interest for one month. Thereafter said company neither repaid the amount nor paid interest and hence she approached Girinagar Police and Thyagarajnagar Police against accused. She has 13 C.C.No.2625/2010 further stated that said police settled the matter by calling upon accused no.1 and accused no.1 had agreed to pay 50% of amount of her and issued a cheque of Rs.9 ½ lakhs in that regard. She has further stated that accused no.1 received original receipts while issuing cheque and on presentation of above cheque, it was dishonored and thereafter she did not get accused no.1. She has identified aforesaid cheque of Rs.9 ½ lakhs issued towards full and final settlement as per Ex.P15. In relevant portion of cross-examination P.W.2 admits that she has also not given any notice to accused seeking refund of amount and she states that she knows only some clauses of the agreement. Further though she asserts to have invested Rs.18 lakhs, she pleads ignorance with regard to denomination of said amount given by her and profits received by her on such investment. She has further admitted that she has not issued notice to accused with regard to dishonor of cheque issued. 14 C.C.No.2625/2010
9. P.W.3 Santhosh S/o. K. John has testified in his evidence that in the year 2007-08 he had invested Rs.50,000/- in Icon firm of Banashankari Janata bazaar and he was issued receipt and agreement and said firm had assured to pay return of Rs.4,000/- per month on said amount and he received said interest for three months and in all he received Rs.19,000/- in the form of interest. He has further stated that he has seen accused no.1 to be owner and accused no.2 to be Manager of said firm. P.W.3 has further testified that later accused have not repaid amount nor paid interest and hence he lodged complaint against them before Girinagar Police station. He has identified letter issued by above firm as per Ex.P16. In relevant portion of cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that he invested Rs.50,000/-, but he cannot say exact date of investment. Further he admits that accused had paid 15 C.C.No.2625/2010 his share on such investments and he lodged complaint against them prior to expiry of period of agreement. P.W.3 has also admitted that he has not issued any notice to accused in this regard.
10. P.W.4 Gayatri K.S. W/o. B.T. Chikkaputtegowda has testified in her evidence that accused no.1 had assured to pay interest of 6% per month before investing money, initially she invested Rs.60,000/- and then Rs.1 lakh. She has further testified that accused no.1 assured to pay interest at 7 to 8 %, she invested total amount of Rs.20 lakhs and the above firm had issued receipt and agreement in that regard. She has further stated that in the year 2008 accused no.1 received all original documents from her and when accused did not repay the amount, she filed complaint before Police station. Thereafter Thyagarajnagar police called accused and settled the matter, wherein accused no.1 issued 16 C.C.No.2625/2010 cheque of Rs.10,15,000/- towards one time settlement and when it was presented, it got dishonored. Thereafter company of accused was closed and she gave statement before CCB. She has identified said Cheque as per Ex.P17 and endorsement of Company as per Ex.P17(a). In cross-examination by defence side, P.W.4 has admitted that she came to know about firm of accused through her friends, who were also share holders of said firm. She has further admitted that she read prospectus of said company and date of agreement was mentioned in concerned agreement. Further she has admitted that she lodged complaint prior to expiry of date of agreement and she cannot say how much returns she received on investment made by her. She has further admitted that she has not issued any notice for dishonour of cheque nor she has filed any case in that regard. In her further cross-examination P.W.4 has admitted that she cannot remember that the date when she paid 17 C.C.No.2625/2010 Rs.18,40,000/-. Though she has asserted that the said amount belongs to 10 members namely Vani, Chetana, Manjula, Anupama, Chaitra, Geetha and her cousin sisters. She has admitted that she has no document or receipts to show investment of said persons. Though she has admitted that accused had issued receipt for payment of amount, she pleads ignorance with regard to the interest amount received by her on such investment. Further she has clearly admitted that the aforesaid cheque was issued at police station. It is suggested to her that the above cheque was received by her forcibly from accused and she has not paid any amount to accused as deposed by her. Though P.W.4 has denied his suggestions, her entire evidence is denied in toto.
11. P.W. 5 Vedavathi W/o. Shivalingaiah has testified that her sister Geetha had informed her about M/s. Icon company and she met accused no.1 and he explained rules and regulations of said company. 18 C.C.No.2625/2010 Further accused no.1 assured to pay interest of 6% and he had assured to pay interest out of huge profits received from shares investment. She has further testified that initially she invested Rs.40,000/-and later she has invested more than Rs.7 lakhs. She has further stated that said company had issued receipts and agreement towards her investments and in the year 2007-2008, they informed her that they are not paying any money due to loss suffered by them. She has further stated that in that regard she approached Women Police station and accused no.1 had assured to repay amount within 15 days and issued cheques of National Co-operative Bank. She has further stated that accused no.1 issued cheque of Rs.5,50,000/-, it was dishonored on presentation and he had collected original receipt and agreement, while issuing above Cheque.
12. P.W.6 Vinutha W/o. Vijaykumar has testified that in the year 2005 she met accused no.1 and he 19 C.C.No.2625/2010 had assured to pay interest of 6 to 9% on investments on Shares, she initially invested Rs.10,000/- and in all she invested Rs.30 lakhs in said firm. Further she has issued receipts and agreement and she was paid interest of Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs on her investment and later they stopped paying it. She has further testified that when she inquired, they sought time and hence she approached Girinagar police station and Thyagarajnagar Police station. She has further stated that during compromise in office of ACP Thyagarajnagar, said company issued a cheque of Rs.15 lakhs towards one time settlement and received all original documents from her. Thereafter aforesaid cheque was dishonored. Further P.W.6 has identified aforesaid cheque as per Ex.P18 and endorsement of company as per Ex.P18(a). In cross-examination by defence side P.W.6 admits that she does not know the date when she contacted accused persons and when she paid initial amount of Rs.10,000/- and 20 C.C.No.2625/2010 Rs.30,000/-. Though she asserts to have paid Rs.30,000/- on different occasions, she has stated that she cannot say amount of each payment. Though she admits that accused has issued receipts for each payment, no such receipts are produced by her and she pleads ignorance about how many agreements were executed in that regard. Further though P.W.6 asserts that she borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- and remaining amount was her saving amount, she has not produced any documents with regard to accumulation of such amount. The entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side and it is suggested to her that she forcibly received aforesaid cheque from accused in police station.
13. P.W 7 Sandeep S/o. Shivalingaiah has testified that after knowing about icon company through his relative Geeta and he met accused no.1. Further accused no.1 had assured to pay interest of 6% and he invested Rs.3 lakhs in said company. 21 C.C.No.2625/2010 Further company issued receipt and Agreement, thereafter said company paid him interest of Rs.40,000/- for 4 to 5 months and later they stopped paying return due to loss. He has further stated that he approached Thyagarajnagar police station and accused no.1 received all original documents assuring to settle matter for 50% amount. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.7 has also admitted that he came to know about company of accused through his mother and he asserts that accused had issued receipts towards his investment. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he has not invested any money in the company of the accused and accused has not issued any receipt or cheque to him.
14. P.W.8 Praksash Rao U. S/o. Lakshminarayan Rao has testified that he met accused no.1 and he assured to pay interest of 9% on investment by 22 C.C.No.2625/2010 investing money on shares and accordingly he invested Rs.25,000/-. He has further stated that he invested in all Rs.3,75,000/-, said company issued receipts and agreement in that regard and he was insisted to invest minimum Rs.3,00,000/- or else, he will not be returned money. He has further testified that later in 11 to 12 months said company has paid him interest of Rs.1,50,000/- and later they stopped paying interest due to loss. Later he returned agreement, but accused no.1 though assured to give single agreement, neither he gave said agreement nor he repaid money.
15. P.W.9 Roopa W/o. Harish has testified in her evidence that she met accused no.2 in M/s. Icon office and she sent her to accused no.1, who assured to pay interest of 6% on investment of money on shares and he further assured to pay Rs.8,000/- interest per month on investment of Rs.1,00,000/-. She has 23 C.C.No.2625/2010 further stated that initially she invested Rs.1 lakh and later in all she invested Rs.16 lakhs and company issued her receipt and agreement in that regard. Later company paid her interest of Rs.2,85,000/- for 4-5 months and later they stopped paying interest saying that they have suffered loss in business. She has further stated that she was working as clerk in said company and later said company is closed. She has identified original agreements dated 01.09.2008, 11.03.2008 and 17.08.2008 executed as per Exs.P19 to 21, her signatures as per Exs.P19(a) to 21 (a) and signatures of accused no.1 as per Exs.P19(b) to 21 (b) respectively and she also identified accused no.1 before Court. In cross-examination by defence side, P.W.9 admits that she has read over the prospectus of company of accused and she had filed complaint prior to expiry of agreement period. Thereafter she has changed her version saying that she has not filed any complaint before police. Further she admits she 24 C.C.No.2625/2010 received profit of Rs.2,86,000/- towards total investment of Rs.10 lakhs. Again she has changed her version saying that she had invested only Rs.5,00,000/- and no profit was paid on said amount. Further she has admitted that she was receiving Rs.8,000/- salary per month from said company in the year 2008, which raises doubt with regard to her capacity to invest above huge amount. P.W.9 has admitted that she has not shown aforesaid Rs.16 lakhs in her IT returns. In her further cross-examination P.W.9 has admitted that there is reference with regard to payment of income tax in agreement, but she has not paid such tax. She has further admitted that there is no reference about amount and receipt number in said agreement. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to her that though she has not paid any amount to company of accused under above agreement, she is deposing falsely.
25 C.C.No.2625/2010
16. P.W.10 Padmini M.Rao W/o. Muralidhar Rao has testified that she met accused no.1 and in the year 2006-07, she saw an advertisement in Deccan Herald newspaper, wherein Infoscience company offered interest of 16% per month on deposit of Rs.50,000/- and above in said company. Accordingly she deposited Rs.17,00,000/- in the names of herself, her mother Indira, V. Asha and her daughter Ashwini Rao on various dates. Further receipts were issued and later when she went to their office it was closed. Further she has lost original cheques, receipts and agreements. Later she again went to office of accused, as per advice she was asked to close account of her daughter and take back deposit amount on next day. Further on next day she came to know closure of company through a news channel. In cross- examination P.W.10 also admits that she does not know the date of payment and amount, she does not know who is owner of above company and she has not 26 C.C.No.2625/2010 filed civil case for recovery of money. Entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side in toto.
17. P.W.11 Suresh Joshi S/o. Bheemsen Rao has testified that she met accused no.1 and in the year 2006-07 she saw an advertisement in Deccan Herald news paper. Further on visiting office of accused, he came to know that said company offered interest of 16% per month on deposit of Rs.50,000/- and above in said company. Accordingly he deposited Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of his mother. Out of said amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, her received interest of Rs.2 lakhs, but she did not receive any interest towards amount of Rs.3 lakhs invested in the name of his mother. He has further stated that receipts were issued in that regard and he has torn all such receipts. Later he came to know that said company was locked and closed. Further he came to know closure of said company in news channel. In cross-examination P.W.10 also admits that he does 27 C.C.No.2625/2010 not know the date of payment and amount, he does not who is the owner of above company and he has not filed civil case for recovery of money. Entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side in toto.
18. P.W.12 Madhusudhan Rao S/o. Nagaraj Rao has testified that he met accused no.1 in the year 2006-07, he came to know that accused company by name Icons offered to pay interest of 6% if he deposits Rs.50,000/- and above in their company. Further he invested Rs.2,00,000/- on two occasions, out of said amount Rs.30,000/- towards interest and receipts were issued in that regard. He has further stated that he lost all receipts and when he wen to said office, he came to know that it is locked and closed. Subsequently he came to know closure of said company in news channel. In cross-examination P.W.12 also admits that he does not know the date of payment and amount, he does not owner of above 28 C.C.No.2625/2010 company and he has not filed civil case for recovery of money. Entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side in toto.
19. Further despite sufficient opportunity, rest of prosecution witnesses have not stepped into witness box and said witnesses are dropped by this court as per order dated. Hence except aforesaid interested witnesses, none of other witnesses have stepped into witness box including mahazar witnesses and Investigating officers.
20. Thus On perusal of evidence of prosecution it shows that the only case of prosecution is that the accused persons induced C.Ws.1 to 38 to invest money in their company with assurance of good returns on such investment. However, on careful perusal of agreements and receipts produced by some of the witnesses, it shows that no where it is recited that the accused had agreed to give return of specific ratio or 29 C.C.No.2625/2010 percentage to the investors. Further the rate of percentage of profit stated by aforesaid witnesses are not consistent with each other as they have stated different rates of returns in their evidence. Apart from it many of aforesaid witnesses have clearly admitted that they filed above case even prior to expiry of period of agreement and some of them have also admitted that they had already received portion of profit. In spite of it, none of above witnesses have produced documents as to show as to how much profit was received by them from accused persons. Further admittedly some of above witnesses have settled the matter with accused persons in presence of police and they have received cheque from accused No.1 towards one time settlement as per their own version. Hence it is clearly suggested to those witnesses that the above cheques were received under force in presence of police and hence same cannot be a ground to 30 C.C.No.2625/2010 assume the act of fraud on the part of accused persons. It is also pertinent to note that many of witnesses have clearly admitted that they have not issued any notices with regard to dishonour of cheques and they have also not filed any cases to enforce their right under above cheques.
21. Further it is not denied and disputed that accused persons executed agreement, which consists specific clauses of investment and payment of tax. On perusal of said agreement it also shows that investors were at liberty to withdraw their investment with 30 days prior notice, but none of above witnesses have produced documents to show that they had enforced such right of withdrawal by issuing notice as per agreement. Further it is also suggested to many of the witnesses that the delay in payment of profit was due to deduction of tax at agreed rate, which is not stoutly denied by any of the witnesses.
31 C.C.No.2625/2010
22. Thus on consideration of aforesaid facts and on going through the evidence of aforesaid available witnesses, it shows that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature as the alleged investors/witnesses have invested their money on shares, which is admittedly a volatile field having high risk of speculation and returns. The suggestions made to witnesses clearly discloses hat the prospectus was issued by the company of accused and after knowing the nature of investment, the witnesses have invested their money and they have also received initial profits. Further admittedly accused persons have issued agreements and receipts towards amount invested by such persons and as such question of playing fraud or inducement of customers for such investment with fraudulent intention does not arise at all. In order to attract section 420 of IPC, there should be mens rea in conduct of accused persons in inducing 32 C.C.No.2625/2010 the customers or investors to invest the money with pre-plan of committing fraud for their personal gain. In present case admittedly it shows that accused persons have invited investments in share market, they have explained nature of their business and subsequently it appears that they could not continue paying profits, which may be due to reason of loss suffered by them in share trading. These all aspects do not attract ingredients of Sec.420 of IPC in order to believe that accused have committed fraud on C.Ws.1 to 38 as per case of prosecution. For these reasons it is incumbent upon this court to hold that absolutely there is no reason to believe that accused persons have committed alleged offence and hence the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused no.1 and 2 have committee offence punishable u/s 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. For these reasons Accused 33 C.C.No.2625/2010 no.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal in present case. Hence point no.1 is answered in the Negative.
23. Point No.2: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1, following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.1 and 2 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7 th day of April 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Sheshagiri N.,
34 C.C.No.2625/2010
P.W.2, Sunanda B.,
P.W.3, Santhosh,
P.W.4, Gayathri K.S.,
P.W.5, Vedavathi,
P.W.6, Vinutha,
P.W.7, Sandip,
P.W.8, Prakash Rao U.,
P.W.9, Roopa,
P.W.10, Padmini M Rao,
P.W.11, Suresh Joshi,
P.W.12, Madhusudhan Rao;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Complaint,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2 to
Ex.P4, Receipts,
Ex.P5 to
Ex.P7, Certified copies of receipts,
Ex.P8 to
Ex.P13, Certified copies of agreement,
Ex.P14, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P14(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P15, Cheque,
Ex.P16, Letter,
Ex.P17, Cheque for Rs.10,15,000/-,
Ex.P17(a), Endorsement,
Ex.P18, Cheque for Rs.15,00,000/-,
Ex.P18(a), Endorsement,
Ex.P19, Original agreement dated 1-9-2008,
Ex.P19(a), Signature of P.W.9,
Ex.P19(b), Signature of accused No.1,
Ex.P20, Original agreement dated 11-3-2008,
Ex.P20(a), Signature of P.W.9,
Ex.P20(b), Signature of accused No.1,
Ex.P21, Original agreement dated 17-8-2008,
35 C.C.No.2625/2010
Ex.P21(a), Signature of P.W.9,
Ex.P21(b), Signature of accused No.1,
List of material object : NIL
List of Witnesses examined for defence:-
NIL List of documents marked for defence:-
NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.36 C.C.No.2625/2010
7-4-2022 State by Sr.APP Accused No.1 & 2 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety
bond executed by accused
No.1 and 2 shall continue
for a period of two months from
the date of this order and
thereafter same shall stand
canceled automatically.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.