Bangalore District Court
The State By Police Sub vs No.2 1. S. Nagarajan @ Nagaraju on 8 February, 2022
1 C.C.No.8291/2016
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
PRESENT: SRI.PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE
B.A. LL.B.,
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
C.C. NO.8291/2016
Complainant The State by Police Sub
Inspector, Sheshadripuram
Police station
-Vs-
Accused No.2 1. S. Nagarajan @ Nagaraju
S/o Subramanyachari.
Age: 46 years,
R/o: Gondampatti,
Namagiripete, Rashipuram,
Namakkal, Tamilnadu.
2. A. N. Dixon S/o
A.Sundersingh
Age: 50 years,
R/o: No.3, IAF Road,
Nelayuru, Chennai.
3. M. Allauddin S/o Md. Ali
Age: 31 years,
R/o: 156, Tambi
Kaaliyamman Koyil Street,
Pannampete, Selam.
4. Charles S/o Sosairaj
Age: 43 years,
R/o: 7/22, 3rd Cross,
Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru.
2 C.C.No.8291/2016
5. V. Velu S/o Veeraswamy
Age:53 years,
R/o: 259, 21st Cross, Old
Bagaluru Layout, St. Thomas
Town, Bengaluru.
The date of 06.12.2015
commission of the
offence :
Name of the Arun Solanki
informant of crime :
The offences Sec. 420 and 511 of IPC
complained of:
Commencement of 25.06.2019
recording prosecution
evidence:
Closure of recording 25.06.2019
evidence:
State represented by : Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused are Sri.K.C.Sathihal, Sri. T.M.
represented by: Srinivas, Sri. Younua Ali
Khan. Advocates.
Plea of the accused
and their examination Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Police Sub Inspector of Sheshadripuram police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 3 C.C.No.8291/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under;
It is alleged that on 06.12.2015, the C.W.6 has received an information that the accused No. 2 to 4 have been engaged in selling a fake Gem at Vishal residency, Sheshadripuram. He immediately directed the C.W.1 to take necessary action. On receipt of information, the C.W.1 along with other officials visited the spot and found accused No. 2 to 4 sitting with a gem. On inquiry the accused have stated that they were trying to sell fake Nagamani representing that it was an original Nagamani. The C.W.1 has seized said Nagamani under panchanama, arrested accused No. 2 to 4 and submitted a report to the SHO, Sheshadripuram P.S.
3. On the basis of said report, the police have registered the case in Crime No. 236/2015 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420 and 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
4 C.C.No.8291/2016
4. The C.W.7 has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences under section 420 and 511 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.
5. Accused No. 1 to 5 have appeared through learned Counsels and got released on on bail.
6. The provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C are complied with. The charge for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420 and 511 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC is framed against the accused No. 1 to 5. They have not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined C.W.1 as P.W.1, got exhibited two documents at Ex.P.1 and 2 and one material object at M.O.1.
8. The statement of accused no. 1 to 5 as contemplated under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. They have denied all the incriminatory circumstances against them. They have not chosen to lead any evidence on their behalf.
5 C.C.No.8291/2016
9. I have heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed on record.
10. Points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts?
11. My findings on the above point are in the Negative for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1 : It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 to 5 were with an intention to cheat the public trying to sell fake Nagamani representing that it was an original Nagamani and thereby committed an offence punishable under section U/Sec. 420 and 511 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
13. The accused No. 1 to 5 have denied the case of the prosecution in toto. Denial of the case of prosecution is their defence.
6 C.C.No.8291/2016
14. To constitute an offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of the I.P.C, a) there must be deception, b) by said deception accused must induce a person to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into valuable property.
15. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined one witness as P.W.1, got exhibited 02 documents at Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2 and got identified one material object at M.O.1.
16. P.W.1 is the first informant/complainant. He has deposed that on 06.12.2015, on the information given by C.W.-6, he along with C.W.2 to 5 conducted raid at room No.304, of Vishal Residency and found accused No. 2 to 4 with Nagamani. Since the accused were trying to cheat the public he arrested them and seized Nagamani under panchanama. 7 C.C.No.8291/2016
17. During the cross examination he has stated that the C.W.6 has not provided any details regarding identification of accused. He has admitted that articles like M.O.1 are available in open market. He has admitted that he has not affixed any chit containing signatures of mahazar witnesses to the M.O.1. He denied other suggestions of learned counsel for the accused.
18. Allegations against the accused is only that they had with them a gem which they proposed to sell to an unwary customer or other wise a for a large sum of money claiming that the gem to be Nagamani. None has approached the jurisdictional police alleging that the accused have committed an offence against them. Even P.W.1 has not identified accused No. 4 before the court. Seizure of the M.O.1 from the possession of the accused persons is not proved. Despite sufficient opportunity, the prosecution has not examined other witnesses of the case. No complaint is filed alleging the offence of cheating in this case. Therefore, the 8 C.C.No.8291/2016 allegations made against accused persons does not attract the ingredients of sec 420 and 511 of the IPC.
19. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. The material placed on record and oral evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence to this Court to hold the accused no. 1 to 5 guilty of the alleged offences punishable under sections 420 and 511 of the IPC. Hence, I proceed to answer points no.1 to 3 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following....
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused No. 1 to 5 of the offences punishable under section 420 and 511 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 5 are set at liberty forthwith.
9 C.C.No.8291/2016Bail bonds of accused No. 1 to 5 and that of surety, stands cancelled.
M.O.1 being worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 8th day of February, 2022) (PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. :ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Arun Salunke.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature.10 C.C.No.8291/2016
3:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: Nil.
4:- List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 Fake Nagamani.
(PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.11 C.C.No.8291/2016
Case called out, Learned Sr.A.P.P present, Learned counsel for accused present. Accused absent.
The judgment is one of acquittal, hence as per provisions of Sec.353(6)Cr.P.C the judgment of acquittal may be pronounced in the absence of accused. Hence the judgment is pronounced in the absence of accused.12 C.C.No.8291/2016
Order pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused No. 1 to 5 of the offences punishable under section 420 and 511 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 5 are set at liberty forthwith.Bail bonds of accused No. 1 to 5
and that of surety, stands cancelled.
M.O.1 being worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. 13 C.C.No.8291/2016 The accused no.1 to 5 are directed to execute personal bond for sum of Rs.20,000/- each, for their appearance before appellate Court, if necessary as contemplated in Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Padmakar Vanakudre) C/C.XXXII ADDL.C.M.M. BANGALORE. 14 C.C.No.8291/2016