Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs Ashwatha Narayana Gowda on 17 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT :Smt. M. LATHAKUMARI
M.A.,LL.M.
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.4949/2008
Date of offence : 30-10-2007
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Halasuru Gate PS
Accused : Ashwatha Narayana Gowda
@ K.R.S. Narayana
S/o Ramegowda
Aged about 57 Yrs
R/at No.62, Gunjur village,
Varthur, Bangalore.
Offence : U/s.468, 471, 420, 511 of
IPC
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 17-02-2016.
** ** **
2 CC.No.4949/2008
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
It is the case of prosecution that on 30-
10-2007 accused produced created Revenue
documents like RTC before VII ACMM by standing
himself as a surety on behalf of some accused
persons and thereby tried to cheat the court
and hence committed the offences punishable
U/s.468, 471, 511 of IPC.
2. Since accused pleaded not guilty
prosecution was called upon to prove the guilt
against accused. Prosecution in all managed to
examine 5 witnesses PWs.1 to 5 and got marked
as many as 5 documents Ex.P-1 to 5. PW.1 Putta
Ankegowda, then Bench Clerk of City Civil Court
deposed in this chief-examination that on 30-
10-2007 accused produced documents pertaining
to site Katha No.62, Gunjur village, Vurthur
Hobli, in Cr.No.113/07. On questioning the
accused he failed to give proper answers.
3 CC.No.4949/2008
Suspecting the conduct of accused, court
directed Police Inspector, Jalahalli to verify
the documents produced by accused and submit
report. Accordingly on 9-11-2007 Jalahalli
Police Inspector submitted his report. Based on
the said report court directed shirestedar to
lodge a complaint against accused, accordingly
said Sheristedar lodged a complaint before
Halasurugate police. However, later this witness
remained absent. Neither subjected himself for
further in chief-examination nor cross-examined.
PW.2 S. Nagaraj an advocate and notary deposes
that accused himself sworn an affidavit as per
Ex.P-1. PW.3 Hussain Ahamed, then Sheristedar
of VI and VII ACMM Court deposes that on 16-11-
2007 as per the direction of the court he has
lodged complaint as per Ex.P-2. PW.4 Thimmegowda
police constable deposes that as per the
direction of Investigation Officer he secured
12 documents from VII ACMM court and produced
4 CC.No.4949/2008
the said documents along with report before
Investigation Officer. Said report is as per
Ex.P-5. PW.5 PSI deposes that on 16-11-2007
at about 6-45PM police constable Murthy received
the complaint sent by Sheristedar of VI and VII
ACMM. Based on said complaint he registered FIR
as per Ex.P-6. This is the evidence of
prosecution available on record. At this stage
it is necessary to go through the provisions of
Sec.340 of Cr.P.C which reads as under:-
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section
195-(1) When upon an application made to it
in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of
opinion that it is expedient in the
interests of justice that an inquiry should
be made into any offence referred to in
clause(b) of sub-section(1) of Section 195,
which appears to have been committed in or
in relation to a proceeding in that Court
or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may,
5 CC.No.4949/2008
after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as
it thinks necessary,-
a) record a finding to that effect;
b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class
having jurisdiction;
d) take sufficient security for the appearance
of the accused before such Magistrate, or if
the alleged offence is non-bailable and the
court thinks it necessary so to do, send the
accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
e) bind over any person to appear and given
evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-
section(1) in respect of an offence may, in
any case where that Court has neither made a
complaint under sub-section(1) in respect of
that offence nor rejected an application for
the making of such complaint, be exercised
by the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-
section(4) of Section 195.'
6 CC.No.4949/2008
(3) A complaint made under this section shall
be signed,-
a) Where the Court making the complaint is
a High Court, by such officer of the
Court as the Court may appoint;
b) In any other case, by the presiding
officer of the Court or by such office
of the Court as the Court may authorise
in writing in this behalf.
As per Sec.340(b), a complaint can be made
under this section by such officer of the court
as the court may direct if the court making the
complaint is Hon'ble High Court and in any other
case by the Presiding officer of the court or
by such officer of the court as the court may
authorise in writing in this behalf. Whereas
neither PW.1 nor PW.3 have produced any such
authorisation letter of VII ACMM. With this in
back ground, let me go through the complaint
lodged by then sheristedar PW.3. In this
complaint PW.3 has stated that as per the
7 CC.No.4949/2008
direction given by that court, he is lodging
this complaint against accused. Further there
is no evidence available on record to establish
that court conducted preliminary enquiry before
directing concerned Jalahalli Police Inspector
to verify the documents produced by accused.
Further PW.3 deposes that he is not aware of the
documents sent to concerned police for
verification. PW.3 admits that he has not
produced the requisition given by him to
Jalahalli Police Inspector seeking to verify the
documents and submit his report. As I have
already stated, PW.1 not at all subjected
himself for cross-examination and further
prosecution failed to secure the remaining
witnesses CWs.3, 8 and 9. The oral testimony of
witnesses discussed supra and also there is no
material that complainant court has complied
Sec.340(b) Cr.P.C, enables the accused for
8 CC.No.4949/2008
acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 468, 471, 420, 511 of IPC. Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C accused is acquitted.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of February 2016).
(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city. Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Putta Ankegowda PW.2 S. Nagaraj PW.3 Hussain Ahamed PW.4 C.S. Thimmegowda PW.5 Shivamadaiah.9 CC.No.4949/2008
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Affidavit Ex.P-2 Complaint Ex.P-3 Order sheet Ex.P-4 Report Ex.P-5 Report Ex.P-6 FIR.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.10 CC.No.4949/2008
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 468, 471, 420, 511 of IPC.
Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C accused is acquitted.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.11 CC.No.4949/2008 12 CC.No.4949/2008
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.