Bangalore District Court
Irappa M Kambali vs Harish Kumar N K on 30 December, 2025
KABC030815342017
Presented on : 10.07.2017
Registered on : 10.07.2017
Decided on : 30.12.2025
Duration : 08y/05m/20days
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY: TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 30th day of December 2025
C.C.No.18101/2017
COMPLAINANT : The State
by Cubbon Park Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Harish Kumar N.K
S/o.Kanivappa, Aged 25 years,
R/at. No.37, Kusuma Nilaya,
1st cross, Subbanapalya,
Near Jayalakshmi School,
M.S.Nagar, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of offence 01.12.2014 to 15.05.2015
Date of report 17.07.2015
Date of arrest 18.07.2025
Name of the complainant Irappa M Kambali
Date of commencement of 25.07.2018
2 C.C.No.18101/2017
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 17.10.2025
Offences complained of U/Sec. 170, 171 of IPC
State Represented by Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by K.P.Usha Reddy, Advocate
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 30.11.2025] The P.S.I of Cubbon Park police station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 170, 171 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
In between 01.12.2014 to 15.05.2015 the accused pretended himself as an employee of Directorate of Translations and illegally obtained an identity card in his name from the printing press of CW.7 knowing fully well that, he is not an employee of the department of translations and retained the same in his possession for a period of 7-8 months. On the basis of computerized typed information given by CW.1, the Cubbon Park police have registered this case in Cr.No.255/2015.3 C.C.No.18101/2017
3. On 18.07.2015, the accused was arrested and produced before the court. As per order dated: 22.07.2015, he was enlarged on bail.
4. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. The Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec. 170, 171 of IPC. The Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
5. The Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, the Court framed accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec.170, 171 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. He claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 17 documents and MO.1 and 2. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, this court recorded the statement of the accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the incriminating 4 C.C.No.18101/2017 evidence led against him. He did not choose to lead his defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. GSB, Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused pretended himself as an employee of Directorate of Translations in between 01.12.2014 to 15.05.2015 and thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.170 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused illegally obtained an identity card in his name from the printing press of CW.7 knowing fully well that, he is not an employee of the department of translations and retained the same in his possession for a period of 7-8 months and 5 C.C.No.18101/2017 thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.171 of IPC?
3. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 & 2: As all these two points are interrelated, I take both the points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused pretended himself as an employee of Directorate of Translations in between 01.12.2014 to 15.05.2015, illegally obtained an identity card in his name from the printing press of CW.7 knowing fully well that, he is not an employee of the department of translations and retained the same in his possession for a period of 7-8 months.
6 C.C.No.18101/2017
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant/CW.1 as PW.4, spot mahazer witnesses/CW.2 as PW.1, CW.3 as PW.2, the officer who registered the case and partly investigated the matter/CW.11 as PW.8, expert/CW.9 as PW.7, circumstantial witnesses/CW.6 as PW.3, CW.10 as PW.9, CW.13 as PW.10, CW.12 as PW.6 and investigating officer/CW.14 as PW.5 and got marked spot mahazer as Ex.P.1, fake identity card as Ex.P.2, first information/complaint as Ex.P.3, covering letter of the Director as Ex.P.4, true copies of letters of the director as Ex.P.6, 7, true copy of the letter of the director as Ex.P.8, true copy of the letter of secretary as Ex.P.9, true copy of the letter of Likit Enterprises as Ex.P.10, certificate of examination as Ex.P.11, acknowledgement as Ex.P.13, FIR as Ex.P.14, seizure mahazer dated: 12.08.2015 as Ex.P.15, letter of director, Directorate of Translations as Ex.P.16, portion of the voluntary statement of the accused as Ex.P.17, hard disc as MO.1 and CD as MO.2. 7 C.C.No.18101/2017
12. CW.1/PW.4-Erappa M Kambli in his evidence has stated that, when he was working as the Director at Directorate of translations, they used to get the identity cards of their employees printed from Likith Enterprises, Majestic, Bengaluru. On 09.04.2015, they had given an order to Likith Enterprises to prepare identity cards of their 5 employees. On 15.05.2015, one of the D - group employees visited Likith Enterprises to get those identity cards. At that time, it is learnt that, one person, who is not an employee of their department has taken an identity card. Hence, the same was brought to the notice of their administrator/CW.3. On the next day, the person who had taken the identity card unauthorizedly came to their office and returned the identity card and told that he has not misused the said identity card. Hence, he wrote a letter to the Government as well as Likith Enterprises. On 26.06.2015 Likith Enterprises sent a letter stating that, the identity card was mistakenly given to other person. On 13.07.2015, they received a letter from the 8 C.C.No.18101/2017 Government wherein they were asked about the actions taken against that person, who had obtained the identity card unauthorizedly. Likith Enterprises had given the identity card to Harish Kumar, who is not an employee of their department. Accordingly, on 16.07.2015, he gave Ex.P.3/complaint to Cubbon Park police station. Thereafter, the police have drawn Ex.P.1/mahazar in the presence of CW.2 and 3. On 27.11.2015, he gave Ex.P.5/letter and handed over Ex.P.2/identity card issued in the name of Harish Kumar. Letter written to Likith Enterprises and the list of their staffs are marked as Ex.P.6 and 7 respectively. Ex.P.8 is the letter written to the Government and Ex.P.9 is the letter received from the Government. Ex.P.10 is the explanation given by Likith Enterprises. MO.1 is the hard disk.
13. CW.2/PW.1-Manjunath in his evidence admits his signature found on Ex.P.1. That mahazar was drawn on 20.07.2015 in their office regarding misuse of identity card regarding which the CW.1 had given complaint.
9 C.C.No.18101/2017
14. `CW.3/PW.2- Shakuntala in her evidence has stated that, when she was working in the department of translation, they used to give order to Likith Enterprises for the preparation of identity cards. In the month of April 2015 they had written a letter to Likith enterprises to prepare identity cards. In the month of May-2015, she had sent CW.8 to get identity cards from Likith Enterprises. Likith Enterprises showed the draft of the identity cards in computer. At that time, it is noticed that, an identity card is prepared, who is not related to their department. Hence, the CW.8 informed the same by making phone call. Hence, she asked him to get its copy. In the identity card, name of the staff was mentioned as N.K.Harish Kumar, the translator. Hence, she produced that copy before CW.1. The same was brought to the notice of the Secretary, Government of Karnataka and as per their oral instructions, the CW.1 gave the complaint to Cubbon Park police station. That identity card is marked as Ex.P.2. In that 10 C.C.No.18101/2017 regard, Ex.P.1 mahazar was drawn in their office in the afternoon of 20.07.2015, which bears her signature.
15. CW.6/PW.3-Rekha in her evidence has stated that, the accused is her far relative. When she was working as Research officer at Translation department, on 15.05.2015 the CW.1 called her, showed the identity card and asked whether she is acquainted with that person. By seeing the identity card, she learnt that the person appearing in the identity card is her far relative by name Harish Kumar. He did not work in their department. Later, she came to know that, the accused was using the identity card of their department.
16. CW.11/PW.8 -Smt.Kathayini Alva., in her evidence has stated that, when she was working as WPSI at Cubbon Park Police station, on 17.07.2015 at 12.10 p.m., the CW.1 came to the station and gave Ex.P.3/complaint. On the basis of which, she registered Ex.P.13/ Petition No.95/2017. On the same day, by obtaining legal opinion, she registered Ex.P.14/FIR. On 11 C.C.No.18101/2017 18.07.2015, she recorded the statements of CW.3 and 8. On 20.07.2015, she visited the spot, verified the same and drawn Ex.P.1/mahazar in between 3.30 p.m., to 4.30 p.m., in the presence of CW.2 and 3. On 12.08.2015, she has drawn Ex.P.15 mahazar and seized MO.1 - Segate Hard disk in the presence of CW.4 and 5, which was produced by CW.7. On the same day, she recorded the statements of CW.4, 5 and 7. On 14.08.2015, she collected Ex.P.16 from CW.1. On 22.09.2015, she recorded the statements of CW.6 and 7. On 27.11.2015, the CW.1 produced Ex.P.2/identity card. Accordingly, she issued Ex.P.4 acknowledgment. On 18.07.2015, she recorded Ex.P.12/voluntary statement of the accused. On 07.03.2016, she sent MO.1 hard disk to the expert for examination through CW.10. She has identified the accused.
17. CW.13/PW.10- A.K.Girish in his evidence has stated that, when he was working as PSI at Cubbon Park police station, as per 12 C.C.No.18101/2017 the orders of their Inspector, he took the investigation of the case on 14.11.2016 and handed over the file to PW.5.
18. CW.10/PW.9 - Vasanthappa.D., in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as police constable at Cubbon Park Police station on 09.03.2016, the IO asked him to hand over the sealed article to FSL. Accordingly, he handed over the same to the FSL at 10.30 a.m., received the acknowledgment and produced the same before the IO at 12.50 p.m. Ex.P.12 is the passport given to him.
19. CW.9/PW.7-Dr.Kumuda Rani., in her evidence has stated that, when she was working as examiner in FSL, on 09.03.2016 their office received a sealed article from PC -Vasanthappa of Cubbon Park police station. The seal was intact. She found one TB Segate Internal Hard disk. She collected the data available therein and she verified the data and she opined that those coral draw files are related to directorate translation department employees identity cards available in one TB Segate internal Hard 13 C.C.No.18101/2017 disk and those files are enclosed to the soft copy/CD/MO.2. She has issued Ex.P.11/ report. MO.1 is hard disk, which she had verified and MO.2 is the CD to which the data of MO.1 was copied.
20. CW.12/PW.6-Smt.Roopa Hadagali in her evidence has stated that, when she was working as WPSI at Cubbon Park police station, she took the investigation of this case on 15.07.2016 and handed over the same to CW.13 on 14.10.2016.
21. CW.14/PW.5-Shobha.N., in her evidence has stated that, when she was working as WPSI at Cubbon Park police station on 14.09.2016 she received Ex.P.11/ report from FSL. MO.2 is the CD enclosed to the report. By completing the investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused.
22. On the basis of Ex.P.3 given by PW.4, the Cubbon Park police have registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused, wherein the PW.4 has made allegations against one N.K.Harish Kumar, who had obtained 14 C.C.No.18101/2017 identity card pretending to be the translator at the office of Directorate of translations. But that person is not an employee of their department. Likith Enterprises used to prepare the identity cards of their staffs. The accused obtained identity card by giving false information that, he has reported to the duty on 20.03.2012. On 09.04.2015, they had written a letter to Likith Enterprises to prepare the identity cards of 5 employees. On 15.05.2015, they learnt that a person, who is not the employee of their department has taken an identity card. Hence, the same was brought to the notice of the Government on 16.05.2015. On 16.05.2015 that person came to their office and returned the identity card and gave an explanation that, he has not misused the same and if any misuse is noticed, he is responsible for the same. They had also sought explanation from Likith Enterprises. Likewise, they had issued notice to C.S.Rekha, their office staff calling upon her explanation about her relative by name Harish Kumar. On 15.07.2015, he received a letter from Government where he was 15 C.C.No.18101/2017 asked to file complaint and submit report. The accused had retained the identity card for a period of 5 months. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary legal action against him.
23. In Ex.P.3, the PW.4 stated that, the Likith Enterprises had given an explanation stating that, Harish Kumar visited their office to obtain identity card of his own medical store and at the same time, they had received a requisition from translation department for the preparation of identity card and while preparing the identity cards, the photographs were exchanged. It means that, the accused did not request CW.7 to prepare identity card pretending to be an employee of Directorate of Transalation.
24. If we read the contents of Ex.P.3 carefully, then there appears that the accused had no dishonest intention to obtain the identity card pretending to be an employee of translation department. This case came to be registered only on the directions given by the Government. In Ex.P.3 itself the PW.4 clarified that, Likith Enterprises gave an explanation stating that ಎ .ಹ ೕ 16 C.C.No.18101/2017 ನಮ ಕ ೕ ಬಂ ಸ ಂತ ಕ ೕ ಐ ಬಂ ದ! ". ಅ$ೕ ಸಮಯದ&' ()ಂತರ ಇ,-ಯ ."/ನ 0ೕ1 ಡ3 ನಮ 41 ದ! ". ಎರ5 ."/ನ 0ೕ1 56ಗ ಎ ಹ ೕ 8ೕ9ೕ ಅದ3 ಬದ,: 41 ";< ೕ=, ಉ$ೆ! ೕಶBವ ಕ6:
41 "E ಲ' . ನಂತರ ಎ .ಹ ೕ Gಷಯ /Iದ ನಂತರ ನಮ ಕ ೕ ಬಂ ತಮ ಬI ಇದ! ."/ನ 0ೕ1ಯJK Lಂ ":ಸ3 ಬಂMಗ ; 4ಳO $ೕ ()ಂತರ P$ೕ ಶಕರJK Qೕ1 ಡ3 ಕRLS$E ಎಂ /IS"T< U.
25. In Ex.P.3 at Page No.2, the PW.1 stated that, ಅ VೕWೕ Gಷಯ /Iದ ವX Y< Z ಆ ನ=ೕ ಅಂದU \ಂಕ 16.05.2015 ರಂ ಕ ೕ ಬಂ ."/ನ 0ೕ1 Lಂ/":S, ."/ನ 0ೕ1 "ಪ^ೕಗ ನ_ ದ! U, ಅದ`a vÁ£Éà ಜ6c! ಎಂ ಬU 41 "T< U. From the contents of Ex.P.3 it appears that, the Likith Enterprises had prepared Ex.P.2 Identity card as the photograph of the accused was mistakenly exchanged with other 17 C.C.No.18101/2017 photos of the officials of Translation department. Moreover, the accused did not misuse the said identity card in any manner. On the other hand, he himself had returned the identity card to the Translation department.
26. The so called identity card prepared in the name of accused is marked as Ex.P.2. The owner of Likith Enterprises i.e., CW.7 did not appear before the court to give his evidence as to how they prepared the identity card in the name of accused, who was not an employee of the translation department. Nowhere the prosecution contended that, the accused gave a requisition to Likith Enterprises and asked them to prepare an identity card with the designation of translator of translation department.
27. Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar, which was drawn at the office of translation department. The PW.1 being the signatory to Ex.P.1/mahazar has stated that, the police have drawn that mahazar in their office in the matter of misuse of identity card. During the course of cross examination, the PW.1 stated that, the 18 C.C.No.18101/2017 police have not written anything in his presence and he has signed Ex.P.1 on the sayings of the police. The PW.2 is yet another signatory to Ex.P.1, who is none other than the administrative officer of department of translation.
28. The PW.2 in her chief examination has stated that, ಸದ &de ಎಂಟ gh ೃಸj ರವ" ತಮ ಕಂBX ಟ £À°è ."/ನ 0ೕ1ಯ kh l JK mೕ S ! , ಅದರ&' ತಮ ಇ,-
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಡದ ಒಬp ವX Y< ಯ ."/ನ 0ೕ1 ಕಂ5 ಬಂ ! , ಅವ" ನನ qರ6r ಕU ಸದ Gs /ISದ". \J ಅದರ ಪh /ಯJK ಕ ೕ ತ"ವಂ; /IS$J. ಸದ ವX Y< ಯ Vಸ" ಎ .`.ಹ ೕ , ()ಂತರ ರ ಎಂ
ನt ಸ,:u< . The PW.2 in her cross examination has stated that, the accused himself has returned the Ex.P.2/identity card to their office. Though the PW.2 contends that the police have drawn mahazar in their office, in her cross examination, the PW.2 stated that, she has signed Ex.P.1 at the police station. 19 C.C.No.18101/2017
29. In continuation of her cross examination, the PW.2 stated that, no body was present when the police visited their office and police have not written anything in her presence and she signed Ex.P.1 as per the sayings of the police. The PW.3 is none other than the research officer. According to PW.3, the accused is her far relative. During the course of cross examination, the PW.3 stated that, the accused did not ask her to prepare the identity card of their department in his name. According to PW.3, she called the accused to their office, collected the identity card and handed over the same to CW.1.
30. The PW.7 is the expert/ Deputy Director of FSL, Madivala. She has examined MO.1 /Hard disk and copied the contents of the same to MO.2/CD. The PW.8 contends that, the CW.7 produced MO.1 hard disc to the station and it was seized in the presence of CW.4 and 5 by drawing Ex.P.15 mahazer. In the present case neither theCW.7/owner of Likith Enterprises nor CW.4 and 5 being pancha witnesses appeared before the Court to 20 C.C.No.18101/2017 explain what action was taken by the police, prior to taking their signatures to Ex.P.15. In the absence of oral evidence of CW.4, 5 and 7, the version of PW.7 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
31. There is no convincing evidence on record to hold that, the CW.7 produced MO.1/hard disc and it was seized in the presence of CW.4 and 5 by drawing Ex.P.15/mahazar. The PW.8 also in her evidence has stated that, the accused returned Ex.P.2 ID card to Likith Enterprises. However, the CW.7 asked him to return it to the office of Directorate of Translations. It means that the accused had no dishonest intention to obtain an identity card pretending to be the translator of translation department, Bengaluru and he did not misuse the same in any manner.
32. When the accused realized that, the Likith Enterprises had prepared an identity card as though he is an employee of translation department, he himself returned the same to the concerned. If we read the evidence led by PW.1 to 10, it appears 21 C.C.No.18101/2017 that, the accused did not approach Likith Enterprises to obtain an identity card pretending to be the official of translation department. It was the mistake on the part of Likith Enterprises, who mistakenly exchanged the photograph of the accused with other staffs of translation department and prepared Ex.P.2.
33. When there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused in obtaining Ex.P.2, mere having possession of the same cannot be termed as crime. Hence, the evidence led by PW.1 to 10 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. From their evidence, the charges leveled against the accused are not proved. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime.
34. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused pretended himself as an employee of Directorate of Translations in between 01.12.2014 to 15.05.2015, illegally obtained an identity card in his name from the printing press of CW.7 knowing fully well that, he is not an employee of the department of translations 22 C.C.No.18101/2017 and retained the same in his possession for a period of 7-8 months. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 and 2 in Negative. Point No.3: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.255[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the charges of Sec. 170, 171 of IPC.
Bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
Bonds executed by the accused U/Sec. 437[A] of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
The property seized under PF No.135/2015 i.e., Seagate-Hard Disc/MO.1 and MO.2/CD being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
30.12.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU 23 C.C.No.18101/2017 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Manjunath PW.2 : Shakuntala PW.3 : Rekha PW.4 : Erappa M Kambli PW.5 : Shobha.N PW.6 : Smt.Roopa Hadagali PW.7 : Dr.Kamuda Rani PW.8 : Smt.Kathayani Alva.S PW.9 : Vasanthappa.D PW.10 : A.K.Girish
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1[b] : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.1[c] : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.1[d] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.2 : Identity Card
Ex.P.3 : Complaint
Ex.P.3[a] : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.3[b] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.4 : Letter of the director
Ex.P.4[a] : Signature of PW.4
24 C.C.No.18101/2017
Ex.P.4[b] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.6 : True copy of the Letter of the director
Ex.P.7 : True copy of the Letter of the director
Ex.P.8 : True copy of the Letter of the director
Ex.P.9 : Letter of the Government
Ex.P.10 : True copy of the letter of Likith Enterprises
Ex.P.11 : FSL Report
Ex.P.11[a] : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.12 : Passport
Ex.P.13 : Acknowledgment
Ex.P.13[a] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.14 : FIR
Ex.P.14[a] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.15 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.15[a] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.16 : Letter of translation department
Ex.P.16[a] : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.17 : Voluntary statement of accused
Ex.P.17[a] : Signature of PW.8
LIST OF M.O's MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
MO.1 : Hard Disk
MO.2 : CD
25 C.C.No.18101/2017
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 27.12.2025
Transcribed on : 29.12.2025
checked on : 30.12.2025
Signed on : 30.12.2025
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS