Bangalore District Court
Eranna vs Soundar Raj on 25 April, 2025
KABC030263982021
Presented on : 12-04-2021
Registered on : 12-04-2021
Decided on : 25-04-2025
Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 25th Day of April, 2025
C. C. No.9695/2021
(Crime No.90/2020)
State by Sanjay Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sir Soundar Raj,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Late Sri Nagaraj,
R/at No.84, 4th Cross,
Babureddy Layout,
Chamarajangara, R.T. Nagar,
Bengaluru City ... Accused
(Represented by Sri L.Santhosh Kumar, Advocate)
KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021
1. Date of commission of 28-08-2020
offence
2. Date of FIR 28-08-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 20-12-2020
4. Name of Complainant Sri Eranna, Assistant
Engineer, Ward No.18,
BBMP
5. Offences complained of Under Section 427 of
IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP
Act
6. Date of framing charge 30-08-2022
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 24-11-2022
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 25-04-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 25-04-2025
11. Final order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
2
KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagar Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 427 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 28-08-2020 at 5.00 pm, the accused has illegally dug public road with digging machine at 13 places near the Muneshwara Temple situated on Nagashettihalli Main Road from Sanjayanagar to Gundappa Road, Basaveshwara Circle without obtaining permission from the BBMP and caused loss to tune of Rs.40,000/- approximately.
3. First Information Report: On receipt of information from CW1 Sri Eranna, Assistant Engineer, Ward No.18, BBMP as per Ex.P1, CW6/PW4 Sri Chandrasa, the PSI of Sanjay Nagar Police Station registered the case in Crime No.90/2010 for the offences punishable under sec.427 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, prepared FIR as per Ex.P5 and handed over the case papers to CW7.
3 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/20214. Investigation: After receipt of case papers, CW7/PW3 Smt. Roopa.K.S., the then PSI conducted spot mahazar on 29-08-2020 in presence of CW2 and CW3 from 4.00 to 5.30 pm as per Ex.P2, collected the documents as per Ex.P3, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offence alleged against the accused.
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 28-04-2022.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.427 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/20219. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 7 witnesses however examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and closed their side. CW5 given up by prosecution by the order dated 25-11-203. Despite due execution of proclamations, the presence of CW3 and CW5 could not be secured thereby the examination of these witnesses were dropped out by the order dated 11-03-2025.
10. Statement of accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 28-08-2020 at 5.00 pm, the accused, had 5 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 illegally dug a public road with a digging machine at 13 places near the Muneshwara Temple on Nagashettihalli Main Road in Sanjayanagar to Gundappa Road, Basaveshwara Circle without obtaining permission from the BBMP and caused loss of Rs.40,000/- to BBMP and thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable u/Sec.427 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act?
2. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses which are as follows 6 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 i. CW1 by name Sri being informant examined as PW1 deposed that on 28-08-2020, Geo Fiber Private Ltd Company had dug a public road at about 13 places in Sanjayanagar Main Road, Gundappa Road and Basaveshwara Circle without obtaining any permission from BBMP and caused loss to BBMP and also causing inconvenience to the public in using the said road. On that day at 5 pm, when he went to the said roads and saw that they were digging the road with digging machine and the representative of said company ran away from spot after seeing him. Later, he filed a complaint with the Sanjayanagar Police Station as Ex.P1. Later, the police came to the said place and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. At that time, the staff of adjacent ward, Sri Giriyappa and Sri Rudramuni were present as Pancha witnesses.
ii. CW4 Sri Shivamurthy, the then ASI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station examined as PW2 deposed that he along with CW5 were deputed to trace the accused person on 20/10/2020 and they went near Nagashettihalli bus stand at 5.30 pm, caught the accused, questioned him and brought him to the police station and produced him before CW7 along with report as per Ex.P3.
7 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021iii. CW7 Smt.Roopa.K.S., the then PSI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW3 deposed that on receipt of case papers from CW6, she conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 from 4 pm to 5.30 p.m. and recorded the further statement of CW1, he received documents from CW1 and accused as per Ex.P3. CW4 and CW5 produced the accused along with report of CW4 as per Ex.P4. After completion of investigation, she submitted charge sheet against the accused with photographs given by CW1.
iv. CW6 Sri R.Chandrahasa, the then PSI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW4 deposed that on 28-08-2020 he received written complaint from CW1 and registered FIR as per Ex.P5 and handed over the case papers to CW7.
15. The charge against the accused is for section 427 of IPC. The expression "mischief" has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person causes the destruction of any property etc. Section 427 IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards 8 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both."
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with mischief causing damage or loss of property valued at fifty rupees or more.
16. Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 which reads as under
3. Mischief causing damage to public property. -(1)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being - The Prevention of Damage to Pubic Property Act, 1984 a. any building, installation or other property used in connection 9 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy ;
b. any oil installation;
c. any sewage work;
d. any mine or factory;
e. any means of public
transportation or of tele-
communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
Thus, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 addresses the act when it is committed against public property.
17. The essential ingredients of Section 427 IPC are as follows;
10 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/20211. An act of intentionally causing damage or destruction to someone else's property as per section 425 of IPC
2. The accused must have the intention to cause damage or be aware their actions would likely result in damage.
3. The act must cause damage or loss to property, valued at fifty rupees or more.
18. The essential ingredients of Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are as follows;
I. The damage or mischief must be done to public property, as defined by the Act.
II. The act must be done intentionally or with reckless disregard for the consequences.
III. The act must cause damage or loss to the public property.
11 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021Thus, section 427 of IPC carries a punishment of imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both. Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act carries a harsher penalty, with a maximum sentence of five years, and a fine. Both sections require an intentional act of mischief, causing damage and the value of damage must be at least fifty rupees.
19. It is the case of prosecution that as per Ex.P1 ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ M/S Joi Digital Fibre Private Limited RMZ ICON, 51, Palace road Cross, Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru-52 ರವರು ಇದರ ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಯಾಗಿರುವ ಸೌಂದರ್ ರಾಜ್ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಸಂ.8749010460 ಇವರು ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ಇಂದ ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಮುಖ್ಯ ರಸ್ತೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಗುಂಡಪ್ಪ ರಸ್ತೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಗೆಯಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ಪಡೆಯದೆ ಅನಧಿಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಸುಮಾರು 5.00 ಪಿಎಂ ಗೆ 13 (ಹದಿಮೂರು) ಕಡೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯನ್ನು ಅಗೆದು ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿಗೆ ನಷ್ಟವುಂಟು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಈ ಅಗೆತದಿಂದ ಸ್ವಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ವಾಹನ ಸವಾರರಿಗೆ ತುಂಬಾ ತೊಂರದೆಯುಂಟು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ಸ್ಥಳಗಳ ಜಿಯೋ ಟ್ಯಾಗ್ ಛಾಯಾ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ದೂರಿನ ಪತ್ರದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
12 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021the accused did not obtain the permission whilst digging the public road with digging machine at 13 places near the Muneshwara Temple situated on Nagashettihalli Main Road from Sanjayanagar to Gundappa Road, Basaveshwara Circle without obtaining permission from the BBMP thereby caused loss to the Government.
20. It appears from the record that Ex.P5 i.e., letter dated 15/09/2020 addressed letter to Sub- Inspector of Police, Sanjayanagar Police Station, Bangalore which reads in paragraph 3 that ಜಿಯೋ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಫೈಬರ್ ಪ್ರೈವೇಟ್ ಲಿಮಿಟೆಡ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ಬಿ. ಬಿ. ಎಂ. ಪಿ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಇಂಜಿನಿಯರ್ ೩ನೇ ಮಹಡಿ, ಅನೆಕ್ಸ್ -II ಬಿಲ್ಡಿಂಗ್, ಏನ್. ಆರ್. ಚೌಕ್ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ರವರ ಕಛೇರಿ ಪತ್ರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : EE / OFC / P. R /4362/2020-21 ವಿಶೇಷ ಪರವಾನಿಗಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಪರವಾನಗಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಿಧಾಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದ ಷರತುಗಳ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯ ಕ್ರ ಸಂ 2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ರಂತೆ ವಾರ್ಡ್ ಅಭಿಯಂತರರಿಗಾಗಲಿ / ರಸ್ತೆ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಸೌಕರ್ಯ ಅಭಿಯಂತರಗಾಗಲೀ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡದೇ ಕಾಮಗಾರಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿರುವುದು ಷರತ್ತುಗಳ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂ. 4) ರ ಷರತ್ತಿನಂತೆ ನೂತನವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣಕೊಂಡ ರಸ್ತೆಗಳನ್ನು 3 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಅವಧಿಯವರಿಗೆ 13 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 ರಸ್ತೆಯನ್ನು ಅಗೆದು OFC ಕೇಬಲ್ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ಆಯುಕ್ತರ ಆದೇಶ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಪಿ ಎಸ್. ಆರ್. (ಪೊ) 5879 ದಿನಾಂಕ : 29- 11-2019 ರಂತೆ ಅವಕಾಶವಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದರಂತೆ ಮುನೇಶ್ವರ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದಿಂದ ಗುಂಡಪ್ಪ ರಸ್ತೆ ಬಸವೇಶ್ವರ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ವರೆಗಿನ ರಸ್ತೆಯನ್ನು ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ 2019 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಸದರಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜಿಯೋ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಫೈಬರ್ ಪ್ರೈವೇಟ್ ಲಿಮಿಟೆಡ್ ರವರು ಕೇಬಲ್ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ರಸ್ತೆ ಅಗೆದಿರುವುದು ಕಾನೂನು ಬಾಹಿರವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರಿಂದ ಈ ಪರವಾನಗಿ ಪತ್ರ ನೀಡುವಾಗ ವಿಧಿಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದ ಷರತ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಸಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ತಮಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಿಳಿಯಪಡಿಸಿದೆ.
and copy of Special Permission for laying of Optical Fiber Cable dated 24-06-2020 given by Executive Engineer (OFC), BBMP indicate work tenure as "The work shall be strictly taken up and completed between 24-06-2020 to 23-12-2020" and one of the condition is that "Laying of OFC in Newly asphalted Roads is strictly prohibited for a period of 14 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 three years as per the Commissioner Circular No.PSR(G)5879, Dated 29-11- 2019.
Thus, it is clear that the Geo Digitiable Fiber Private Limited obtained the permission from the BBMP but they have violated the conditions for having digged the road which was constructed in December 2019 but it ought to be seen that the special permission was accorded for laying of Optical Fiber Cable on 24/06/2020 and the work has to be completed between 24/06/2020 till 23/12/2020 and the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 31/08/2020. If the road was constructed within three (3) years old, why the BBMP authority had accorded permission to Geo Fiber Private Limited and apart from which, the prosecution has not placed any material on record that the alleged road at 13 places constructed was not completed of 3 years old so without any material on record, how this court come to a conclusion that Geo Fiber Private Limited voilated the order dated 29/11/2019 vide order No. P. S. R. (P)5879.
21. Added to which, the informant /PW1 and PW3/IO has been cross examined by the accused wherein he deposed that:
15 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 ಆರೋಪಿ ಜಿಯೋ ಕಂಪನಿಯನ್ನು
ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು
ದೂರಿನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ಪೊಲೀಸರು
ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಜಪ್ತು ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ.
PW3- ಆರೋಪಿ ಜಿಯೆಾೕ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್
ಪ್ರೆೃವೆಟ್ ಲಿಮಿಟೆಡ್ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿದವರು ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸದರಿ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ, ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ನೋಟೀಸ್ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಅಂತಿಮ ವರದಿ ಜೊತೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ನೋಟೀಸ್ ಇದೆ, ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ನೋಟೀಸ್ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has not placed any material before this court, how the accused was associated with the Geo Fiber Private Limited for the alleged act and more so, no material evidence has been produced that the accused was digging the road on behalf of Geo Fiber Private Limited. IO has given evasive answers that the accused did not produce any document to show that he was not associated with Geo Fiber Private Limited. It is relevant to mention that the accused cannot produce the document to show that he was not 16 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 associated with the Geo Fiber Private Limited but the IO/PW3 could have secured the document from Geo Fiber Private Limited to prove the positive contention of the prosecution and the accused cannot prove the negative contention except pleading that he was not associated with Geo Fiber Private Limited.
22. The entire case is based upon the allegation that the accused dug the public road without permission from the BBMP however the same admitted by the PW1 and Ex.P5 and the special permission dated 24/06/2020 that they have obtained the permission and the violation of conditions of order dated 29/11/2019 was not established by the prosecution, the court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an offence of mischief in the public road by destroying the public road. PW1 without ascertaining from his office and IO/PW3 without investigating about the permission, the investigation has been done in a shoddy manner and enough evidence has not been collected by the IO before charge sheeting against the accused for the alleged offences and no evidence has been led on record to prove that road digged was not 3 years old to come to conclusion that Geo Fiber Private Limited or on behalf of Geo Fiber Private Limited, the accused has committed mischief by damaging the public road at 13 places and caused loss to the Government. Admittedly no estimation was 17 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 produced by the prosecution about the alleged loss caused to the Government.
23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused and the IO has conducted investigation in the present case in a shoddy manner in complete ignorance of the provisions of law and permission obtained by the accused, thereby this court answers the above point No.1 in the negative.
24. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.427 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.18 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of April, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Iranna Informant PW2: Sri Shivamurthy ASI PW3: Smt Roopa.K.S. IO PW4: Sri.Chandrahasa PSI
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar PW1 19 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 Ex.P3: Report of CW5 / PW2
BBMP Letter dated 15-9-2020 PW3 Ex.P4: Report PW3 Ex.P5: FIR PW4 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City 20 KABC030263982021 CC 9695/2021 25-04-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.427 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
21