Bangalore District Court
State By - Banasawadi Police Station vs K.C.Krishne Gowda @ Raja S/O on 5 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XI A.C.M.M., AT MAYO HALL UNIT.
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bengaluru City.
Present: Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com., LL.B.,
XI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
Dated: This the 5th day of October 2016.
C.C.No.24804/2011
COMPLAINANT :: State by - Banasawadi Police Station
(State represented by Sr.APP)
Vs.
ACCUSED :: 1. K.C.Krishne Gowda @ Raja S/o.
Chandre Gowda, 28 years,
Nanjundappa Building, Under
th
Ground, 4 Cross, Muniswamappa
Layout, Ramaswamy Palya,
Bengaluru-33
<
2. S.Dinakaran @ Deena S/o. Late.
Sathya 28 years, No.3455, 1st Main,
New Bagalur Layout, Beside Church
Compound, Bengaluru City.
(Accused No.1 & 2 represented by Advocate Sri.
R.Ramachandran)
*****
1. Date of commission of the offence :: 26-02-2011
2. Date of report of offence :: 26-02-2011
3. Arrest of the accused :
a) Date of arrest of accused :: -
b) Release of accused on bail :: 05-03-2011
2
C.C.NO.24804/2011
4. Name of the Complainant :: GURULINGAPPA.G
5. Date of recording evidence :: 18-02-2016
6. Date of closing evidence :: 16-07-2016
7. Offences complained of :: Ss. U/s. 3, 6-A &
7 of Essential
Commodities
Act, Section
18(A)(B)(C) of
Essential
Commodities
(Public
distribution
system) Control
order, 1992 and
Section 420
R/w. 34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge :: Accused No.1 &
2 found not
guilty.
XI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGEMENT
The PI, of Banasawadi Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections U/s. 3, 6-A & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, Section 18(A)(B)(C) of Judgement 3 C.C.NO.24804/2011 Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and Section 420 R/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows; The accused persons are the tenants under CW-8 in respect of the shop premises situated at 5th Cross, Seethamma Road, Muniswamappa Layout, Kammanahalli. The accused persons took the said premises to store rice bags. Later the accused persons with common intention illegally stored PDS rice and wheat bags and used to sell the said rice and wheat to the public and other retail shops. On 23-03-2011, the CW-1 along with CW-6 to 9 raided the above godown and seized PDS rice, wheat bags, sewing machine and weighing machine. The accused persons were cheated the food department and the public by illegal storage of rice and wheat bags and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s. 3, 6-A & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, Section 18(A)(B)(C) of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and Section 420 R/w. 34 of IPC.
Judgement 4 C.C.NO.24804/2011 Hence, complainant has filed the above complaint before the jurisdictional police.
3. Accused No.1 & 2 were enlarged on bail. After filing of the charge sheet against the accused persons, cognizance of the offences was taken by this Court. Copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1 & 2 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. Charges were framed and read over and explained to the accused No.1 & 2. The accused No.1 & 2 pleaded not guilty. Hence, case was posted for trial.
5. To bring the guilt of the accused, prosecution got examined CW-6 to 8 as PW-1 to 3 and marked the documents as Ex.P-1 to 4. The police have failed to secure the remaining witnesses. Hence the request of the learned A.P.P is rejected and the prosecution side is taken as closed.
Judgement 5 C.C.NO.24804/2011
6. No incriminating evidence adduced against the accused No.1 & 2 . Hence recording of accused statement is dispensed with.
7. Heard arguments.
8. After analyzing oral evidence and materials available on records, points for my determination are as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons with common intention illegally stored rice and wheat bags at Shop premises situated at 5th Cross, Seethamma Road, Muniswamappa Layout, Kammanahalli, belong to CW-8 with a malafide intention to sell the rice and wheat to the public for higher price and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 18(A)(B)(C) of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said place, the accused persons with common intention sold Judgement 6 C.C.NO.24804/2011 the rice and wheat to the public without obtaining license from the government and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 3, 6-A & 7 of Essential Commodities Act ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said place, the accused persons with common intention sold rice and wheat to the retail shops and public and cheated the government and public and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 420 R/w. 34 of IPC ?
4. What order ?
9. My answers to the above points are as follows; POINT NOs-1 to 3 :: In Negative POINT NO-4 :: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
10. POINT Nos-1 TO 3 :: The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused persons were committed the offences punishable U/s. 3, 6-A & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, Section 18(A)(B)(C) of Judgement 7 C.C.NO.24804/2011 Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and Section 420 R/w. 34 of IPC.
11. CW-6 has been examined as PW-1. According to the prosecution he is the seizure mahazar witness. In his evidence he has clearly deposed that the police were obtained his signature near his house and he does not know why his signature was obtained. He has further stated that the police were not seized any material in his presence and he has not given statement before the police.
12. He has been treated as hostile and during the cross-examination by learned APP, he has denied the statement read before him as per Ex.P-2.
13. The evidence of CW-7/PW-2 is nothing but the repetition of evidence of CW-6. According to the police, he is also a seizure pancha, but he has failed to support the prosecution. During the cross-examination, he has also denied the statement marked as per Ex.P-4.
Judgement 8 C.C.NO.24804/2011
14. CW-8 has been examined as PW-3 and he has also turned hostile.
15. Except the above three witnesses, the police have failed to secure the remaining witnesses though all the material witnesses are the official witnesses. The complainant has made serious allegations against the accused persons, but he has failed to step the witness box. As per PF No.52/2011, the complainant police were seized seven items, but CW-6 to 8 are failed to support the case. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.1 & 2. Hence, I answer Point Nos.1 to 5 in Negative.
16. POINT NO-4 :: In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections U/s. 3, 6- A & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, Section 18(A)(B)(C) of Essential Commodities Judgement 9 C.C.NO.24804/2011 (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and Section 420 R/w. 34 of IPC. Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 & 2 shall stand cancelled.
Property seized under PF No.52/2011 is worthless. Hence, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, computerized transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 5th day of October 2016.) (K.S.JYOTHISHREE), XI A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
Judgement 10 C.C.NO.24804/2011 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION ::
PW-1 :: Harish Kumar
PW-2 :: Babu
PW-3 :: K.Kumar
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION ::
Ex.P-1 :: Mahazar Ex.P-1(a) :: Signature of PW-1 Ex.P-1(b) :: Signature of PW-2 Ex.P-1(c) :: Signature of PW-3 Ex.P-2 :: Statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3 :: Signature of PW-2 Ex.P-4 :: Statement of PW-3 WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED ::
NIL DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED::
NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION ::
NIL (K.S.JYOTHISHREE), XI A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
Judgement 11 C.C.NO.24804/2011 Judgement