Bangalore District Court
(Represented By The Learned App) vs 4 Cc 20739 Of 2008 on 30 July, 2021
1 Cc 20739 of 2008
IN THE COURT OF XLI (41ST) ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI S.S.BHARATH M.A. LL.M.,
ST
XLI (41 ) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU
CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 20739/2008
BETWEEN
1. STATE represented by
Kormangala Police. ....COMPLAINANT
(Represented by the learned APP)
AND
1. Krishna S/o Dodda Huchaiah,
Aged about 34 years, R/o. No.62,
Kengeri Upanagara,
Bengaluru.
....ACCUSED
(Represented by Sri.J.V.Narayanaswamy Advocate)
THE KORMANGALA POLICE HAVE CHARGE SHEETED
THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 420, 467, 471, 474 of IPC.
AFTER COMPLETION OF ADJUDICATION, THIS CASE
COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING...
2 Cc 20739 of 2008
Offences alleged u/s : 420, 461, 471, 474 of IPC
Charge sheet filed on : 31102021
Trial commenced on : 11082010
Trial completed on : 09042021
Judgment date : 30072021
Total duration : DaysMonths Years
01 09 10
JUDGMENT
1. Case of the prosecution is as under; It is alleged that the then SubInspector of police of Audugodi Police station, Bengaluru, on 05/09/2005 at about 12.50 p.m., received an information that at 3rd Block, BDA Complex, Kormangala, in the shop namely "Flower Craft", the accused indulged himself in a sale of stamp papers illegally by doing illegal franking and also keeping fake seals of department seals and was drafting many illegal documents upon the stamp papers worth Rs.10/, 20/ , 50/ and also of other values as well and was using franking seals of the SubRegistrar of Pandavapura, Mysore and Mandya etc, he was using duplicate franking seals of those offices by making the people to believe that 3 Cc 20739 of 2008 those documents and seals were originals. Through such acts he was gaining illegal money etc. Accordingly on the basis of the said information, the said SubInspector of the said station has laid a raid in the presence of other witnesses CW2 and 3 and PW2. He seized those things from the spot etc.
2. The investigation officer visited the spot, drew the mahazar and seized the articles and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Upon completion of his investigation, he charge sheeted the accused for the offences aforementioned.
3. This court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC. As per the directions of the court, CC.No.20739 of 2008 came to be registered. In compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C, copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers came to be supplied to the accused.
4 Cc 20739 of 2008
4. The court, after being satisfied as to existence of materials against the accused to proceed further in this matter, framed the charge, read over the same to the accused in Kannada language in which he claimed to be conversant with. But he did not plead guilty and claimed then, to be tried. Therefore, this court issued summons to the witnesses.
5. As could be seen from the record, the witnesses CW2, CW3 and 7 have been dropped. Further, CW12 in the course of trial, reported dead. Subsequently CW9 came to be dropped and further, inspite of issuance of proclamation, prosecution failed to secure the presence of CW14 and hence CW14 came to be dropped. Now, it is clear that, CW2, 3, 7, 9 12, 14 have not been examined by the prosecution. However, as aforementioned, CW12 has been reported dead. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 8 and also on Ex.P1 to Ex.P283. In the course of recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 5 Cc 20739 of 2008 accused although denied the incriminating circumstances explained to him, he did not choose to adduce evidence for his defence. This court, therefore, has posted the matter for arguments.
6. Heard the learned Sr.APP.
7. Heard the learned counsel for accused.
8. Following points arise for determination;
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused dishonestly induced the people of the locality to induce them to purchase the fake bond papers of various values which depict franking seals and department seals pertaining to SubRegistrar's office of Mysore, Mandya and Pandavapura etc, for illegal gain and those papers are capable of being converted into valuable security as well and thereby he has cheated the members of the public and the state and therefore, he shall be punished for an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC ? 6 Cc 20739 of 2008
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused has used forged stamp papers of various values and fake franking seals and franking seals pertaining to the Sub Registrar office of Mandya, Mysore and Pandavapura and those papers were capable of being converted to valuable security as well and other documents also have been forged and they belong to public office, those documents purport to give authority to any person to make or to transfer any valuable security for consideration of money or any other property etc., accordingly the accused deserves punishment for an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused fraudulently and dishonestly used those seals and documents as genuine knowingly well that those things and documents are fake and forged, therefore, he shall be punished for an offence contemplated in section 471 of IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused had in his possession those fake documents and forged documents, seals with an intention to use them fraudulently and dishonestly as a genuine things and 7 Cc 20739 of 2008 therefore he shall be punished in accordance with section 474 of IPC ?
5) what order ?
9. Above points are answered as under; Points' no.01 to 4 : In the Negative Point no.05: As per final orders for the following reasons...;
REASONS The prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt alleged as above against accused . The burden to prove the aspects stated herein above against the accused heavily lies upon the prosecution.
The points aforementioned are hereby taken up for discussion separately.
10. Point No.1: The aforementioned the then police SubInspector of Audogodi Police station namely V.K.Vasudev deposed that he was working as a Police 8 Cc 20739 of 2008 SubInspector at Audogodi Police station and he was incharge of Bengaluru city Crime detection Wing. On 05/09/2005 ACP Madivala Sub Division received credible information that at BDA complex, Kormangala, some of them being indulged in the illegal sale of stamp papers for registration and they were illegally franking the stamp papers etc. He was instructed by his ACP to detect those activities and arrest the concerned. He took the help of CW2 to 4 and together with them he had been to BDA complex at 12.50 p.m., of the said day and he saw the accused when he indulged himself in a sale of illegal stamp papers to the members of public. In the presence of concerned, he seized those illegal stamp papers of various values and he seized few stamp papers and franking seals and he seized Rs.11,000/ from the possession of accused and there were many papers in bundles which were of various values. He pulled out samples from those bundles and sealed them separately. During his examination Ex.P1 to 9 Cc 20739 of 2008 Ex.P277 came to be marked. Aforementioned sum of cash got marked as MO.1. During his examination in chief he identified the accused, who was present before the court. Importantly, as could be seen from the record, his cross examination in view of the absence of learned advocate for accused, it has been taken as nil.
11. PW2 is none other than the Superintendent of District Registrar's office, Jaynagar namely Puttaswamy. He deposed that he was a SubRegistrar of Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru. During July 2007, the police inspector of Kormanagala police station sent him 74 stamp papers for verification and for report ant which were of Rs.10/, 20/ and 100/ values respectively. After verifying them, he learnt that those papers were inclusive of seals and signatures of his office and franking also had been done through his office and out of them, 70 papers were blank and those papers were made blank with the help of 10 Cc 20739 of 2008 whitener and through light, said act was visible. He deposed that on blank papers they cannot do franking and accordingly it was learnt that, after franking, those franking acts were erased. He has given information as to same in writing. He identified the documents which have been marked as above. During his cross examination nothing much has been elicited by the learned advocate for accused except questioning him that he does not have any personal information or otherwise. With respect to those suggestions PW2 has answered that he does not have personal information about the accused and what has been informed through police, he has been learnt accordingly.
12. As could be seen from the evidence of PW3 - the person namely Thagyaraj, FDA of District Registrar's Office has supported the version of the prosecution by deposing that when he was discharging his duties at SubRegistrar's Office at Mandya, the inspector of 11 Cc 20739 of 2008 Kormangala police, to know the authenticity of stamp papers of various denominations, had requested his office to verify them and on examination it was learnt that with respect to those papers, franking was done in the name of one Krishna S/o Dodda Huchaiah. But it was subsequently learnt that, in respect of the said name no entries were available in the said name, in the franking related documents of his office and accordingly he has returned those stamp papers to the police.
13. During his cross examination many questions regarding his signatures as to franking etc and also regarding the date and time of Franking activities on those papers have been put. He also has answered that he does not have personal information regarding alleged act of accused. But as those things were informed through police, he has learnt them. 12 Cc 20739 of 2008
14. As could be seen from the record, one M.Srinivas has deposed in this case as PW4, who was the then SubRegistrar at SubRegistrar's office, Anekal. He deposed that on 18/05/2005 he had a charge of Sub Registrar's office, Anekal. Actual SubRegistrar was on leave on that day and on 23/07/2007 as he was a manager of SubRegistrar's office aforesaid, he received a letter of Koramangala police through which it was asked to verify and to report regarding stamp papers sent with it. It was asked to ascertain their genuineness. There were 28 stamp papers in total which were of Rs.50/ and also of Rs.10/ values. He verified them and he learnt that franking was done at his instance and they were signed by him. If the stamp papers were blank, SubRegistrar does not sign on them. After his signature only stamp papers will be written. He has signed on the written stamp papers on verification of those stamp papers. It was further learnt that stamp papers were erased as to few entries in it. When the stamp papers would be in erased 13 Cc 20739 of 2008 state, there is every possibility of misusing them. When IO had sought for a clarification, he was then transferred to Jigani and he received a letter there itself and replied to SubRegistrar. During his examination, Ex.P280 and Ex.P280(a) came to be identified together with his signature and he further deposed that the signature present on Ex.P32 to 39 and 72 to 82 are his signatures and 21 stamp papers have been traced in the file. Those documents were originally typed and after transcription only his signatures have been affixed and thereafter they came to be erased.
15. As could be seen from his cross examination, he answered that he cannot depose as to in how many papers the writings were erased and they maintain the register and mention nomenclatures of documents in it and he does not have any impediment to produce in the court. Name of the applicant will only be entered in the Register. Once the stamp papers are done with 14 Cc 20739 of 2008 transcription, then only they affix the signatures and he further answered that he cannot say as to how many stamp papers were produced for his verification and also he cannot say as to who took stamp papers in question. He has not received any summons in respect to any case etc.
16. As could be seen from the record PW5 being a SubRegistrar, deposed that from 01/12/2006 to 27/06/2008, he worked as a SubRegistrar of Mandya. Kormangala police requested him to furnish information as to franking done from his office with respect to rental agreement, affidavit etc. On verification he has learnt that such franking on those documents has been done through his office. On 25/08/2007 he has given a letter in respect of the same and he identified that letter during his examination.
15 Cc 20739 of 2008
17. As could be seen from his cross examination he has answered simply that Kormangala police did approach his office with some documents and requested to verify them, to the effect whether they have been issued from his office of not. Apart from above content of the cross examination, nothing much has been elicited by the learned advocate for accused.
18. As could be seen from the record, PW6 is a Retired Registrar. He has deposed that from the year 2005 to 2007 he did work as a SubRegistrar at Jayanagar SubRegistrar's Office. At the request of Kormangala police he did verify some documents and returned them and he further deposed that he verified 09 of such documents on which the signatures were not being matched and they are Ex.P86 to 96, 98 and 99. He further deposed that the seals forthcoming on those documents are of his department and the signatures and franking forthcoming on them have been done during the year 2004.
16 Cc 20739 of 2008
19. As could be seen from his cross examination, he has answered that, with respect to those documents, he cannot say as to who took the stamp papers and he does not have any impediment to produce the register of his office to the court. He further answered that it is difficult to say as to before which officer worked in that office, the franking has been done on them. Apart from those answers, he has answered that those documents have been issued officially from his office and has admitted suggestions to the said effect.
20. As could be seen from the record, PW7 is being a Retired SubRegistrar, he deposed that from 02/04/2007 till the year 2008, he worked as a Sub Registrar of Kormangala Office. He received a request from Kormangala Police to verify those documents and he accordingly answered that the documents which were subjected to his verification have not been issued by his office. Apart from that nothing much has been 17 Cc 20739 of 2008 deposed by him and further considering the absence of learned advocate appearing for accused, in the presence of accused, after calling the matter for thrice, considering the absence of his advocate, thereafter as well, the cross examination of PW7 had been taken as nil.
21. PW8 is none other than the DYSP, Kollegala. He deposed that from 13/03/2008 till 25/06/2011, he was a police inspector of Kormangala police station and he received a file then and continued the investigation. On 05/08/2008 he received the report regarding the documents from the office of Sub Registrar, Kormangala. In the said report, they have answered him that those documents were subjected to their verification. They have not been issued from their office. As could be seen from the deposition, it is further clear that, even during his cross examination, learned advocate for accused remained absent. Therefore, after calling the matter about 3 times, his 18 Cc 20739 of 2008 cross examination had been taken as nil in the presence of accused.
22. Apart from above evidence, there is nothing available on record. It is no doubt true that exhibits aforementioned have been relied upon by the prosecution to establish the case against accused.
23. No doubt, from the cross examination of the above witnesses and also upon considering the arguments of learned advocate for accused, it is clear that no specific defence has been put forward on behalf of the accused in this matter. Be that as it may be, but the burden is upon the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt as aforesaid.
24. So far as the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution should 19 Cc 20739 of 2008 clearly establish that the accused herein has dishonestly induced other persons in a deceitful manner to ensure the deliver of any property or to make or alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed, sealed and capable of being converted into a valuable security. In such an event consequences would certainly follow in accordance with law. But in the case on hand though the prosecution has alleged that the accused herein indulged himself in an activity of franking the stamp papers depicting the same in various denominations to make believe that they have been issued and prepared by the concerned authority and has put many members of public to a cheat and thereby he has played a mischief called cheating and he dishonestly induced such members of public to deliver the consideration towards those documents etc. 20 Cc 20739 of 2008
25. For the purpose of clarity section 420 of IPC is hereby extracted herein below;
Section 420 of The Indian Penal Code Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
26. Taking into consideration on the ingredients of aforementioned section and the contents of the entire case and the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, one thing is clear that by furnishing the exhibits aforementioned to the court in 283 numbers, the prosecution has established that there were some cheating activities upon the members of public at the instance of somebody. But a very establishment of an existence of crime by itself does not render the case 21 Cc 20739 of 2008 successful. The prosecution is expected to establish in a case of present nature that such activities were being carried on at the instance of accused. Though PW1 being an Inspector of police, has deposed in the court that on the basis of credible information he has laid a raid on the shop premises belongs to the accused herein which is situated within the limits of Kormangala, still in the course of evidence, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the person who indulged himself in commission of the crime of said nature through those alleged acts. As aforementioned the persons stated to be the witnesses to the spot mahazar have been dropped considering the failure of the prosecution to bring them to the court. But inspite of dropping them there has been no request at the instance of the prosecution till last date to recall them to cull out the truth by way of examination. Above conduct of the prosecution cannot be termed as a healthy practice. Matter is of the year 22 Cc 20739 of 2008 2008. The witnesses for mahazar came to be dropped vide orders dated 17/06/2020.
27. Hence, it is clear in this case that there is nothing on record which would show beyond reasonable doubt that the exhibits marked in this matter have been seized at the instance of accused from his shop or atleast from his possession. Therefore, though there are stamp papers present before this court vide those exhibits, although the tampering activities are forthcoming on them, though they have been left blank, still the franking activities can be seen to have been erased. Though upon some of the documents, there are certain nomenclatures as lease agreement, agreement for sale etc, they do not suffice to hold that accused is guilty of the said offence.
28. It is no doubt true that upon none of the witnesses of the prosecution, an effective cross 23 Cc 20739 of 2008 examination by putting forward specific and strong defence, has been done. But the prosecution is expected to stand on its own feet. The burden of proof lies upon it. Therefore such burden has to be discharged beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution alone. Though an ineffective cross examination has been conducted upon the prosecution witnesses, still what can be sensed by this court is that the accused has tried to establish in this case that he has not committed the offences alleged. Because upon many of the prosecution witnesses the learned advocate appearing for the accused has suggested that they do not know as to who erased the typed portion on the exhibits and they do not know exactly as to at the instance of which person the crime of the said nature has been committed etc.
29. Therefore, as the prosecution has failed to establish against accused in this case that he has 24 Cc 20739 of 2008 dishonestly induced and cheated the members of the public and the concerned departments in a deceitful manner by promoting them to deliver any consideration and he altered and by way of such alteration he destroyed the credibility of stamp papers which in the course of days could have been used as a valuable security or otherwise etc, the case alleged against accused so far as the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is concerned, has become very weak and evidence adduced by the prosecution does not suffice to hold accused guilty of the said offence and thereby the evidence of the prosecution has rendered the case very weak. Therefore, the said aspect warrants negative finding regarding the Point No.1. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
30. Point No.2 : So far as the offence alleged against the accused which is punishable under section 467 of IPC is concerned, the burden yet again 25 Cc 20739 of 2008 lies upon the prosecution to prove the case, to the effect that the Exhibits marked in this case purport to be valuable securities or purport to give any authority to the persons and they permit the transfer of valuable securities or to receive the principal, interest or dividends or to receive or delivery any money, movable or other property or valuable security and they purport to be the acquittance or receipt which acknowledge the payment of any sum of money or any acquittance or receipt of delivery of any movable property or valuable security and these Exhibits are illegal documents, they are forged at the instance of accused etc.
31. For the purpose of clarity Section 467 of IPC is reproduced below;
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code Section 467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which 26 Cc 20739 of 2008 purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
32. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned while answering the previous point for determination in this judgment, for the very same reasons and more particularly for a reason that although forgery on those exhibits present in this matter can be believed, as aforesaid still against accused it is difficult to believe on the basis of evidence available. Those aspects stated above have not put the accused to trouble. Prosecution is expected to adduce the evidence of highest standard which would possess the strength of convincing the court discharging the burden aforesaid. But, though forgery of signatures 27 Cc 20739 of 2008 and faking of franking can be believed, still those things cannot be believed to have been done/committed at the instance of accused. Because there is nothing on record to prove that at the instance of accused only, those documents and those items which have been allegedly used for the purpose of forgery and faking the franking activities have been recovered. Therefore, all the aforementioned aspects collectively put the case of the prosecution to dark. Thus, Point No.2 is answered in the Negative.
33. Point No.3 : So far as the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC is concerned, necessary ingredients of the said section which are necessarily be established in this case are that the accused has used those documents in exhibits as genuine despite they being forged and they have been used with evil intention. Because section 471 of IPC contemplates that whoever fraudulently and dishonestly use those forged documents as genuine documents or other 28 Cc 20739 of 2008 record ( Electronic record) knowingly well or has the reason to believe that the documents are forged etc, in such an event, the punishment would be attracted as if such person himself has forged such document.
34. But in the case on hand, as discussed herein above, although it is clear before this court that these documents aforementioned which are present in exhibits have been forged and franking on them has been done illegally, they are concocted, fabricated and what not etc, but this court did not find any material on record to believe that these documents have been used by accused as genuine despite having knowledge that they have been forged etc. Because there is nothing on record which would prove and show that the accused had in his possession these documents and he had used them and was using them as on the date of alleged raid particularly at the time when the raid came to be laid against him. Because the failure of the prosecution to examine the witnesses of seizure 29 Cc 20739 of 2008 mahazr or spot mahazar, in the considered opinion of this court, has touched the root of the matter and has disturbed this case entirely and the failure of the prosecution in examining such witnesses has rendered the entire case unbelievable against accused. Though the fabrication, creation, concoction, forging, franking, faking of documents present on record can be believed based on the evidence of the prosecution, but those things cannot be believed against accused in the absence of evidence.
35. Though the accused has not been able to put forward his defence against the case convincingly, though he has not cross examined few of the witnesses mentioned herein above, still they do not fix him in the case because of the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving the case. Because none of the witnesses have deposed against the accused except PW1. PW1 is none other than the person, who allegedly laid the raid against 30 Cc 20739 of 2008 accused when he was present in his shop allegedly with those documents present in exhibits. Therefore based upon his sole testimony case cannot be believed to have been established beyond reasonable doubt and for all the above reasons Point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
36. Point No.4: It is needless to state that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused as on the date of the alleged raid had in his possession the documents of such nature which have been morefully described under sections 464 and 467 of IPC, knowingly well that those documents have been forged and they have been intended towards use as a genuine.
37. As aforesaid it is no doubt true that the prosecution by virtue of the exhibits present in this matter has established that those documents have 31 Cc 20739 of 2008 been forged, erased, concocted, fakely franked etc. The point which the prosecution should have proved necessarily in this matter is that those documents in exhibits aforementioned have been seized at the instance of accused from his possession in the aforementioned shop situated at Kormangala. In view of failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged raid and seizure of those documents in exhibits to have been made at the instance of accused, the very base of the case got shaken. The evidence let in by the prosecution does not prove the aforementioned aspect. The possession of the accused with respect to those exhibits as on the date of alleged raid has not been established. Because the offence punishable under section 474 of IPC would be attracted when the possession of accused over the document or any record, electronic record, with his knowledge that they have been forged. If he uses such materials fraudulently and dishonestly as genuine and if such document is one of such descriptions mentioned in 32 Cc 20739 of 2008 Section 466 of 467 of IPC, the consequences shall follow. In the case on hand, it is no doubt true as aforesaid that those exhibits inclusive of rent agreement, lease agreement etc., have been forged and they are of such a nature which have been morefully described in section 466 and 467 of IPC and in addition to that fake franking also can be believed based upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But the necessary ingredient of section 474 of IPC is the possession over those documents. It shall be proved against accused. It should be the deciding factor. In this case, although the prosecution has proved the nature of those documents present in exhibits, at the same time prosecution is not at all successful and miserably failed to establish the possession of accused over those exhibits. Therefore, one of the foremost ingredient of section 474 of IPC, which has been alleged against the accused, has not been established with the help of cogent evidence. Therefore, considering the nature of the evidence let in 33 Cc 20739 of 2008 by the prosecution , failure of the prosecution to establish the possession over those documents against accused, failure of the prosecution in examining the necessary witnesses as to mahazar, there is nothing on record which may prove, the possession of the accused over those exhibits particularly as on the date of alleged raid allegedly laid against accused.
38. For the purpose of clarity section 474 of IPC is extracted herein below;
Section 474 in The Indian Penal Code
474. Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.--1[Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code], be punished with imprisonment of 34 Cc 20739 of 2008 either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with 2[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
39. Taking into consideration the aforementioned aspects collectively the point No.4 is hereby answered in the Negative.
40. Point No.5 : Taking into consideration all the aforementioned aspects collectively, this court opines that the foregoing aspects warrant the following operative portion ;
OPERATIVE PORTION Invoking section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 420, 467, 471, 474 of IPC.
35 Cc 20739 of 2008 The bail bonds and Surety bonds of accused, if any, will be in force till completion of appeal period, thereafter, they shall stand cancelled.
MO.1 being cash of Rs.11,000/ which has been morefully stated in S.I.No.4 of P.F.No.150/2005 dated 05/09/2005 in item No.4 shall be confiscated to the state and necessary documents regarding confiscation of the said money shall be furnished to the court.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court today, that is on 30072021) S.S.BHARATH XLI (41ST) ACMM, BENGALURU 36 Cc 20739 of 2008 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: PW.1 : V.K.Vasudev PW.2 : Puttaswamy PW.3 : Thyagaraj PW.4 : M.Srinivas PW.5 : Karibasavana gowda.P PW.6 : C.B.Nanjundaswamy PW.7 : N.A. Ramesh PW.8 : G.Nagaraj List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of CW2 Ex.P.1(c) : Signature of CW3 Ex.P.1(d) : Signature of CW4 Ex.P.2 : Requisition for arrest Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.3 to 7 : Sample Stamp paper denomination of Rs.20/ each Ex.P.8 to 12 : Sample Stamp Paper denomination of Rs.50/ each.
Ex.P.13 to 157 : Sample Stamp paper denomination of Rs.50/ each Ex.P.158 to 277: Sample Stamp Paper denomination of Rs.20/ each.
Ex.P.278 : True Copy of letter
Ex.P.278(a) : Signature of PW2.
Ex.P.279 : True copy of letter
Ex.P.279(a) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P.280 : True copy of letter of SubRegistrar
Anekal
Ex.P.280(a) : Signature of PW4
37 Cc 20739 of 2008
Ex.P.281 : True copy of letter of SubRegistrar
Anekal
Ex.P.281(a) : Signature of PW4
Ex.P.282 : True copy of letter of SubRegistrar
Mandya
Ex.P.282(a) : Signature of PW5.
Ex.P.283 : True copy of Reply letter
Ex.P.283(a) : Signature of PW7.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused : NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the accused : MO.1 : cash of Rs.11,000/ S.S.BHARATH XLI (41ST) ACMM, BENGALURU