Bangalore District Court
State By Chennammanakere vs Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal on 14 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 14th day of September 2017
PRESENT
*******
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.1205/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Chennammanakere
Acchukattu
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.
Vs.
ACCUSED: 1. Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal
Giri @ Prashanth Raj @
Ashwath
S/o Veeranna Gowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Hosur Village
Moduru Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2. Govinda @ Govindaraju,
S/o Kempegowda,
Aged about 28 years,
2 SC.No.1205/2015
R/at Chikkakallya Village,
Thippasandra Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
3. Srinivasa @ Vasu,
S/o Guligowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.19/B,
Pipeline, Weavers Colony,
Srinagar,
Bangalore.
4. Krishna,
(SPLIT-UP)
5. Ramdas B. Shet,
S/o Late Beerappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.63, 11th Cross,
Someshwara Jewelers,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore.
1. Date of Commission : 15.01.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 15.01.2014
of Offence
3. Status of the accused : Accused Nos.1 to 3
are in J.C. and accused
No.5 is on bail
4. Name of the : Sri Mohan C.
complainant
3 SC.No.1205/2015
5. Date of :
Commencement of 22.03.2017
evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
28.08.2017
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections
394, 427, 411, 413
of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused not found guilty
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of the charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector, Chennammanakere Acchukattu P.S., Bengaluru City against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 411, 413 and 427 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief of the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2014 at about 08:15 pm the CW.1-Mohan.C was standing near his garage situated at 2nd Main, Banashankari III stage, Bengaluru. At that time totally 4 SC.No.1205/2015 four people came in motor cycle and through long they damaged Maruthi Alto car bearing registration No.KA-03- MJ-2732 and thereafter they have snatched the two golden chain from the neck of Mohan.C. It is also alleged that the CW-2-Mahendra was in his Ford Endeavour car bearing registration No.KA-04-MF-2262 and even those four people damaged the car of Mahendra with long and macchu and snatched golden chain and three golden ring from the possession of Mahendra and even those four person caused injury to Mohan.C and Mahendra and went away. The value of golden ornaments belonging to Mahendra and Mohan was Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. Mohan.C on the very day filed his information at about 10.00 P.M. to Chennammanakere Acchukattu Police and the Chennammanakere Acchukattu Police registered the case against the unknown persons in Crime No.7/2014 for the offence under Section 394 of IPC and launched the investigation.
5 SC.No.1205/2015
4. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer found that Byatarayanapura Police registered case in Crime No.171/2004 for the offence under Section 399 and 402 of IPC. It has been ascertained by the Investigating Officer that in the said crime the present accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested and at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4, the golden ornaments of Mohan.C and Mahendra have been seized by Byatarayanapura Police. During the investigation it has been found that accused Nos.1 to 4 sold the golden ornaments of Mohan.C and Mahendra to accused No.5 Ramdas. Thereafter the accused No.5 sold those ornaments in the shop of Manjunath Jewelers situated at Malleshwaram, Bengaluru and CW.15 was running such shop. Those ornaments have been recovered from the CW.15 on the basis of voluntary statement given by accused No.1 and 5. On these allegations the prosecution has contended that the 6 SC.No.1205/2015 accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the robbery of golden ornaments of Mohan.C and Mahendra by showing deadly weapon by damaging two cars and accused No.5 has received the stolen property with knowledge that those ornaments were stolen properties and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the offence under Section 394 and 427 of IPC and accused No.5 has committed the offence under Section 411 and 413 of IPC.
5. The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet before the Learned II ACMM against accused Nos.1 to 5 which came to be registered in C.C.No.9922/2015. The learned magistrate has committed the case against the accused No.1 to 5 for trial.
6. The presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 have been secured and they have represented through their counsel. The accused No.4 Krishna did not appear and he is absconding. Thus, the case against accused No.4 came to be split up. After hearing both sides charge has 7 SC.No.1205/2015 been framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 394 and 427 of IPC. The charge has been framed against the accused No.5 for the offence under Section 411 & 413 of IPC. The accused No.1 to 3 and 5 have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses as PW.s 1 to 9 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.32 and material object at M.O.1. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. who have denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The accused have not adduced any evidence in their defence.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
9. Having regard to the materials placed on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the following points arise for my determination: 8 SC.No.1205/2015
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 15.01.2014 at 8.15 P.M. by the side of Mohan Garage, 2nd Main, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 3 along with accused No.4 caused injury to CW.1/Mohan and Mahendra through long and snatched golden chains and finger rings and thereby committed the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused Nos.1 to 3 along with accused No.4 damaged the Car bearing registration No.KA-03-MJ-2732 and Ford Endeavour bearing registration No.KA-04-MF-2262 and caused loss worth more than Rs.50/- to the owners of the vehicle and thereby committed the offence under Section 427 of I.P.C.?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date after committing robbery the accused No.1 to 3 along with accused No.4 sold the 9 SC.No.1205/2015 above said golden chains to the accused No.5 and the accused No.5 dishonestly received the golden chain knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen properties and thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence under Section 411 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.5 was habitually receiving or dealing with properties from accused Nos.1 to 3 along with accused No.4 knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen properties and thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence under Section 413 of IPC?
5. What Order?
10. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 to 4 :- In the Negative
POINT No.5 :- As per final order
for the following,
10 SC.No.1205/2015
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 & 2 :- The P.W.1 and 2 are the victims, P.W.5 and 6 are the eye witnesses, P.W.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses to scene of offence panchanama. The P.W.7 is the Police Inspector of Bytarayana pura Police Station, who has seized the ornaments, P.W.8 and 9 are the investigating officers.
12. The P.W.1 and 2 in their evidence have stated that on 15.01.2014 at about 08.00 to 08.30 pm., were standing near Mohan garage and such garage was run by P.W.1. They have also stated that about 6-7 persons attacked initially on P.W.1 and caused damaged to one car through macchu and long. They were wearing monkey caps and helmets. After attacking P.W.1, one of them snatched two golden chain from the neck of P.W.1. They have also stated that later on those 6-7 persons have damaged the car of P.W.2 and snatched golden chain and 11 SC.No.1205/2015 three golden rings from the possession of P.W.2 and went away.
13. The P.W.1 and 2 have stated that the P.W.1 has given complaint before the police, which is at Ex.P.1 on the very day and on the next date the police came to the spot and drawn the panchanama produced at Ex.P.2. The P.W.1 and 2 have deposed that about one year after the incident they came to know that Byatayanapura police seized their golden ornaments and therefore, both of them went to Byatarayanapura police station, wherein some golden ornaments shown to them. They have deposed that golden ornaments shown to them in Byatarayanapura police station not belong to them and that those ornaments were new ornaments and which were matching to their old ornaments. Therefore, they have obtained the interim custody of the ornaments through the order of the Court. Both witnesses have identified their ornaments which are visible in the photographs at Ex.P.3 to 6. They 12 SC.No.1205/2015 have also identified the damage cars, which are appearing in the photographs at Ex.P.7 to 10. These two witnesses have denied the identification of accused No.1 to 3 or remaining accused in the police station. They have stated that they have not able to identify the persons who have snatched the golden ornaments.
14. The prosecution has produced the wound certificates of P.W.1 and 2 at Ex.P.18 and 19 issued by Victoria Hospital. These certificates indicate that on 15.01.2014 the police sent P.W.1 and 2 to the hospital for treatment and both witnesses have taken treatment at about 11.20 pm. Both of them sustained some simple injuries in the incident and they were treated in OPD. The accused have not cross-examined the P.W.1 and 2 and therefore, their statements are unchallenged which is referred above.
13 SC.No.1205/2015
15. The P.W.5 and 6 have stated that about three years back or on 16.01.2015 they went near garage situated near Vidyapita which was run by P.W.1. At that time the public gathered near the garage and through public both of them came to know that somebody committed robbery and snatched the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2. These witnesses have denied the witnessing the incident and even these witnesses have not identified the accused No.1 to 3. The defence has not cross- examined P.W.5 and 6 and therefore, their statements that they went to the spot immediately after the incident and noticed the robbery on P.W.1 and 2 is unchallenged.
16. The P.W.3 and 4 have stated that their signatures are appearing in Ex.P.2 and those signatures were obtained by the police in the police station and not on the spot. Even after cross-examination by the prosecution these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
14 SC.No.1205/2015
17. The P.W.8 who was the Police Inspector of C.K. Acchukattu Police station has stated that on 15.01.2014 at 10.00 P.M. he received the first information from P.W.1 and registered the FIR produced at Ex.P.32. He has also stated that on the next date he went to the spot and drawn the Panchanama in the presence of P.W.3 and 4 between 9.00 A.M. and 10.30 A.M. He has also stated that at the time of Panchanama he recovered the broken glasses found on the spot which are marked at M.O.1. This evidence of P.W.8 has been denied by the P.W.8. The P.W.8 has stood for his statements.
18. On perusal of unchallenged statements of P.W.1 to 6 and the evidence of P.W.8, it is very clear that on 15.01.2014 at about 8.30 P.M. near the garage of P.W.1 about 3-4 people attacked on P.W.1, P.W.2 in order to commit robbery and thereby damaged Car bearing No.KA- 03-MJ-2732 and another vehicle bearing No.KA- 15 SC.No.1205/2015 04-MF-2262. The above said evidence also indicates that those 3-4 persons snatched golden two chains from P.W.1, one golden chain and three golden finger rings from P.W.2 by showing deadly weapons and even by causing injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2. Thereafter, the matter was reported by the P.W.1 to the Police and Police after registration of the FIR went to the spot and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.1. Therefore, based on this evidence I hold that the prosecution has proved the robbery on 15.01.2014 by four unknown persons on P.W.1 and 2 and snatching of golden ornaments. I further hold that those culprits have damaged the two vehicles at the time of committing the robbery and thereby committed the offence of mischief.
19. In order to connect the robbery of golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 with the accused, the prosecution has strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.7-Sathyanarayana, who was the Police Inspector of 16 SC.No.1205/2015 Byatarayanapura P.S. The P.W.7 has stated that on 16.04.2014 he arrested the accused No.4/Krishna and case in Crime No.171/2014 has been registered in his Police station for the offence under Section 399, 402 of IPC. He has also stated that he has filed first information produced at Ex.P.27 in the above said crime and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.26 by recovering the deadly weapons. He has also stated that the Joint Police Commissioner, Bengaluru city on 17.05.2014 formed the Team and the P.W.7 was the Head of the Team. The Team was required to arrest the remaining accused in Crime No.171/2014. He has also stated that himself and his Team went to Hindupura in Andhrapradesh and on 18.05.2014 at about 5.00 A.M. he conducted raid on the house of Krupakara Reddy, where the accused No.2, 3 of the present case and other accused were residing and thereby arrested the accused No.2/Govind, accused No.3/Srinivas along with Jagadeesh. He has also stated 17 SC.No.1205/2015 that from that house many material objects were recovered under the Panchanama at Ex.P.28. He has stated that when his Team was taking the above said accused, the accused No.2/Govind tried to escape and therefore, there was a firing. He has narrated about the criminal case registered against the accused No2/Govind in Devanahalli P.S. He has further stated that on 02.06.2014 he has taken the custody of accused No.1/Girish through the Court.
20. Ex.P.26, Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 are relating to registration of Crime No.171/2014 of Bytarayanapura P.S. These records and the evidence of P.W.7 that he arrested the accused No.2/Govind, accused No.3/Srinivas on 18.05.2014 and taking of accused No.1 to his custody on 02.06.2014 are trust-worthy. Such statements of P.W.7 has not been shaken in the cross-examination. Therefore, it is suffice to say that prosecution through the evidence of P.W.7 and the documents at Ex.P.26 to P.28 established 18 SC.No.1205/2015 that the P.W.7 arrested the accused No.2, 3 and taken the accused No.1 into his custody in crime No.171/2014 of Byatarayanapura P.S.
21. The P.W.7 has stated that accused No.1 has given his voluntary statement before him on 03.06.2014 which has been produced at Ex.P.29. He has also stated that the accused No.5/Ramdas was running Someshwara Jewellers in Malleswaram, Bengaluru city and he has given his voluntary statement at Ex.P.30. The accused No.1 and 5 disclosed the fact that the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 have been sold by accused Nos.1 to 4 to accused No.5 and thereafter accused No.5 sold those ornaments in Manjunath Jewellers which was run by CW.15/Mahendra. Based on such discovery the P.W.7 went to the shop of Mahendra and recovered the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 and other ornaments relating to other case by drawing the Panchanama at Ex.P.31 in presence of Sri GNJ Rudra Prasad and Sri Pramod Kumar. 19 SC.No.1205/2015 This evidence of P.W.7, voluntary statement at Ex.P.29, 30 and Panchanama at Ex.P.31 have been seriously disputed by the accused.
22. In Ex.P.29 and 30 there are discovery statements about the sale of stolen properties of P.W.1 and 2 and such disclosure is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act. Accordingly, such statement is received in evidence by rejecting other statements relating to confession made before the Police. In order to believe that disclosure statements at Ex.P.29 and 30, which have been made by the accused No.1 and 5, the prosecution is required to prove the seizure based on the discovery. The P.W.7 has stated that under Ex.P.31 he has seized the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 along with other material objects from the possession of Mahendra/CW.15. As already stated such statement has been specifically denied by the accused. The golden ornaments recovered under Ex.P.31 are visible in the photographs at Ex.P.3 to 20 SC.No.1205/2015
6. The P.W.1 and 2 have stated that golden ornaments seized under Ex.P.31 have been received by them.
23. However, the P.W.1 and 2 in their evidence have categorically stated that ornaments received by them are similar to their ornaments but those ornaments were not the stolen properties. This evidence of P.W.1 and 2 indicate that properties recovered under Ex.P.31 are not the properties which were stolen from P.W.1 and 2, but those properties were similar. It appears that either new stolen ornaments have been given to P.W.1 and 2 or the culprits have changed the nature of stolen ornaments of P.W. 1 and 2. However, one thing is clear that the stolen properties of P.W.1 and 2 were not recovered by the Police in the original condition. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that the ornaments shown in Ex.P.3 to 6 and Ex.P.31 are the same ornaments which were stolen from the possession of P.W.1 and 2. So, there is a doubt about the recovery of ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 from 21 SC.No.1205/2015 Manjunath Jewellers at the instance of accused Nos.1 and
5.
24. When the accused have disputed the seizure of golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 from the shop of CW.15, seizure has to be proved through the evidence of panch witnesses. GNJ Rudraprasad and Pramod Kumar are the signatories to Ex.P.31. Both witnesses have not been examined. CW.15/Mahendra is reported to be dead and therefore, prosecution could not be able to examine him. Therefore, there is no independent evidence to prove the seizure of golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 from the shop of the shop of CW.15 on 05.06.2014. Against the accused many cases have been registered based on the recoveries shown by the P.W.7/Police Inspector. Looking to various cases, Court feels that in the absence of evidence of independent witness the statement of P.W.7 alone is not sufficient to prove the Panchanama at Ex.P.31. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed 22 SC.No.1205/2015 to prove that based on Ex.P.29 and 30 the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 have been recovered from the shop of CW.15. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has not proved the link between the statement at Ex.P.29, 30 and recovery at Ex.P.31. in accordance with law. Hence, evidence of P.W.7, statements at Ex.P.29, 30 and Ex.P.31 are not sufficient to prove the seizure at the instance of accused No.1 or at the instance of accused No.5
25. The P.W.7 has not seized any records of the jewellery shop of CW.15 relating to sale or purchase of golden ornaments shown in Ex.P.31. He has not recorded the statements of any of the neighbours residing or carrying business by the side of the shop of CW.15, who were present at the time of seizure. Therefore, on these grounds also the evidence of P.W.7 cannot be believed to prove the seizure under Ex.P.31.
23 SC.No.1205/2015
26. The other evidence relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused to the robbery is the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.9. The P.W.9 has stated that on 12.01.2015 the accused No.1 to 4 were in his custody in Crime No.63/2014 of C.K. Acchukattu P.S. He has also stated that he called the P.W.1, 2, Mahendra, Prakash, Vijay and Madhvesh and shown the accused No.1 to 3 and on 13.01.2015 again he called those witnesses to the police station and shown the accused No.4. He has stated that the witnesses have identified the accused Nos.1 to 4 and given additional statements before him regarding identification as culprits. The P.W.7 in his evidence has stated that on 24.06.2014 and also on 04.08.2014 he released the golden ornaments to P.W.1 and 2. He further states that on 05.06.2014 he shown the accused No.1/Giri and No.3/Srinivas, on 06.07.2014 he shown the accused No.2/Govind to the P.W.1/Mohan and Mohan has given his statements after identification of accused Nos.1 to 3. 24 SC.No.1205/2015
27. This evidence of P.W.7 and 9 has been denied by the accused. The additional voluntary statement said to be recorded by P.W.7 are at Ex.P.12 and P.13. The statement recorded by P.W.9 of P.W.1 are at Ex.P.14 and
15. The statements recorded by P.W.9 of P.W.2 are at Ex.P.16 and 17. The statement of P.W.1 dated 23.04.2014 produced at Ex.P.11 has been recorded by S. Krishna Murthy, Police Sub Inspector, Byatarayanapura P.S. and he has not been examined. This statement is relating to identification of accused No.4/Krishna.
28. The P.W.1 and 2 in their evidence categorically denied the identification of accused Nos.1 to 3, either before P.W.7 or before P.W.9. Both witnesses are the victims of the crime. Even before the court during the trial, the P.W.1 and 2 not identified the accused Nos.1 to
3. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is contradicting with the statements recorded by P.W.7 and P.W.9 referred 25 SC.No.1205/2015 above and even their statement is contradicting with the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.9. When the maker of the statement contradicts the statements, there creates reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter the evidence ofpw.7 and P.W.9 not sufficient to prove the fact that P.W.1, 2 and other eye-witnesses have identified the accused Nos.1 to 3 by saying that they have committed robbery reported in the case. On this ground I hold that evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.9 not sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged robbery and the offence of mischief.
29. The Investigating Officers have not conducted Test Identification Parade after arrest of accused Nos.1 to 3 by calling the P.W.1, 3 and Prakash. If the Test Identification Parade was conducted, the real truth would have been came out before filing of the charge sheet itself. Therefore, non-compliance of such Test is also fatal 26 SC.No.1205/2015 to the prosecution. Thus, I answer these points in the Negative.
30. POINT NO.3 & 4 : There is an allegation against the accused No.5 that he received the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 2 from the accused Nos.1 to 4 knowing that the ornaments were stolen properties. Further there is an allegation that the accused No.5 was habitually receiving the stolen property. In order to prove such allegation again the prosecution relied upon the evidence discussed above. It is concluded that there is no evidence on record to believe that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed robbery on P.W.1 and 2 and snatched the golden ornaments. It is also concluded that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Nos.1 to 3 have sold the ornaments to accused No.5 and he in turn sold the ornaments to CW.15/Mahendra, from whom the ornaments have been recovered. The P.W.9 has stated that the accused No.5 was receiving the stolen property. 27 SC.No.1205/2015 Such statement is not supported with any material. Therefore, absolutely no evidence is produced to prove the allegation made against the accused No.5. Thus, I hold that the accused No.5 is not guilty for the offence under Section 411 or under Section 413 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative.
31. Point No.5- For the above said reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 394 and 427 of IPC and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 & 413 of IPC.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases.28 SC.No.1205/2015
Issue intimation to jail authority
accordingly.
No order regarding disposal of material objects passed since split-up charge sheet is pending against the accused No.4/Krishna.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of September 2017).
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Mohan C P.W.2 Mahendra P.W.3 Harish P.W.4 Kiran P.W.5 Prakash P.W.6 Vijay B.L. P.W.7 Sathyanarayana K.P. P.W.8 Bharmappa Bhimaiah P.W.9 B.K. Shekhar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Report by P.W.1
Ex.P.1(a),(b) Signature of P.W.1, 8
Ex.P.2 Incidental mahazar
29 SC.No.1205/2015
Ex.P.2(a,b,c) Signature of P.W.1, 3, 4
Ex.P.3-10 Photpgraphs
Ex.P.11 - 17 Statements
Ex.P.18 Wound certificate
Ex.P.19 Wound certificate
Ex.P.20, 21,23 Statement of Prakash Ex.P.24,25 Statement of Vijay Ex.P.26 Mahazar Ex.P.27 Complaint Ex.P.28 Sezirue mahazar Ex.P.29 Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.30 Voluntary statement of accused No.5 Ex.P.31 Mahazar Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.32 FIR in Cr.No.7/14 Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.8 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1 Broken glass pieces
(B.B. JAKATI)
LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.