Bangalore District Court
Thyagarajanagara Ps vs A1 Sunai on 30 June, 2025
1 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
KABC010386292019
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-48)
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2025
PRESENT
Sri Satish J.Bali, B.Com., LL.M.,
XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge
for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48)
SPL.CC.NO.1420/2019
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka by
Thyagarajanagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED: 1. Sri . Sunay
S/o Late A.P. Sukumar,
Aged about 28 years.
2. Smt. Akshatha
W/o Sunay,
Aged about 28 yeas.
Both are residing at No.208,
2nd Cross, 1st Block,
Jnanabharti Layout,
Bangalore-560 059.
A1 & A2 - By Sri BKG, Advocate
2 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
1.Date of Commission of Offence: During the
period from
1/8/2015 to
22/09/2015
2. Date of Report of Offence : 22/09/2015
3. Arrest of Accused : Accused 1 & 2 are on
bail.
4. Name of the complainant : Nanjunde Gowda
5. Date of recording of Evidence : 29/10/2022
6. Date of closing Evidence : 07/02/2025
7. Offences complained of : Sec.406, 420, 506
r/w Sec. 34 IPC, and
Sec.4 punishable u/s
76 of Chit Funds Act,
1982 and Sec.9 of
KPIDFE Act.
8. Opinion of the Judge : As per the final order
(Satish J. Bali)
XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru (CCH-48)
****
JUDGMENT
This is a charge-sheet filed by the
Thyagarajanagara Police Station, Bengaluru as
3 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, for the offences punishable under Section 4 and 75 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and also for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.
2. The case of the prosecution as could be borne out from the records is that, the deceased Accused no.3 by name Sukumar s/o Late Pachhanna with intention to cheat was running chit business without obtaining license from the competent authority under the name and style "Adinatha Enterprises" at 3rd Block, 2nd Cross, No.12/20 of Thyagarajanagara and collected a sum of Rs 60,00,000 (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) from CW1 to CW44 and other subscribers. It is the also the case of the prosecution that after the death of Sukumar on 1/8/2015, the Accused no.1 being his son and Accused no.2 being daughter - in-law of the deceased 4 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 continued the said business and with an intention to cheat have collected the last two installments from the CW.1 to CW.44 and other subscribers and have not returned the chit amount after maturity amounting to Rs.60,00,000/-. It is also the case of the prosecution that when subscribers demanded their chit amount, the Accused no.1 and 2 postponed the same and threatened with dire consequences, if the chit amount is demanded back and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. After filing of the charge-sheet, as there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 and 76 of Chit Funds Act and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act was taken by this Court. The Accused no.1 and 2 appeared in response to the summons through their counsel. The prosecution papers furnished to the Accused in 5 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,and were enlarged on bail.
4. The Accusation for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 and 76 of Chit Funds Act and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. The Accused by understanding the same did not plead guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has got examined as many as 38 witnesses as PWs.1 to 38 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P50, and closed its side.
6. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution were read over to both Accused in compliance of Section 313 of Cr.P.C,. The accused have denied the same and not chosen to lead any Defence evidence. In the 6 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the Death Certificate of Accused no.3 - Sukumar and extract of diary were confronted and marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
7. Heard Learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as Learned Counsel for Accused and perused materials.
8. The following points arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention and being the son and daughter-in-law of Sukumar, who was running the chit business in the name and style "Adinatha Enterprises" at Thyagarajanagar, Bengaluru without sanction from the concerned authority and illegally collected the amount from CWs-1 to 44 to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- by assuring them to return the amount on demand and having domain over the amount, 7 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 cheated the investors by not repaying the amount and thereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Sec.406 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, to cheat the chit subscribers CWs-1 to 44, have illegally collected the chit amount to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- by assuring to run the chit business in the name and style of "Adinatha Enterprises" after death of Sukumar and failed to refund the amount to the investors and thereby committed the offence of cheating punishable under Sec.420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, to cheat the chit subscribers CWs-1 to 44, have illegally collected the chit amount to the tune of 8 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Rs.60,00,000/- by assuring to run the chit business in the name and style of "Adinatha Enterprises" and failed to conduct the chits and repay the amount to the subscribers. When the subscribers demanded for refund, accused threatened them with dire consequences of life and thereby committed the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Sec.506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, being the son and daughter-
in-law of Sukumar, who was running the chit business in the name and style "Adinatha Enterprises" at Thyagarajanagar, Bengaluru without sanction from the State Government and illegally collected the amount from CWs-1 to 44 and other members towards chit business and accused after death of Sukumar, having common intention to cheat the investors, have collected the chit 9 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 amount to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/-
but not repaid the same and thereby committed the offence within the meaning of Sec.4 punishable under Sec.76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Nos.1 and 2, being the son and daughter-in-
law of Sukumar, who was running the
chit business in the name and style
"Adinatha Enterprises" at
Thyagarajanagar, Bengaluru without
sanction from the State Government
and illegally collected the amount from CWs-1 to 44 to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- after death of Sukumar and failed to return the deposits made by the subscribers and thereby committed the offence under Section 9 KPIDFE Act?
6. What Order ?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative;
Point No.2: In the Negative;10 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
Point No.3: In the Negative;
Point No.4: In the Negative;
Point No.5: In the Negative;
Point No.6: As per final order; for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 TO 5 : Since these all points are connected and linked with each other,they are taken up for common discussion in order to avoid repetition.
11. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor with reference to the FIR, first information, charge-sheet and other relied upon documents by the prosecution submitted that the father of the accused no.1 Sukumar was carrying on chit business under the name and style "Adinatha Enterprizes at Tyagarajanagar, Bengaluru without registration of the said firm. It is submitted that, he reported to be dead before filing the charge-sheet and Accused being son and daughter-in-law of the deceased 11 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Sukumar continued the said business and assured the subscribers to continue the chit business and accepted last two installments of chit from the subscribers and there-afterwards they have not paid the prized money to the subscribers. It is also submitted that after investigation, the Investigating Officer having found materials, filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 and 76 of Chit Funds Act and also for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act. It is submitted that as the Accused continued the chit business started by the deceased Sukumar without registration and license,as such there is a violation of provisions of Chit Funds Act, 1982 which is punishable under Section 76 of Chit Funds Act. It is also submitted that the Accused by continuing the chit business without registration and without obtaining valid permission from the competent 12 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 authority have conducted illegal transactions and deceived the subscribers without disclosing the fact that they have not obtained license from the competent authority. It is also submission of Learned Special Public Prosecutor that Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 the Registers alleged to have been maintained in connection with the above said chit business were seized by the Investigating Officer and PWs.1 to PW.44 have deposed that after the death of Sukumar, Accused have continued a chit business. With reference to the mahazar Ex.P4, it is submitted that the accused no.2 has produced the registers Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 which were maintained at the offence of 'Adinatha Enterprises'. It is also submitted that as per the definition of 'Chits', an agreement has to be entered but no such agreement was entered into by the accused with the subscribers. It is submitted that the accused induced the subscribers to invest in chit business on the belief that the said business was in accordance 13 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 with law and deceived them and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is also submitted that there is no enmity or hostility between the subscribers and accused, as such their evidence has to be believed. Hence, on all these grounds, it is prayed to convict the accused for the alleged offences.
12. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the accused submitted that, heavy burden is casted upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. But, though it is the case of the prosecution that after the death of Sukumar, accused no.1 and 2 have received last two installments of chit amount from the subscribers and not paid the prized amount, but there are no documents to show that accused no.1 and 2 have received last two installments from the subscribers. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove by producing any documents that deceased Sukumar was running chit business. It is submitted 14 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 that, though the prosecution witnesses have got marked the small diaries but they does not contain neither the signature of the accused nor that of deceased Sukumar. The writings in the diary are not proved by the prosecution, and there are no documents to show that Accused persons continued chit business of deceased Sukumar. It is also submitted that even though prosecution under seizure mahazar seized two registers alleged to have been maintained in connection with the chit business but the said registers does not contain neither the signature of the Accused nor that of deceased Sukumar. It is submitted that Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are not proved to be in the handwriting of accused persons or that of deceased Sukumar. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the relationship of the accused persons with 'Adinatha Enterprises'. It is also canvassed that the prosecution has not explained the entries made in the diaries alleged to have been maintained by the 15 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 deceased Sukumar. It is submitted that, the complainant nor the witnesses never became successful bidders in the alleged chit business and if at all really deceased Sukumar was running the chit business, the prosecution ought to have examined the successful bidders, but no such successful bidders were examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some of the subscribers were not directly transacted with the deceased Sukumar as they alleged to have paid the subscription amount through somebody. It is also canvassed that though PW.1 in his cross- examination stated that he became subscriber of two chits of Rs.20,000/- each, he being income tax assesse has not shown the said amount in his income tax returns and any payment of Rs.20,000/- or more is to be made by cheque. It is submitted that, the witnesses examined by the prosecution were never participated in the bid and they never 16 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 became successful bidders, and some of the witnesses does not even know who were all the members of their chit. It is also submitted that, the case of the prosecution that the subscribers have paid chit amount in cash cannot be believed as the payments can be made through electronic mode. Therefore, on all these grounds, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit the accused.
13. In reply, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that since it is the case of the prosecution that the Accused carried on chit business illegally without license or without registration certificate, it cannot be expected from the prosecution to produce any documents, as it is a case of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is submitted that, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are secured from Accused no.2 and when substantial evidence is placed on record, it is not necessary to corroborate the same. With respect to non- examination of successful bidders, it is submitted 17 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 that they have taken their money, as such they cannot be expected to come before the court to depose as against the accused. It is submitted that accused are beneficiaries of the chit business as they gulped of the money of the subscribers. Hence, they are liable to be punished under law.
14. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the chit business run by the accused does not fall under any of the provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act. As such, said charges are not maintainable, as against the accused.
15. I have tested the above said arguments canvassed by both learned counsels with materials on record.
16. Before appreciating the above said arguments of both learned counsels,it is necessary to know the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
18 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
17. The prosecution in order to prove its case has got examined as many as 38 witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.38 who are none other than the subscribers of alleged chit. The prosecution has also got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P50. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, the Death extract of deceased Sukumar and extract of small diary were confronted and got marked on behalf of the accused as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
18. The materials on record would reveal that the father of Accused no.1 Sukumar died on 1/8/2015. This fact is fortified the death extract marked at Ex.D1 and Ex.P39. It is not in dispute that Accused no.1 is the son of Sukumar and Accused no.2 is his daughter-in-law. In other words, the Accused are husband and wife.
19. The law was set into motion on the first information lodged by PW.1- Nanjundaiah s/o Krishne Gowda. The first information is got marked as Ex.P1. As per the first information, the deceased 19 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Sukumar was running chit business under the name and style 'Adinatha Enterprises' at 4 th Block, 34d Main of Tyagarajanagar, Bengaluru, and he was the subscriber of two chits of Rs.5,00,000/- with deceased Sukumar, and paid chit amount of Rs.20,000/- each in respect of the said chit on 7 th day of every month and accordingly the other subscribers at sl.no. 1 to 33 mentioned in the first information participated in the chit by investing their money. The first information further reveals that Sukumar died on 1/8/2015 at BGS hospital and when he along with other subscribers went near the office of 'Adinatha Enterprises' found the accused who were present in the office told that they will continue the chit business and requested to pay the remaining installments of chit to them and accordingly for the month of July and August 2015, the first informant had paid Rs.80,000/- to the accused. The first information also reveals that the accused assured to continue the chit business from 20 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 4/9/2015, but closed down the said business and absconded. As per the first information, the accused have cheated an amount to an extent of Rs.80,00,000/-. On the basis of the said information, the FIR at Ex.P35 came to be registered by Tyagarajanagar Police in their Crime No. 149/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act and Section 420 and 34 of IPC.
20. The first informant in his examination in chief has deposed that the father of the accused was doing chit business in the name of 'Adinatha Enterprises' at Tyagarajanagar in 13 different types of chits having different amounts. He further deposed that he became subscriber of two chits of Rs.5,00,000/- each and used to pay Rs.20,000/- per month. He further deposed that after the death of sukumar, the accused no.1 collected the chit amounts from the members stating that he will continue the chit and failed to pay prized amount 21 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 and thereby cheated him and others. He has spoken as to the lodging of first information, drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P2. In the cross-examination initially he stated that he subscribed the chit with Shivakumar but subsequently admitted that the name of the father of accused no.1 is Sukumar. He admitted that he came in contact with father of accused no.1 in Rakesh Medical Store who informed him of running chit business and asked him to subscribe the chit. He admitted that in the first information he has not stated about the payment of chit amount for a period of 18 months and also admitted that any transaction above Rs.20,000/- should be made through cheque only. He admitted that, the payment of chit amount has not been declared by him in his income tax returns. Though PW.1 stated that he has produced copy of notebook as to payment of chit amount but no such material is forthcoming. Though PW.1 stated that the accused no.1 and 2 after receipt of the amount on 4/9/2015 22 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 made an entry in the notebook but no such notebook is borne out from the materials.
21. The prosecution has also got examined one Sri Arokyanathan s/o Antony Crus as PW.2 who also deposed in line with the complainant and apart from it, he deposed that he was a member of two chits of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively and used to pay Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively every month and paid the said amount for a period of 10 months. He stated that in the year 2016, the father of the accused no.1 died and there-afterwards accused no.1 collected chit amount from the members by continuing business. He got marked copy of the diary in which entries as to payment of the chit amount is made as per Ex.P3. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the 'Adinatha Enterprises' was not registered and he came in contact with deceased Sukumar through one Geetha. He failed to state the date when the chit was commenced. He admitted 23 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 that he had transactions only with deceased Sukumar and not with accused persons. He has also deposed as to drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P4 under which the Registers Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were seized from the accused no.2.
22. PW.3 - Smt. Shanthi w/o Rajendra has also deposed that she was a subscriber of chit of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively and she was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly she has paid three installments from 18/1/2014 to 18/6/2015 and from 12/4/2015 to 12/6/2015. She deposed that after the death of Sukumar, the accused continued the chit business. In the cross- examination, this witness has clearly admitted that she has not given chit amount to the accused no.1 and 2 and they never run the chit business. On the other hand, she admitted that father of the accused no.1 had repaid the chit amount during his lifetime and she has not subscribed for chit with accused 24 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 no.1 and 2. This evidence of PW.3 makes it very clear that she has not supported the case of the prosecution.
23. PW.4 - Smt. Vedavathi w/o Shivashankar has deposed that she became a subscriber of chit of Rs.1,50,000/- and she is paying Rs.5,000/- every month having duration of 30 months. In total, she had paid Rs. 1,05,000/- and she used to send money to the accused through her neighbor CW.9 who was also subscriber of the chit. She deposed that after the death of Sukumar, accused no.1 and 2 collected money from her towards chit for about two months and she got identified the diary in which alleged entries are made as Ex.P7. In the cross- examination, though she stated that she had paid 24 installments of chit amount to deceased Sukumar and remaining two installments to the accused no.2, but admitted that in Ex.P7, the signature of the accused is not forthcoming. She admitted that she has no records to show that she used to pay the chit 25 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 amount through Sarojamma CW.9. She also admitted that she has no documents to show that she has paid the chit installments to the Accused.
24. PW.5 - Smt. Sarojamma w/o Siddaram deposed that she became subscriber of chit of Rs.1,50,000/- and had paid Rs.5,000/- every month, in total she paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased Sukumar and to the accused and she got identified the diary as per Ex.P8. But, in the cross- examination, she admitted that in Ex.P8, the signature of the accused is not forthcoming and they have not issued any receipts for having collected the chit amount. She admitted that she has not approached the Registrar of chit in connection with not running the chit business in accordance with provisions of Chit Funds Act. She also admitted that in Ex.P8, signature of neither deceased nor Accused is forthcoming.
25. PW.6- Sri Umesh s/o Neelappa has deposed that from 13/1/2015 to 13/7/2015, he 26 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 paid chit amount of Rs.5,000/- every month to the deceased Sukumar having chit amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He submitted that when deceased Sukumar was not feeling well, the accused continued the chit business and last two months, he has paid chit amount to the accused. He got identified the diary in which Sukumar alleged to had made entries after receipt of the chit amount as Ex.P10 and Ex.P12. In the cross-examination, this witness failed to state the exact number of participants of the chit. He also failed to state the highest bidder of chit which was conducted on 13/1/2015. This witness admits that he does not know other subscribers of the chit and Ex.P12 is not containing the entry made by the accused.
26. PW.7 - Smt. Kavitha w/o Keshavamurthy deposed that through her mother Sarojamma CW.9, she came to know about the accused who were running the chit business under the name and style 'Adinatha Enterprises' in which she became 27 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 subscriber of chit of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively which were commenced from 14/1/2014 to 14/8/2015. She deposed that chit of Rs.60,000/- was commenced from 13/1/2015 to 13/8/2015 and she used to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively in connection with above said chits. She deposed that last two installments were paid in the hands of accused no.1 and 2 who have not made entries of the same in the diary. She got marked the said diary as per Ex. P9, Ex.P20 and Ex.P21. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that when she started to invest in chit business, she was not working and the signature of the accused is not forthcoming in the diaries got marked as Ex.P9, Ex.P20 and Ex.P21. She admitted that she has not personally paid last two installments of chit into the hands of accused no.1 and 2, but same has been paid through her mother. She admitted that she has not claimed the chit amount.
28 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
27. The prosecution has also got examined Smt.Kamalamma w/o Munivenkatappa as PW.8 who deposed that she became subscriber of two chits of RS.60,000/- each and used to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- each. She deposed that in total, she has paid Rs.35,000/- and said chit was commenced on 13/1/2015. She deposed that last two installments of the chit amount were collected by the accused no.2, and in this regard, she got marked diary pertaining to receipt of the chit amount as Ex.P11. In the cross-examination, this witness failed to state the name of the accused no.1. Further, she admitted that she did not participated in the auction, and on her behalf, her sister Sarojamma used to participate in the bid. She admitted that she directly has not paid chit amount to the accused. She admitted that she had no knowledge about the transaction and after the death of Sukumar, she has not approached concerned authority and except Ex.P11, she had not obtained any documents to show payment of chit 29 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 installments. She further admitted that, Ex.P11 does not contain the signature of the recipient of the chit amount.
28. The prosecution has also got examined Smt.Rathna w/o Basavaraju as PW.9 who deposed that she used to invest in chit of Rs.1,50,000/- which was commenced on 14/1/2014 and she used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month. She deposed that till the death of Sukumar, she paid chit amount to him and there-afterwards last two installments were paid to the accused. She got marked the diary as per Ex.P13 which was used to make entries after receipt of the chit amount. In the cross-examination, she admitted that the accused have not threatened her and she does not know about the license possessed by the accused to run the chit business. But, when Ex.P13 is carefully perused, it is quite clear that there are no entry as to the payment of chit amount as stated by this witness.
30 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
29. The prosecution has also got examined the other subscriber Smt. Madhumalthi w/o Anand as PW.10 who deposed that she became subscriber of prized amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by paying Rs.5,000/- every month which was commenced from October 2014 and continued till 2015. She deposed that she paid chit amount to the deceased Sukumar and after his death, last two installments were paid to the accused. She got identified the diary as to receipt of the chit amount as Ex.P14. In the cross- examination, she admits that accused no.1 and 2 have not made entries in Ex.P14 and signature of the deceased Sukumar also is not forthcoming in the said diary.
30. The prosecution has also got examined Smt.Padmavathi w/o Nagaraj as PW.11 who has deposed that deceased Sukumar was running chit business under the name and style 'Adinatha Enterprises' at Tyagarajanagar in which she subscribed for a chit of Rs.1,50,000/- and used to 31 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 pay Rs.5,000/- every month. She deposed that the duration of the said chit was from 7/10/2014 to 8/10/2015 and she paid every installments to the deceased Sukumar till he died and there-afterwards, she paid last two installments to the accused who continued the said chit business. She got marked the diary as Ex.P15. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that she has not claimed the chit amount and deceased Sukumar used to pay prized money to the successful bidder every month. This witness admitted that the accused have not threatened her. Though this witness has stated that deceased Sukumar used to make entry as to payment of installments in Ex.P15, but on perusal of Ex.P15, it is quite clear that there is no such entries as deposed by this witness.
31. PW.12 - Smt. Jayalakshmi w/o Shivalingaiah also deposed as to running of chit business by deceased Sukumar in which she became subscriber for a chit of Rs.1,50,000/- and 32 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Rs.60,000/-respectively. She deposed that in respect of chit of Rs.1,50,000/- which was commenced from 7/10/2014, she used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month and in respect of another chit of Rs.60,000/- which was commenced from 5/10/2014, she used to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- every month. She deposed that till the death of Sukumar she paid the installments to him and after his death, the accused no.1 received the said last two installments as they continued the chit business. She got marked the diary as per Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that in Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, the signature of the deceased Sukumar is not forthcoming. Though this witness in the examination in chief stated that in Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 entry as to the payment of above said installments used to be made. But, in the cross-examination admitted that said entries found in Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 are in respect of bid amount. Though this witness has stated that she had paid last installments in cash to 33 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the accused no.2, but Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 does not fortify the same.
32. PW.13 - Sri Krishnamurthy s/o Ramana Gowda has deposed that he became subscriber of chit amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which commenced from 3/5/2013 to 6/7/2015 and he used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month to deceased Sukumar till his death and there-afterwards he paid last two installments to the accused and he got marked the diary as per Ex.P18. He deposed that, in total, he has paid Rs.90,000/- towards chit. But, in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that under Ex.P18, signature of neither accused nor Sukumar is forthcoming and there were entries as to bid amount in Ex.P18.
33. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.C.S. Ramesh s/o C.V.Srinivasa Murthy as PW.14 who deposed that he became a subscriber of chit from 14/1/2014 to 14/7/2015 and he used to pay installment of Rs.5,000/- to the deceased 34 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Sukumar till his death, and there-afterwards he paid last two installments to the accused. He got identified the diary in which the above said entries were made as Ex.P19. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that though he participated in the bid, but he did not became successful. He admitted that the last two installments have not been entered in Ex.P19 diary. Though this witness has stated that he has personally paid last two installments to the accused no.1 at 'Adinatha Enterprises', but Ex.P19 does not supports the same, as there is no entry as to the payment of chit installments.
34. PW.15 - Smt. Sridevi w/o Rajashekar Reddy deposed that she became subscriber of chit of Rs.2.50 lakhs and used to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- every month and duration of the said chit was from 9/5/2014 to 9/7/2015, and she has paid the said installment amounting to Rs.1.80 lakhs to the deceased Sukumar and after his death, last two 35 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 installments were paid to the accused no.1 and 2. She got marked diary as per Ex.P22 and identified the accused before the court. In the cross- examination, she admitted that in Ex.P22, neither signature of deceased Sukumar nor that of her is forthcoming. She also admitted that entries are not found in Ex.P22 which are alleged to have been made by the accused. She further admitted that she does not know how the chit business runs and whether it is to be registered or not. She though stated that the person who conducts the chit business has to maintain a book in which a bid amount is to be entered but she admitted that she has not seen such registers.
35. PW.16 -Smt. K.T. Lakshmi w/o C.S. Ramesh deposed that she became a subscriber of chit of Rs.1.50 lakhs under which a sum of Rs.5,000/- was to be paid every month. She deposed that duration of the said chit was from 14/1/2014 to 14/7/2015. She has paid Rs.1.20 lakhs to the 36 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 deceased Sukumar and last installments were paid to the accused. She got marked the diary in which the above said entries as to the payment of chit installments are made as Ex.P23. In the cross- examination, this witness has admitted that in Ex.P23, neither signature of deceased Sukumar nor that of accused is forthcoming, and there are no documents to show that she has paid installments to the accused no.1 and 2. She admitted that the register in which successful bid used to be entered is not furnished by her to the police.
36. PW.17 - Smt. Manjula w/o Thirumalachar who was a Civil Engineer by profession stated before the court that she became a subscriber of chit of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and used to pay Rs.10,000/- every month to the deceased Sukumar and duration of the chit was from 9/5/2014 to 9/7/2015 and in total she has paid Rs.1.80 lakhs to the deceased Sukumar, and last two installments were paid to the accused no.1 and 2. She got identified the diary in 37 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 which the above said entries said to be made as Ex.P24. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that at the time of recording the statement, she has not stated the names of all the members of the chit, and in Ex.P24, the signature of the deceased Sukumar nor the seal of the firm is forthcoming. It is also admitted by this witness that in Ex.P24, the signature of accused no.1 and 2 is not forthcoming and except the said document, she has no other record to show that she paid the chit amount to the deceased. She also admitted that there are no documents with her which bears signature of deceased Sukumar relating to the alleged chit business.
37. PW.18 - Sri Prasad s/o Mare Gowda has deposed that he became subscriber of chit of RS.1.50 lakhs and used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month. The duration of the said chit was from 7/10/2014 to 7/10/2015, and he has paid Rs.60,000/- to the deceased Sukumar and last two 38 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 installments were paid to the accused. He deposed that, in small diary, an entry as to the payment of the above said installments was used to be made and same was got marked as Ex.P25. In the cross- examination, this witness has admitted that Ex.P25 does not contain the signature of the deceased Sukumar and nor the seal of 'Adinatha Enterprises' and also accused no.1 and 2 have not made entries made in Ex.P25. He admitted that except Ex.P25, there are no documents to show the payment of the chit amount.
38. PW.19 - Sri Sujan s/o K. Chinnabba has deposed that he became a subscriber of chit of prized amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs and used to pay Rs.10,000/- every month, and in total he has paid Rs.80,000/- to the deceased at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The duration of the chit was from 13/1/2015 to 13/7/2015 and last two installments were paid to the accused no.1 and 2, and got marked the diary in which the entries as to 39 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the payment of chit installments used to be made as Ex.P26. But,in the cross examination this witness failed to state the name of all the members of the chit and admitted that he has no knowledge about the chit transaction. He also admitted that he has no knowledge about the bid amount, and also of successful bidders for all eight months. He also admitted that Ex.P26 does not contain either the signature of the deceased Sukumar nor seal of the firm and also the accused no.1 and 2 have not made entries as to the last two installments and except said document, there are no documents to show that he has paid the chit installments to the accused.
39. The prosecution has also got examined one Smt. Saraswathi w/o Kumar as PW.20 who deposed that she became subscriber of chit of Rs.1.50 lakhs and used to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- every month. The duration of the chit was from 6/5/2014 to 6/7/2015 and in total, she has paid Rs.85,000/- to the deceased Sukumar and last two 40 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 installments were paid to the accused. She got marked the diary in which the entries as to the above said installments is made as Ex.P27. In the cross-examination, she admitted that Ex.P27 does not contain the entry as to the last two installments alleged to have been received by the accused no.1 and 2, and except the said document, there are no other documents to show that she has paid Rs.85,000/- to the deceased. She failed to state the names of members who were in the said chit.
40. PW.21 - Sri Basappa s/o Siddappa deposed that he became a subscriber of chit of Rs.1.50 lakhs with 'Adinatha Enterprises' which was run by deceased Sukumar and he used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month and in total he has paid Rs.1.25 lakhs and accused were required to pay Rs.1.50 lakhs to him. He deposed that the duration of the said chit was from 10/09/2013 to 10/6/2015 and last two installments were paid to the accused no.1 and 2. This witness in the cross-examination 41 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 admitted that in Ex.P28, there are no entries as to the payment of installments of Rs.5,000/- and also it does not contain the signature of neither deceased Sukumar nor accused. He admitted that in the register, the name of successful bidder will be entered and his signature will be obtained. He admitted that except Ex.P28, he has not produced any document. He admitted that in his statement, he stated that said chit was commenced from 10/9/2013 which is correct one. He also admitted that as per the request of complainant - Nanjundaiah, he has given a statement before the police and on his behalf also, Mr. Nanjundaiah has lodged the complaint. He failed to state the names of members of the said chit.
41. PW.22 - Sri Manjunath s/o Dorai, a Design Engineer by profession has deposed that he used to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- every month from 7/10/2014 to 7/7/2015 and he in total has paid Rs.60,000/-. He further stated that last two 42 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 installments have been paid to the accused and maturity amount of the chit was Rs.1.50 lakhs. He got identified the small book in which entry as to the said payment of chit installments is made as Ex.P29. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has received the prized amount in respect of chit which was commenced in the month of July 2012 and in Ex.P29, there is no entry as to payment of installment and it does not contain the signature of recipient of the installment. He admitted that there are no documents to show that he has paid last two installments of chit amount to the accused no.2. He further admitted that as per say of Nanjudaiah - the complainant, the police have recorded his statement.
42. The prosecution has also got examined one Gowrish s/o Basavaraj as PW.23 who has deposed that he became subscriber of chit of Rs.1.35 lakhs and used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month from 10/9/2013 to 10/7/2015 and he has paid in total 43 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Rs.1,15,000/- to the deceased Sukumar. He stated that he has paid last two installments to the accused no.1 and 2 and got identified the diary in which the payment of the above said installments used to be entered as Ex.P30. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that every time, he did not go personally to pay the chit amount either to the deceased Sukumar or to the accused no.1 and 2. He admitted that Ex.P30 does not contain payment of chit installment. He admitted that he has not participated in the bid and the accused no.1 and 2 have not made endorsement in any book for having received the last two installments. This witness has specifically admitted that he has not paid any installment into the hands of accused no.1 and 2. This admission makes it very clear that PW.23 never transacted with the accused no.1 and 2 in connection with payment of chit installments.
43. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Nagaraja. M s/o Mare Gowda as PW.24 who 44 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 stated that he became subscriber of chit of Rs.1.50 lakhs and used to pay chit amount in the hands of CW.28 and in total, he has paid Rs.55,000/-. He stated that after the death of Sukumar, last two installments were received by the accused no.1 and 2 and there is an entry as to the payment of the said installments in Ex.P31. This witness in the cross examination admitted that he used to pay the chit amount through his uncle Ekanthaiah and at any point of time, he never directly paid chit amount to the accused. He admitted that Ex.P31 was used to be returned to his uncle Ekanthaiah. He admitted that Ex.P31 does not contain the entries as to the payment of installment of chit and it does not contain the signature of the accused nor Ekanthappa.
44. PW.25 - Smt. Saraswathi w/o Mare Gowda has deposed that she used to pay sum of RS.3,000/- every month through her husband CW.31 and got identified the diary in which the 45 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 above said entry is made as Ex.P32. This witness in the cross examination admitted that she never directly paid the chit amount to the accused and she does not know who were running the chit business. She also failed to state the total amount of the chit and she has not obtained any document in writing to show that she had paid the chit amount.
45. The prosecution has also examined Smt.Sharadamma w/o Ekanathaiah as PW.26 who deposed that from 2015 she used to pay chit amount of Rs.2,000/- and last two installments were received by accused no.1 and 2 and after completion of the duration of the chit, she demanded for the prized amount. But, same has not been paid to her and accused have threatened with dire consequences. She further stated that the accused used to make entry after receipt of chit installment in a small book got marked as Ex.P33. But, in the cross-examination, she admitted that she never paid chit amount personally neither to the deceased 46 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Sukumar nor to the accused and she used to pay the said amount in the hands of her husband Ekanthaiah. Though she stated that there is a book in respect of payment of chit amount, but same has not been produced. The above said evidence of this witness makes it very clear that she has not transacted directly with the accused no.1 and 2.
46. PW.27- Sri Shivakumar s/o Ekanthaiah has deposed that he used to pay chit installment of Rs.5,000/- every month from 14/1/2014 to 14/7/2015 and out of total duration of 30 months, he has paid 28 installments and after the death of Sukumar, accused no.1 and 2 continued the chit business. He has paid one installment of Rs.5,000/- to the accused no.1 and 2. He got identified the diary in which alleged entries as to payment of chit amount are made as Ex.P34. In the cross- examination, this witness failed to state the other members of the chit and also admitted that, he has never participated in the bid. He admitted that in 47 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Ex.P34, neither the signature of himself nor the accused is forthcoming. Though this witness has stated that in the front page of Ex.P34, the signature of the deceased Sukumar is forthcoming but prosecution has not made efforts to prove that the said signature belongs to him.
47. Smt. Annapurna w/o Parameshwarappa - PW.28 who registered the FIR on the basis of the first information deposed that, at the time of lodging the FIR, she was working as ASI of Tyagarajanagar P.S. and she deposed as to receiving of the first information on 22/9/2015 from PW.1 and registering of FIR in Crime No. 149/2015 on the basis of first information. The said FIR was got marked as Ex.P35 and her signature appearing on the first information as well as on FIR got marked as Ex.P35(a) and Ex.P1(b). In the cross-examination dated 15/5/2025, this witness has stated that along with complaint- Ex.P1, the complainant has not produced any documents relating to the chit and 48 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 based upon Ex.P1, she has registered the FIR. This witness admitted that she has made enquiry with the complainant as to whether said chit was registered or not. It appears that only on the basis of the said enquiry, FIR came to be lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982.
48. The prosecution has also got examined the Investigating Officer Sri Shivakumar.P. s/o Padmaraje Gowda as PW.29 who deposed as to conducting investigation, arresting the accused, conducting of mahazar, as per Ex.P2, and also seizure of registers at the instance of accused no.2 as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. This witness has deposed that during investigation, he has seized the said registers and got marked the PF as per Ex.P36, and voluntary statement of both accused as Ex.P37 and Ex.P38. He has also deposed as to securing the death certificate of deceased Sukumar as per Ex.P39 and deposed that after completing the investigation, 49 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 as there were sufficient materials, he has filed the charge-sheet for the alleged offences and identified the accused before the court. In the cross- examination, this witness has admitted that he has not recovered the alleged amount of Rs.60 lakhs from the accused and has not recorded the statements of witnesses,neighbors where the alleged chit business was run by the accused. He admitted that, in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, neither the signature of the accused nor that of the depositors is forthcoming, and further admitted that, he has not specifically identified the signatures and names of the depositors appearing in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. He also admitted that in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, the names of successful bidders is not forthcoming and diaries which he has collected from the subscribers, the signature of the persons who were responsible for running the chit business is not forthcoming. The above said evidence makes it very clear that no documents were seized from the place where the 50 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 alleged chit was run by the accused, and at the instance of the accused no.2, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were seized under the panchanama Ex.P4.
49. The prosecution has also got examined one Shivanna s/o Chennigaiah as PW.30, who deposed that he was a subscriber of two chits with deceased Sukumar, and paid Rs.5,000/- every month from May 2014 to July 2015. He stated that the accused no.1 and 2 have not made entries in respect of payment of installments for the month of August and September 2015 and got identified two small books said to have been contained the entries as to payment of above said installments as Ex.P41 and Ex.P42. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that, he had not made enquiry as to whether 'Adinatha Enterprises' is registered or not. He also failed to state the successful bidders from 2015 to 2017 and in Ex.P41 and Ex.P42, the names of successful bidders is not forthcoming. He also admitted that in Ex.P41 and Ex.P42, neither 51 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 signature of himself nor that of deceased Sukumar is forthcoming. Though he stated that as per Ex.P41(a), Sukumar used to sign but the said signature is not proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. Further, this witness admitted that in Ex.P41 and Ex.P42, there is no reference as to the receipt of the chit installments by the accused. Though he stated that accused no.2 has put her signature in Ex.P41 and Ex.P42, after receipt of one installment, but no such signature is forthcoming in the said documents. It is also admitted by this witness that she has not seen the register stated to have been maintained in connection with the chit business by the deceased Sukumar.
50. The prosecution has also got examined one Muthanna Gowda @ Danappa Gowda s/o Basavana Gowda as PW.31 who deposed that he became subscriber of two chits of Rs.1.50 lakhs each and he used to pay Rs.5,000/- each every month towards the said chits. He stated that deceased 52 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Sukumar used to make an entry in a small diary after receiving the installment and after his death, the accused no.1 and 2 continued the said business to whom he had paid last two installments and got marked Ex.P43 diary. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he do not know who were the successful bidders of the chit and he has not participated in the bid. Further, he admitted that signature of deceased Sukumar as well as seal of the firm is not forthcoming in Ex.P43. It is also admitted that he has not made enquiry as to the registration of 'Adinatha Enterprises'.
51. One Mr.Shankar Babu s/o Chengalarayappa was also examined by the prosecution to prove its case as PW.32 who deposed that he used to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- every month towards two chits of Rs.1.50 lakhs and Rs.2.50 lakhs respectively and deceased Sukumar used to make entry as to receipt of the said installments in small book which were 53 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 identified as Ex.P44 to Ex.P46. He stated that, in total, he has paid Rs.5 lakhs and odd and after the death of Sukumar, accused have collected last 3 installments. In the cross-examination, this witness admits that he is a Carpenter by profession earning Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per day, but he stated that he has not obtained license for doing the same. He admitted that there are no documents as to his above said income. He further admitted that, he does not know who were all the participants of the chit and he never participated in the bid. He admitted that in Ex.P44 to Ex.P46, signature of deceased Sukumar is not forthcoming and there are no documents to show that accused no.1 and 2 have collected chit installments from him.
52. One Sri Shekar Gowda s/o Basavana Gowda was also examined as PW.33 who deposed that he used to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- every month as chit installment from May 2014 to July 2015 in respect of chit of Rs.50,000/- and an entry 54 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 was used to be made as to the payment of the said installment in Ex.P47 small diary. He deposed that after the death of Sukumar, accused no.1 and 2 have collected the installments but not made entry of the same in Ex.P47. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that in Ex.P47, signature of the deceased Sukumar is not forthcoming and also he does not know who were participants of the chit. He admitted that on his behalf, his wife used to participate in the bid, and he never made efforts to ascertain the bid amount. He admitted that there are no documents to show that accused have collected last two chit installments from him, and has not stated before the police as to threaten by the accused. Though this witness has stated that register was maintained in respect of the chit business, but no such register has been produced by this witness.
53. Smt. Geetha w/o Annayyachar was examined by the prosecution as PW.34 who deposed 55 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 that she had invested amount in two chits of Rs.1.50 lakhs during the year 2012-13. She deposed that she used to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each month towards the above said chits and after the death of Sukumar, she had paid the installments with accused no.1 and 2. She has produced the diary containing the alleged entries which is marked as Ex.P48. She has deposed that in total, she has paid Rs.2 lakhs to the accused in respect of the above said chits. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that she did not participate in the bid and she had no knowledge about the successful bidders of the chits. She admitted that in Ex.P48, the signature of the deceased Sukumar is not forthcoming. She got identified the signature of deceased Sukumar in respect of previous chits as Ex.P48(a), but admitted that there is no entry in Ex.P48 as to payment of Rs.5,000/- every month. She also admitted that in Ex.P48, signature of accused is not forthcoming and except the said 56 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 document, she has no other documents to show the payment of the chit installment by her.
54. PW.35 - Sri Mahadev s/o Kempe Gowda was examined by the prosecution to prove its case who deposed that he was a subscriber of three chits amounting to Rs.75,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.35,000/- in respect of which he used to pay Rs.5,000/- each every month and after the death of Sukumar, he has paid 3 installments to the accused no.1 and 2 and in total, he has paid Rs.1,65,000/-. He got identified the diary in which he stated to have made entries of payment of chit installment as Ex.P49. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that he has not enquired as to the total number of members in each chit and never participated in the bid. He failed to state as to containing of signature of deceased Sukumar or accused in Ex.P49 though he stated that deceased Sukumar used to make an entry at the time of bid in 57 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 a register, but admitted that he has not seen the said register.
55. The prosecution has also got examined one Smt. Suma w/o Gajendra as PW.36 who deposed that, she subscribed two chits of Rs.1.50,000/- in the year 2014 and used to pay Rs.5,000/- each every month towards the said chits. She deposed that when Sukumar was not feeling well, she paid chit installments to the accused no.1 and 2 and she has in total paid Rs.1,55,000/- towards the above said two chits. In the cross- examination, this witness admitted that she has not made enquiry as to whether the said chit business was registered or not. She further admitted that the accused have never threatened her and have not issued any receipt or made entry as to receipt of last two installments. Though this witness has stated that in a book, the date and amount which was paid towards the chit installment was used to be entered, but no such book is produced.
58 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
56. The prosecution has also got examined Smt.R.Umadevi w/o Chandraswamy as PW.37 who deposed that she became subscriber of one chit of Rs.1.50 lakhs with deceased Sukumar and used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month and she has paid 27 installments. She stated that the deceased Sukumar used to make entry in a book after payment of the chit amount and got marked the said book as Ex.P50. She stated that last two installments were paid to the accused no.1 and 2. In the cross- examination, this witness admitted that in Ex.P50, there is no entry as to payment of Rs.5,000/- and it does not contain the signature of the accused. She admitted that she has not personally lodged the complaint against the accused. This witness has stated that from other subscribers she came to know as to non-registration of the 'Adinatha Enterprises' but she has not lodged complaint as to the same before the competent authority.
59 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
57. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.Manjunath w/o Mahadevappa as PW.38 who deposed that during the year 2014-15, he subscribed for a chit of Rs.1.50 lakhs towards which he used to pay Rs.5,000/- every month and had paid 9 installments, among them two installments were paid to the accused no.1 and 2. He further deposed that deceased Sukumar used to make an entry after receipt of installment of chit in a book and after his death, the accused no.1 and 2 continued the said business. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he has not made enquirers whether the said chit business was registered or not and failed to state the number of members of his chits. In the cross-examination, this witness was confronted with the diary belonging to him as Ex.D2 and admitted that this diary does not contain entry as to payment of the chit installments. He also admitted that he has not seen Ex.D2 and it does not contain 60 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 signature of accused no.1 and 2 and said diary is not related to him.
58. Apart from the above said ocular evidence, the prosecution has got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P50 which were referred in the above said discussion.
59. From the above said oral as well as documentary evidence, it is quite clear that Sukumar - the father of the accused no.1 died on 1/8/2015. The first information Ex.P1 reveals that it was lodged on 22/9/2015 after one month of death of Sukumar. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.1 and 2 collected last two installments of chit after the death of Sukumar on the guise that they will continue the chit business, but PWs. 1 to 38 have categorically admitted that in the diaries as well as registers Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, neither the signature of the accused nor their handwriting is appearing.
61 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
60. Having discussed the above said testimonies of the prosecution, let me advert to merits of the present case.
61. The gist of the allegations leveled against the accused persons relates to offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also the offences punishable under Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982. It is also alleged that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.
62. In order to attract the provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act 2004, the prosecution has to prove that the alleged chit business falls within the definition of 'Financial Establishment' as defined under Section 2 (3) of the Act. When the definition of the 'Deposit' as defined under Section 2(2) of the Act is carefully perused, it is quite clear that, any amount received by way of subscription in 62 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 respect of 'chit' does not fall within the definition of the 'Deposit'.
63. In view of above said provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, it is quite clear that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in case of chit business. Moreover, the careful perusal of records makes it very clear that, it is not the case of the prosecution that, the accused alleged to have run their business under the 'Financial Establishment' as defined under Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act. Therefore, viewed from any angle, Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act which deals with punishment for fraudulent default by financial establishment is not applicable to the present case on hand.
63 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
OFFENCE OF CHEATING
64. In order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to necessarily prove that accused had entertained the dishonest intention right from the beginning. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 9 SCC 15 between Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishna Singla wherein it is held as under:
"7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to consider on the background of the factual position as to whether offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out. Section 420 deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced 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. Section 415 defines "cheating". The said provision requires, (i) deception of any 64 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 person (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Deception of any person is common to the second and third requirements of the provision. The said requirements are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction 'or'. The definition of the offence of cheating embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which no transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and the (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making 65 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR (1960) SC 979: 1960 Cri L.J. 1383]
8. As was observed by this Court in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras, AIR (1967) SC 986 it is not necessary that a false pretense should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn."
65. The above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court culls out the following essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
(i) There must be deception i.e., the accused must have deceived someone;
(ii) That by the said deception, the accused must induce a person;66 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
(a) To deliver any property or;
(b) To make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property;
(iii) That the accused did so dishonestly.
66. A person can be said to have done a thing dishonestly, if he does so with the intention of causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to another person. Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which a person is entitled while wrongful gain to a person means a gain to him by unlawful gains of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
67. Applying the above said principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is to be noted that though prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to 38 to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the evidence on record which was discussed supra makes it very clear that, none of the witnesses have 67 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 spoken to the effect that, neither deceased Sukumar nor accused used to make their signatures on receipt of installment amount of chit. They categorically admitted that, in the small diary on which the prosecution heavily relies to prove the payment of installments, signature of neither deceased Sukumar nor that of the accused is forthcoming. On careful perusal of the said diaries got marked by the prosecution, it is quite clear that there is a entry as to some figures, but prosecution has failed to prove that how the said figures are related to the chit business alleged to have conducted by either deceased Sukumar or by the accused. Moreover, even though for the sake of arguments, if it is believed that the said entries pertains to chit business, but it must be proved that the handwriting appearing in the said diaries belongs to either deceased Sukumar or to the accused. As rightly contended by the learned counsel by the accused, the prosecution in order to prove 68 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 that the said writings belongs to either deceased Sukumar or that of the accused has not made efforts by referring a same to the Expert's opinion. The prosecution has also not placed any documents which bears admitted handwriting or signature of deceased Sukumar or that of the accused. Under such circumstances, merely based upon the above said diaries, it cannot be come to the conclusion that neither the deceased Sukumar nor the accused were conducting the chit business as alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, the panchanama as per Ex.P2 reveals that, no material belonging to the 'Adinatha Enterprises' such as registers, seal of the firm were seized during the process. The Ex.P4 seizure panchanama makes it very clear that Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 registers were produced by the accused no.2. Moreover, when the said entries contained in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are carefully perused, again it is quite clear that neither the signature of deceased Sukumar nor that of the accused is forthcoming in 69 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the said registers. Even the signature of the successful bidders is also not forthcoming in the said registers.
68. In order to punish an accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that, the accused has an intention to cheat since from the inception, but when the averments of the first information so also the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 38 is carefully perused, it is quite clear that, there is a lack of evidence on this aspect. The PWs.1 to 38 have simply deposed that, after the death of Sukumar, the accused continued the chit business and received last two installments of the chit. But, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused had an intention to cheat the subscribers since from inception. It is also pertinent to note that, till Sukumar carried on the alleged chit business, it appears that there was no any dispute. Immediately after his death, a complaint came to be lodged against him and also 70 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 against the present accused. Though as per the complaint averments, a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was misappropriated by the accused, but no such amount is recovered from the accused. The prosecution ought to have placed some records to show that they made efforts to seize the above said alleged amount. It is also pertinent to note that, when the mahazar was conducted at the office of 'Adinatha Enterprises' no material was seized which connects with the said enterprises. On the other hand, Ex.P2 mahazar makes it very clear that, nothing which connects with the 'Adinatha Enterprises' was seized from the spot. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused had an intention to deceive the subscribers since from the inception. The prosecution has also failed to prove that, the accused have induced the subscribers to take part in the alleged chit business. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential ingredients to 71 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 attract Section 415 of the IPC which is made punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
69. In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, it is necessary to know Section 405 of the said Act, which deals with criminal breach of trust. For the purpose of better understanding the said provision is extracted below:
"405. Criminal breach of trust. - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
[Explanation [1] - A person, being an employer [of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees' 72 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.] [Explanation 2, - A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, s hall be deemed to have dishonestly 73 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.]
70. The offence of criminal breach of trust is made punishable under Section 406 to 409 of IPC, as the case may be. It is also worth mentioning that one of the key ingredient for constituting offence under Section 406 of IPC is that, the entrustment over the money or property should be made by the victim to the accused in furtherance of some understanding which is termed as the mode of discharging the trust or of any legal contract and the accused misappropriates or converts into his own such money or property contrary to such direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust was to be discharged or against any such legal contract. It is to be emphasized that entrustment over the property or money shall be made by the victim to the accused in furtherance of some legal contract or any directions stipulated under law, without which the 74 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 offence of criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be constituted.
71. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC which deals with criminal breach of trust is concerned, first and foremost the prosecution has to prove that there was an entrustment of the property which was misused or got converted by the accused as of their property. The evidence on record of PWs.1 to 38 makes it very clear that, none of the witnesses have deposed that accused used to make an entry in the book or small diaries after receipt of the alleged chit installment. The prosecution has failed to prove that, the subscribers have entrusted last two installments of chit to the accused by placing cogent materials. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is quite clear that, some of the witnesses of the prosecution have admitted that, they have not directly transacted with the accused in connection with the alleged chit business. Even some of the prosecution witnesses 75 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 have admitted that they have not directly handed over the installments of the chit either to the deceased Sukumar or to the accused. Absolutely, there are no documentary evidence to prove that, the accused have received last two installments of chit as alleged by the prosecution. Heavy reliance was placed by the prosecution on the small diaries to prove the payment of chit installment, but when said diaries are carefully perused, it is quite clear that there is no such entries as to the receipt of chit installments by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was entrustment of money by the subscribers with the accused and same has been misutilised or converted by the accused as their money. When the prosecution utterly failed to prove the first ingredient of entrustment of property with the accused, the question of going into the other essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust does not arise for consideration. Therefore, the evidence on record 76 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 clinchingly makes it very clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC.
72. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter between Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., and others Vs. State of U.P. and another in Crl. Appeal No. 3114/2024 while discussing the provisions of Section 420 and 406 of IPC at Para No. 30 observed as under:
"30. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating , the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e., the time when the offences said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention which is the gist of the offence.77 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must haver dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person otherthan the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence i.e., the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such 78 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously."
73. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision also at Para No.27 observed as under:
"27. In our view, the plain reading of complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath, it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating, as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of IPC."
74. The above said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it very clear that offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and Section 420 of IPC cannot co-exist simultaneously. Viewed from 79 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the above said principle of law, it is quite clear that at one breath, the prosecution cannot contend that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC as well as under Section 420 of IPC. Be that as it may, the evidence on record makes it very clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the entrustment of property i.e., last two installments of chit with the accused and misappropriation of the said installments by them. Moreover, in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused since from the inception i.e., from the date of commission of alleged offence had intention to defraud the complainant as well as other subscribers. The mens rea i.e., intention to defraud or dishonest intention must be present and in the case of cheating, it must be there from the very beginning or inception. But, in this case, the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses does not reveal that the accused had intention to defraud them from 80 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the very beginning or from inception. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that, in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, there must be lawful contract touching the discharge of the trust. But, in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused have carried on the business of chit unlawfully. It is also to be noted that Section 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 clearly prohibits commencement of any chit fund scheme without obtaining any prior sanction of the State Government or registration under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, it clearly implies that chit fund has to be registered under the provisions of Chit Funds Act. Eventhough, if it is come to the conclusion that the accused were running the alleged chit business without obtaining the license under the provisions of Chit Funds Act, same cannot be at any stretch of imagination be termed as a lawful / legal contract and hence entrustment of any money in furtherance of such unlawful contracts by 81 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 the complainant and other subscribers in favour of the accused persons is not sufficient to hold that the accused persons are liable for the offence of criminal breach of trust. Because, as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, the agreements which are unlawful or which are forbidden under law cannot be enforced. Viewed from this angle also, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION
75. So far as offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients. For the better understanding, it is necessary to extract Section 503 of IPC which deals with criminal intimidation.
"Criminal Intimidation: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone including that person interested, with intent to cause alarm to that 82 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation. - A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
76. The bare perusal of the above said provision makes it very clear that the following essential ingredients have to be proved.
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
i) to his person, reputation or property; or
ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. The threat must be with intent
i) to cause alarm to that person, or
ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to 83 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
Therefore, the intention must be to cause alarm to the victim.
77. The perusal of the first information at Ex.P1 makes it very clear that there is no allegations of threat or criminal intimidation as against the accused. Even it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses have clearly stated that the accused have not posed any threat to them in connection with alleged chit business. Therefore, when the complaint averments itself are silent as to the allegations of criminal intimidation, the accused cannot be punished for the said offence.
OFFENCE UNDER CHIT FUNDS ACT,1982
78. The prosecution has alleged that accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982.
84 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
79. Section 76 deals with Penalties. As per Section 4 of the Act, in order to commence a chit, previous sanction of the State Government is necessary. Further, there must be a chit agreement as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. Moreover, as per Section 5 of the Act, unless notice, circular, prospectus has been published as to the obtaining of previous sanction as required under Section 4, no notice, circular or proposal can be issued inviting public to subscribe for the chit. If the above said provisions are not complied with, same is punishable under Section 76 of the Act. Moreover, Section 16, 17 and 18 of the Act deals with the bid / auction has to be held on the date, at the time and place mentioned in the chit agreement and to that effect, the minutes of proceedings of every draw/ bid shall be prepared and entered in a book kept for that purpose immediately after the closure of the draw. Further, the said minutes of the proceedings of every draw certified by an organizer shall be filed 85 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 with the Registrar within 21 days from the date of draw. If the said provisions are not complied, then Section 76 of the Act, comes into play.
80. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused at any point of time have run the chit business under the name and style 'Adinatha Enterprises' at Tyagarajanagar, Bengaluru. Hence, invoking provisions of Chit Funds Act, 1982 does not arise at all. Therefore, the allegations under Section 4 and 76 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 also falls to the ground.
81. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused have committed the alleged offences. Hence, I answer the above said Points No. 1 to 5 in the "Negative".
82. POINT NO.6 : In view of my findings on Point No.1 to 5 supra, I proceed to pass the following:
86 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 - Sri Sunay and Accused No.2 -Smt. Akshatha are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC, Section 4 and 76 of the Chit Funds Act,1982 and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.The bail bond of the Accused No. 1
and 2 so also their sureties stands cancelled.
****** * ** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of June 2025.) (Satish J. Bali) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Nanjundaiah PW.2 : Arokyanathan 87 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 PW.3 : Shanthi PW.4 : Vedavathi PW.5 : Sarojamma PW.6 : Umesh PW.7 : Smt. Kavitha PW.8 : Smt. Kamalamma PW.9 : Rathna PW.10 : Madhumathi PW.11 : Padmavathi PW.12 : Jayalakshmi PW.13 : Krishnamurthy PW.14 : C.S.Ramesh PW.15 : Smt. Sridevi PW.16 : Smt. K.T. Lakshmi PW.17 : Smt. Manjula PW.18 : Prasad PW.19 : Sujan PW.20 : Saraswathi PW.21 : Basappa PW.22 : Manjunath PW.23 : Gowrish PW.24 : Nagaraja.M. PW.25 : Saraswathi PW.26 : Sharadamma PW.27 : Shivakumar PW.28 : Smt. Annapurna PW.29 : Shivakumar.P PW.30 : Shivanna PW.31 : Muthanna Gowda & Danappa Gowda PW.32 : Shankar Babu PW.33 : Shekar Gowda PW.34 : Smt. Geetha PW.35 : Sri Mahadev PW.36 : Suma PW.37 : R. Umadevi PW.38 : Manjunath LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Complaint 88 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 Ex.P1(a) Signature Ex.P2 Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.29 Ex.P3 Copy of the Book Ex.P4 Mahazar Ex.P4(a) Signature Ex.P5 Register Ex.P6 Register Ex.P7 Certified copy of the Chit book which contains
entry as to receipt of chit amount by the accused.
Ex.P8 Certified copy of the entry in the book.
Ex.P9 Receipt of chit amount.
Ex.P10 Entry in the Diary for having paid chit
amount to the accused.
Ex.P11 Entry in the Diary pertaining to receipt of chit
amount.
Ex.P12 Original Diary for having paid chit amount to
the accused.
Ex.P13 Chit book
Ex.P14 Chit book
Ex.P15 Chit book
Ex.P16 Chit book
Ex.P17 Chit book
Ex.P18 Chit book
Ex.P19 Copy of the entry made in the Diary
Ex.P20 Chit book
Ex.P21 Chit book Chit book
Ex.P21(a) Chit book of Sarojamma
Ex.P21(b) Chit book of Manjula
Ex.P21(c) Chit book of Vedavathi
Ex.P22 Chit book of Sridevi
Ex.P23 Chit book of Lakshmi
Ex.P24 Chit book of Manjula
89 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
Ex.P25 Chit book of Prasad
Ex.P26 Chit book of Sujan
Ex.P27 Chit book of Saraswathi
Ex.P28 Chit book of Basappa
Ex.P29 Chit book of Manjunath
Ex.P30 Chit book of Gowrish
Ex.P31 Certified copy of the chit Diary
Ex.P32 Certified copy of the chit Diary
Ex.P33 Certified copy of the chit Diary
Ex.P34 Certified copy of the chit Diary
Ex.P35 FIR
Ex.P35(a) Signature of PW.28
Ex.P36 PF
Ex.P36(a) Signature of PW.29
Ex.P36(b) Signature of PW.29
Ex.P37 Voluntary statement of accused
Ex.P38 Voluntary statement of accused
Ex.P39 Death Certificate of deceased Sukumar
Ex.P39(a) Signature of PW.29
Ex.P40 Charge sheet
Ex.P40(a) Signature of PW.29
Ex.P41 Chit book
Ex.P41(a) Signature of Sukumar
Ex.P42 Chit book
Ex.P43 Chit book
Ex.P44 Chit book
Ex.P45 Chit book
Ex.P46 Chit book
Ex.P47 Chit book
Ex.P48 Chit book
Ex.P48(a) Signature of deceased Sukumar Ex.P49 3 pages of true copies of the chit book Ex.P50 Chit book 90 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
NIL.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH DEFENCE SIDE:
Ex.D1 Death Certificate Ex.D2 Extract of Diary (SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.91 Spl.CC.No.1420/2019
..ORDER pronounced in the Open Court (Vide Separate detailed Judgment..) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 - Sri Sunay and Accused No.2 -Smt. Akshatha are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC, Section 4 and 76 of the Chit Funds Act,1982 and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.
The bail bond of the Accused No. 1 and 2 so also their sureties stands cancelled.
(SATISH J. BALI) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengalulru.