Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Syed Ibrahim on 27 July, 2022
KABC010215952014
IN THE COURT OF LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. Act), BENGALURU. (CCH79)
Present: Smt. Vineetha P. Shetty,
B.Sc., M.A. (Sanskrit, English), LL.M.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru.
Dated: 27th July, 2022
Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
Complainant: The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
Accused: 1. Sri. Syed Ibrahim,
S/o. Late Perumal,
Aged about 39 years,
Work Inspector, Banashankari Ward,
B.B.M.P. Bengaluru.
R/at: No.24, 8th 'C' Main,
New Guruappanapalya,
B.G. Main, Bengaluru - 560029
2. Sri. Ramu,
S/o. Siddappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Assistant Engineer,
Assistant Engineer's Office,
Banashankari Temple Ward,
BBMP, Bengaluru.
R/at: No.24, 1st Main, F.C.I. Layout,
Deepanjali Nagar, Mysuru Road,
Bangalore.
(by Sri C.G. Sundar, Advocate)
2 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
Date of commission of offence : 02.12.2013
Date of report of occurrence : 03.02.2014
Date of arrest of accused : 03.02.2014
Date of release of accused on : 07.02.2014
bail
Date of commencement of : 23.01.2019
evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 01.10.2021
Name of the complainant : Sri. Masood Ahmed
: U/s.7, and 13(1)(d) r/w.
13(2) of the Prevention
Offences complained of
of Corruption Act.
Accused No.1 and 2 are
Opinion of the Judge
Acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, has filed this charge sheet against the accused persons 1 and 2, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the case of Prosecution are that Accused No.1 Syed Ibrahim was working as Work Inspector, and the accused No.2 Ramu as Assistant Engineer, 3 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 in Banashankari Temple Ward of BBMP Bengaluru. Complainant Masood Ahmed, approached the office of accused No.1, in connection with the notice under KMC Act, received by him on 02.12.2013, in respect of his house constructed in site No.35, Pipeline road, Jaraganahalli, Banashankari Ward, and at that time, both the accused persons had demanded from him, an illegal gratification of Rs.1,50,000/.
3. When the complainant refused to pay the demanded money, the accused persons managed to get the notice issued to him under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, on 25.01.2014. The Complainant obtained a stay order dated 30.01.2014, from the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The accused persons once again demanded Rs.1,00,000/ for not demolishing his house. Subsequently, the accused No.2 on 01.02.2014, demanded bribe of Rs.80,000/ for himself and on behalf of accused No.1. As the complainant was not interested to pay the illegal gratification, he lodged complaint with the police.
4. Based on the complaint, the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, has registered the FIR in Cr. No.3/2019, and made 4 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 preparation to trap the accused. Two witnesses namely Shivakumar and Karthikeshwara, were secured by the IO and pretrap proceedings have been followed. The IO thereafter, went to Banashankari, BBMP Ward No.180, along with his team. The complainant approached the accused, with the tainted amount of Rs.80,000/, and the accused No.2 Ramu directed him, to make payment of Rs.80,000/, to accused No.1
- Syed Ibrahim, and the said accused No.1 received tainted notes of Rs.80,000/. After drawing of the trap mahazar, the IO returned to his office, along with the seized property and the accused persons.
5. Both the accused persons were produced before the Court, and they were enlarged on bail on 07.02.2014. After completion of investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed by the IO, against the accused No.1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 6. On receipt of summons, the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court, and copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to them. After hearing both sides, the charges were framed, and the accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not 5 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 guilty, and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7. Ex.P.1 to P.31 and MO1 to MO15 were marked on prosecution side. During crossexamination of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons got marked 4 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.4.
8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined, as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence, which appeared against them, and the accused No.1 Syed Ibrahim stated that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. Similarly, accused No.2 - Ramu also stated that, he has been falsely implicated and no official work pertaining to the complainant, was pending with him. The accused persons have not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of learned PP for the State and Sri. C.G.Sundar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused.
10. Now, the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Does the prosecution prove that, a valid sanction as required under Sec.19 of P.C. 6 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Act, to prosecute the accused No.1 and 2, has been duly obtained?
2) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that the accused No.1 - Syed Ibrahim, who was working as Work Inspector, and accused No.2 - Ramu, who was working as Assistant Engineer, being the public servants working in BBMP, Bengaluru, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.80,000/ from the complainant, as gratification other than legal remuneration, to do an official favour to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.7 of the P.C. Act?
3) Does the prosecution further prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused No.1 -
Syed Ibrahim, who was working as Work Inspector, and accused No.2 - Ramu, who was working as Assistant Engineer, being the public servants, obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.80,000/, from the complainant, and abused their position by corrupt means, and without any public interest and thereby committed criminal misconduct, which is an offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w.
Sec.13(2) of the PC Act ?
4) What order?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the Affirmative;
Point No.2: in the Negative, Point No.3: in the Negative, Point No.4: as per the final order for the following 7 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 REASONS
12. Point No.1: It is needless to mention that, as per the provision under Sec.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is mandatory to secure the previous sanction of the Competent Authority, to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13 of the said Act. At the time of alleged incident, the accused No.1 was working as Work Inspector, and the accused No.2 was working as Assistant Engineer, both in the Banashankari Temple Ward of BBMP, Bengaluru, and as such, accused No.1 and 2 were the public servants at the relevant time. Therefore, it is necessary for the Prosecution to establish that, a valid Sanction Order was obtained from the Competent Authority, to proceed against accused No.1 and 2.
13. According to the Prosecution, the Sanction Order was given by the Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru, who was the Competent Authority at the relevant time, to prosecute the accused No.1. PW3 the Commissioner of BBMP, Bengaluru, who had worked as such from 2013 to 2015, has deposed that, he had received a letter No.LOK/INV/G/CITY/CR./3/2014 from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, on 12.05.2014, requesting 8 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 him, to accord Prosecution Sanction against accused No.1 - Syed Ibrahim, who was working as Work Inspector on OOD basis in BBMP, and the said requisition letter was also accompanied by the copies of FIR, Entrustment Mahazar, Trap Mahazar, Statement of Witnesses, Recorded conversation between complainant and accused, sketch, Chemical Examiner's Report and Final Report. PW3 has deposed that after examining all the materials and satisfying himself of the allegations made against the accused No.1, he had accorded Sanction, to prosecute the accused No.1 and issued the Prosecution Sanction Order accordingly on 03.09.2014, as per Ex.P.16.
14. During crossexamination, PW3 admitted that, Prosecution Sanction was issued against accused No.1, while he was working in the capacity of a Gangman, but the allegations were made against accused No.1, while he was working in the capacity of a Work Inspector. PW3 also admitted that, a Gangman had no authority to deal with the allegation, in respect of violation of Building Rules. PW3 deposed that, he did not bring to the notice of the Investigating Agency, that 9 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 accused No.1 - Syed Ibrahim had no authority to do any official favour. Suggestions that Ex.P.16 - Order was mechanically issued, and that the same suffers from non application of mind and competency, have been specifically denied by PW3.
15. PW4 Mohan Kumar N.R., the Under Secretary attached to Public Works Department, has deposed that ADGP Lokayukta, had sent a letter to him, on 15.02.2014 along with the investigation materials, seeking prosecution sanction to prosecute accused No.2 Ramu, the Assistant Engineer, BBMP. PW4 has further deposed that, he had examined the documents and expressed his satisfaction, and accordingly, recommended the matter, for issuing prosecution sanction, and the PWD Minister had approved his recommendation, and accordingly, he had issued Ex.P.17 Prosecution Sanction Order. According to PW4, it was found primafacie, that the accused No.2 - Ramu had demanded illegal gratification.
16. PW3 - the Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru, being the competent Sanctioning Authority, has considered the relevant materials and thereafter accorded the sanction. PW4 on the approval of the Minister for the PWD, has issued Sanction 10 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Order as per Ex.P.17. Hence, it has to be held that the sanction accorded by PW3 as per Ex.P.16 and issued by PW4 as per Ex.P.17, are valid Sanction Orders.
17. Learned Counsel for accused has argued that, the sanction against the accused No.1 was issued by PW3 in the capacity of the said accused, as Work Inspector, but the accused No.1 was working as a Gangman at the relevant time. The Learned Counsel for accused also argued that, the power to remove accused No.2 vested only with the Cabinet, and hence, no valid sanction was accorded, to prosecute the said accused No.2 also. But the Ex.P.27 - Service Particulars of accused No.1, marked during evidence of PW5, would show that, the designation of the accused No.1 was Gangman, and that he was working as Work Inspector on OOD basis, and as such, it cannot be said that the Prosecution Sanction Order against accused No.1 was not proper. Further, in respect of accused No.2, the issuance of sanction order was duly approved by the concerned Minister for PWD, and hence, in view of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977, it cannot be said the Prosecution Sanction Order was not proper. 11 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 In view of these reasons therefore, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution, and in the Affirmative.
18. Point No.2 and 3: As these two points are inter related and to avoid repetition of discussion, taken up together for consideration.
19. The Prosecution in all, has examined 7 witnesses to establish its case. PW1 Masood Ahmad is the complainant, PW2 - M.K. Shivakumar is the shadow witness, PW3 - M. Lakshminarayana, Commissioner BBMP, and PW4 - Mohan Kumar N.R., the Under Secretary attached to PW Department, PW5 - Mohamed Mukaram, the Police Inspector is the Investigating Officer, PW6 - Dr. Ravishankar is the Chemical Examiner and PW7 - R. Madhu is the Assistant Executive Engineer, attached to BBMP, Banashankari SubDivision.
20. It is alleged that, the accused No.1 and the accused No.2, being the Public Servants demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.80,000/ from the complainant, as gratification to do official favour, and hence, the accused persons have committed the offences under Sec.7, and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the 12 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. To prove the commission of said offences, prosecution has to establish the demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused persons. Further, it is also necessary to establish that, the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount is, in respect of official favour, by the accused persons.
21. As per the case of the Prosecution, Accused No.1 Syed Ibrahim was working as Work Inspector, and the accused No.2 Ramu was working as Assistant Engineer, in Banashankari Temple Ward of BBMP Bengaluru. When PW1 Masood Ahmed approached accused No.1, in connection with a notice issued to him on 02.12.2013 under KMC Act, with regard to his house constructed in site No.35, Pipeline road, Jaraganahalli, Banashankari Ward, both the accused persons had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,50,000/. When PW1 refused to pay the demanded money, the accused persons managed to get the notice issued to PW1 under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act on 25.01.2014. PW1 obtained a stay order dated 30.01.2014 from Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, accused No.1 on 31.01.2014 demanded 13 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Rs.1,00,000/ from PW1, for not demolishing the building and closing the matter. Subsequently, on 01.02.2014, PW1 met the accused No.2 and the said accused No.2 demanded bribe of Rs.80,000/, for himself and on behalf of accused No.1. Therefore, according to the Prosecution, for doing the official favour i.e., for not demolishing the building, accused persons had demanded the bribe.
22. Ex.P.1 is the Complaint. The averments in the Complaint would indicate that accused persons had demanded illegal gratification. PW1 - Sri. Masood Ahmed, the complainant being a retired FDA, attached to Health Department of Government of Karnataka, has deposed that, he got the Complaint at Ex.P.1, written through his friend Nazeer Ahmad Khureshi, and the said scribe is no more. According to PW1, there was some revenue problem pertaining to his property, i.e., house No.31/1, Pipeline Road, Sarakki Gate, which was constructed in the year 2012, and hence, he had met Nazeer Ahmad Khureshi, who in turn had taken PW1, to the office of Lokayukta. It is found in the evidence of PW1 that thereafter, they went to the office of the BBMP, wherein he was called 14 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 upon, to sign some papers, with writings in Kannada and accordingly, he had signed the papers.
23. The evidence of PW1 would indicate that, he was assured by Nazeer Ahmad Khureshi that, his revenue problems would be solved and therefore, he was constrained to sign Ex.P.1 - Complaint. PW1 has denied of having paid any amount to anyone in the BBMP Office. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as: "I have not paid any amount to anybody". As PW1 has not supported the case of Prosecution, he was treated hostile and crossexamined by the Prosecution.
24. During crossexamination, PW1 has also denied the suggestion that, Ex.P.1 - Complaint was written only under his instructions. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as: "It is not true to suggest that as per my instructions Nazeer Ahmad Khureshi written Ex.P.1 and it contains true statement given by me". PW1 also denied the suggestion, that the accused persons had demanded money from him, though he has admitted his signature in Ex.P.2 Entrustment Panchanama. PW1 also denied the suggestion that, the trap proceedings were conducted by the IO, though he has admitted his signatures in 15 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Ex.P.3 the list containing the Details of currency notes and in Ex.P.4 the Transcripted version of a conversation. PW1 has admitted his signature in Ex.P.5 - Mahazar, but denied specifically that, the said Mahazar was drawn by the police in his presence. PW1 also resiled from his original statement alleged to be given before the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.15.
25. PW2 - M.K. Shivashankar, is the shadow witness to the trap proceedings. He has deposed that, on 03.02.2014, he had met the Investigating Officer at his office, as directed by his higher ups, and at that time, PW1 was present in the said office. According to PW2, PW1 had produced before the Police a CD and Rs.80,000/, which was brought by PW1, to hand it over to the accused persons, as bribe. According to PW1, the currency notes brought by PW1, were counted in the Office, and thereafter, some chemical powder was sprinkled on the said currency notes. The tainted notes were thereafter kept inside a cover, and the said cover was handed over to the Police Inspector, who in turn, had handed it over to PW1. 16 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
26. PW2 deposed that, PW1 was instructed by the IO, to meet the accused persons, and to give the tainted notes only in case of demand. It is in his evidence that, PW1 was provided with a voice recorder too, with an instruction to give a signal, by removing his spectacles, if the amount was received by the accused persons. It is in the evidence of PW2, that an Entrustment Mahazar was thereafter drawn in the office of IO as per Ex.P.2, and the list of currency notes was also prepared as per Ex.P.3.
27. It is also the evidence of PW2, that after completion of Entrustment Mahazar, investigation team of 9 members, visited Ward No.180 of BBMP at Banashankari. The PW1 and the accused No.1 Syed Ibrahim were interacting in Urdu language, and at that time, PW2 was observing the movement of PW1 and the accused No.1, from a distance of about 25 - 30 feet. As instructed, the PW1 indicated passing of the money, to the accused No.1, by removing his spectacles. Immediately, the IO entered the office, along with his team, and took accused No.1 - Syed Ibrahim to his custody. The accused No.2 Ramu ran away from the spot and he was brought back. Later, the 17 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 tainted amount of Rs.80,000/ was recovered from the said accused No.1 Syed Ibrahim, from left side pocket of his pants.
28. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW2 has stated that, it was decided to visit the office of the accused persons on 03.02.2014, during morning hours. It is in his evidence that, on 02.02.2014, the complainant had produced the money before the IO and at that time, the IO had taken down the numbers, and denominations of the currency notes. PW2 could not recollect, if the IO, had retained the currency notes with him or handed over to PW1 on 02.02.2014 itself.
29. According to PW2, as the IO had asked him to be there at 10.00 am on 03.02.2014, he went to the office on the said day, and remained there upto 02.00 pm. They had visited the office of Ward No.180, and not visited the office of Ward No.165. It is elicited from PW2, that till the police enquired the accused persons, he was not aware of the designation of the accused persons. PW2 admitted that, no mahazar was drawn, when the accused persons were apprehended by the police. The suggestions that, no trap proceedings were conducted in Ward 18 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 No.180 and no amount was recovered from the possession of accused No.1, were denied by PW2.
30. PW5 - Mohamed Mukaram is the Police Inspector and the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that, on 03.02.2014 at about 11.00 am, PW1 had appeared before him with a written Complaint, along with copies of some documents. He received the said complaint as per Ex.P.1, and registered the case in Cr.No.3/2014 and submitted the FIR as per Ex.P.18. Thereafter, he sent a requisition letter to the Director DPAR as per Ex.P.19, and secured two witnesses namely Shivakumar and Karthikeshwara, and introduced them to his staff and the complainant, as well.
31. According to PW5, PW1 had admitted the contents of Ex.P.1 - Complaint, in the presence of the witnesses. It is in the evidence of PW5 that, PW1 had also produced a CD containing his conversation with the accused persons, and the said CD was written to a laptop and thereafter, transcribed as per Ex.P.4. PW5 has further stated that, he had instructed PW1 to make a call to the accused No.1 and accordingly, PW1 had called accused No.1 over his mobile phone No.9880856445. The 19 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 accused No.1 responded in Urdu language and asked PW1 to go to his office at 03.00 pm. The said conversation was transcribed as per Ex.P.20. PW5 instructed PW2, to accompany PW1, as a shadow witness, and to observe the activities and to report later.
32. The IO thereafter, went to Banashankari, BBMP Ward No.180, along with his team and reached there at about 03.30 pm. A voice recorder was handed over to PW1, and it was PW1, who had first entered the office of the accused persons, and the rest of them waited at a nearby distance. At about 04.10. pm., PW1 gave the signal, by removing his spectacles and keeping it in his shirt pocket. Immediately, the staff and the panchas rushed to the spot, and PW1 had shown the accused No.1 to PW5.
33. PW5 further deposed that, the accused No.2 - Ramu, who was standing beside accused No.1, had tried to escape, but he was secured immediately. Thereafter, the hands of both the accused persons were washed in a Solution, which had turned pink. PW5 has also stated that, as per his instructions, PW2 took out the money, from the left side pocket of the pants of 20 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 accused No.1 - Syed Ibrahim. It was verified with the currency note numbers, noted in Ex.P.3, at the time of pretrap mahazar. PW5 further deposed that, by making alternative arrangement, pants of the accused No.1 were seized and kept in a sealed cover. According to PW5, he had seized the file, pertaining to the construction work, of PW1, and collected the true copy of Attendance Register of accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.14.
34. PW5 has further stated that, the voice recorder given to PW1 at the time of trap was played, and the contents were transmitted to a CD, and thereafter, got transcripted by CW14 as per Ex.P.6. Ex.P.21 is the sketch prepared by him, at the spot. It is in the evidence of PW5 that, accused No.1 and 2 as per his instructions, gave their defence statements as per Ex.P.7 and P.8 respectively. He has also stated about the drawing of the trap mahazar as per Ex.P.5, and about his return to the office along with the seized properties and the accused persons, and about the arrest of the accused. PW5 has referred to MO1 the metal seal, MO2 Cash of Rs.80,000/, MO3 Pants of accused No.1, MO4 to MO15 the Bottles 21 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 containing the Solutions prepared and Solutions used for hand wash of the accused persons, and MO16 to MO20 - CDs.
35. During crossexamination, PW5 stated that the place of trap as per Ex.P.5, is the office of Assistant Executive Engineer situated at Banashankari Temple Ward, Bengaluru, and admitted that, Ex.D.2 is the sketch reflecting the said place of trap. It is elicited that, PW5 had not enquired any of the officials of BBMP, in respect of alleged notices issued by the BBMP. PW5 admitted that, no expert opinion in respect of the CD's, has been obtained by him. It is elicited that, in the written version of the taperecorded conversation, there is no certification, as to who had identified the voice. PW5 asserted during his crossexamination that, the office in Ward No.165 and the office in Ward No.180, are situated at the same place. Suggestion that, PW1 was not able to read and speak Kannada language, is denied by PW5. It is admitted by PW5 that, in respect of subject matter of Ex.P.1 - complaint, there was a stay order, however, PW5 denied the suggestion that, in view of the stay Order, no work was pending with the accused. 22 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
36. PW6 - Ravishankar, is the retired Chemical Examiner. According to PW6, his chemical test revealed that, the hand washed Solution of accused No.1, contained Phenolphthalein. Further, Article No.3 i.e., hand wash of PW2, Article No.12 i.e., cover with currency notes and Article No.13 i.e., blue jeans pants of accused No.1, also showed the contents of Phenolphthalein. Ex.P.23 is the Chemical Report issued by PW6. Suggestion that, according to British Pharmacopoeia, the Sodium Carbonate Solution turns red, when it comes into contact with Phenolphthalein, is admitted by PW6.
37. PW7 R. Madhu, is the Assistant Executive Engineer, attached to BBMP. He has deposed that on 03.02.2014, as per the instructions of Police Inspector, Lokayukta, he had gone to the office. It is in his evidence that, he had placed a note as per Ex.P.13, based on which a notice as per Ex.P.13(b) was issued to PW1 - Masood Ahmed on 02.12.2013, and two notices as per Ex.P.13(c) and P.13(d) were issued to PW1 on 08.01.2014. An order was also passed under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act, as per Ex.P.13(e), on 25.01.2014, stating that, if the alleged construction is against the sanction plan, the building is liable 23 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 to be demolished. According to PW7, both the accused No.1 and 2, were working under him, and Ex.P.27 is the Service Register particulars of accused No.1.
38. During crossexamination, PW7 admitted that, the power to issue notice under Sec.321(1) KMC Act, and if no proper explanation and/ or relevant document is furnished, the power to take action, for the violation, lie only with the Commissioner, BBMP. Further suggestion that, such a power is not vested either with Assistant Executive Engineer or Executive Engineer, is also admitted by PW7. Stay Order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as per Ex.D.4, in respect of the subject matter involved in the case, is also admitted by PW7. It is elicited that, the accused persons were working in Ward No.180, and both Ex.P.28 and Ex.D.2 - sketches pertain to Ward No.165. It is elicited from PW7 that, Ward No.180 is situated 1½ kms away from Ward No.165. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as " ವವರರರ ನನ.165 ರನದ ವವರರರ ನನ.180 ಕಕಕ ಸಸಮವರಸ ಒನದದವರಕ ಕಲಕದಲ ಮಲಟರರ ಅನತರವದಕ". It is further elicited from PW7 that, he could not identify the voice, when he heard the voice recording. The relevant portion in his 24 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 evidence reads as "ತನಖವಧಕವರ ಧಧನ ಮಸದದಣವನಸನ ಕಕಲಳಸದವಗ ನನಗಕ ಧಧನಯನಸನ ಗಸರಸತಸಲಸ ಆಗಲಲಲ ಎನಸನವವದಸ ಸರ".
39. It is seen that, the tenor of defence, during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses is that, there was no work of PW1, pending with the accused persons, and that the accused persons were not holding any such power to do the alleged official favour to PW1 or to issue notice to PW1. Further, there was neither a demand for bribe, nor acceptance of the same, by the accused persons.
40. It is relevant to note that, the complainant/ PW1 has denied the case of the prosecution, and denied of any demand for bribe, by the accused persons. According to PW1, the very Complaint was written by his friend Nazeer Ahmad Khureshi, and PW1 had just signed the same, under the belief that his revenue problems would be solved once he signed Ex.P.1. He has also denied of having given, CD at MO16 allegedly containing the conversation between him and the accused persons, to the police. It is worthy to mention here itself, that CD at MO16 is not accompanied by the Certificate of PW1, under Sec.65B of the Evidence Act. PW1 even resiled from his 25 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 statement alleged to be given before the police as per Ex.P.15. Hence, as already observed, evidence of PW1 is of no help to the case of prosecution, to prove the demand by the accused.
41. The evidence of PW2/ the shadow witness would indicate that, he had not witnessed the conversation of the accused and PW1, with regard to demand of bribe. His evidence does not reflect that, there was any demand for bribe by the accused. The IO though has stated that, there was a demand for bribe, admittedly, the IO is not an eye witness to the alleged demand. There is no other cogent evidence, to show that there was a demand for bribe, by the accused persons.
42. PW2 being the shadow witness, his evidence assumes much importance, also with regard to the recovery of tainted amount from the accused persons. Nothing is found in the evidence of PW2, that accused No.2 had received the bribe amount from PW1, on behalf of accused No.1, though it is the case of the prosecution that, it was accused No.2 who had received the amount, on behalf of accused No.1. PW2 has also not stated that, it was accused No.1, who had received the bribe amount. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as 26 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 "When we have reached Ward No. 180 of BBMP, Banashankari time was 3:30p.m. - 3:45p.m. Out of 9 members consisting of investigation team, some of them stayed near Park and near Milk Booth. Later the complainant by speaking over the phone entered into the office of BBMP. I was standing outside of the office. After 5 minutes complainant came out from the office. By coming to know that nobody is there in the office, the complainant tried to contact the person. After 10 minutes one person came in Pulsar 2wheeler wearing blue jeans pant. The witness has identified accused no.1 Syed Ibrahim as the person who came in Pulsar bike. Thereafter the complainant and said Syed Ibrahim by interacting in Urdu language proceeded towards the office of BBMP. After 510 minutes, both the complainant and said Syed Ibrahim came outside of the office. I have been observing said movement of complainant and Syed Ibrahim from a distance of 2530 Feet. As per the instructions given by the Investigating Officer, the complainant has passed the message to us with regard to payment of money to the accused by removing his spectacles and keeping the same in his shirt pocket".
27 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
43. According to PW2, the said amount of Rs.80,000/ was kept in a cover, and his evidence does not indicate, if the amount was taken out from the cover and handed over to the accused No.1 by PW1, though he has stated that, police had seized both cover and currency notes from accused No.1. PW2 deposed that, it was he, who had taken out the cover, containing the currency notes from the pants of accused No.1. It is not his evidence that, the said accused No.1 had personally touched the currency notes, in the presence of PW2. That being the case, when the entire cover containing the currency notes was kept in the pants of the accused No.1, how the hand wash of the accused No.1 could turn pink, is not explained by the prosecution, either through the evidence of IO or through the evidence of Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, PW2 has admitted that, the Police Constable who had smeared phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes, was the person who had subjected the hands of accused No.1 for wash, which had turned pink.
44. The seized currency notes of Rs.80,000/ is marked as MO2, during evidence of PW2, however, he has deposed that, at 28 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 the time of verification, the note numbers found in the currency notes of serial numbers Sl.No.58FC J9925J, Sl.No.69FJ 6J8336, Sl.No.256CL 977J8J, Sl.No.41-9AF 74534J, Sl.No.52 7SB 9234J2, Sl.No.603NK JJ7J44, Sl.No.678BB 32525J, Sl.No.698AH 7J4596, Sl.No.74OBP 4J847J, Sl.No.912BF 6J8055, Sl.No.935BV 47663J did not tally with the note numbers prepared and furnished by the IO during pretrap mahazar. Apart from this, PW2 has deposed that, PW1 gave a signal from a considerable distance, and his evidence would clearly indicate that, he had not closely accompanied PW1, to witness PW1 handing over the bribe amount to accused No.1.
45. Regarding the place of trap, the IO in his evidence stated that, he was confused about the place of trap. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as "ಟವದಟಪರ ಪನಚನವಮಯನಸನ ಬನಶನಕರ ವವರರರ ನನ. 165 ರ ಕಛಕಲರಯಲಲ ಬಕರಳಚಸಚ ಮವಡಲವಗದಕ. ಬನಶನಕರ ವವರರನಲಲ ವವರರರ 165 ಮತಸತ 180 ಇದಕ ಎನದರಕ ಈ ಕಸರತಸ ಸಧಲಲ ಗಕದನದಲವದಕ". He admits that, Ex.P.28 Sketch prepared by the Engineer and Ex.D.2 - Sketch produced on behalf of the accused both pertain to Ward No.165. No doubt, it is spelt out in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that, due to scarcity of space, the raid 29 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 team moved from Ward No.180 to Ward No.165. But, it is worthy to mention that, the Revenue Officer to whom Ward No.165 belonged to, as stated by the IO, is not a witness to this case. Apart from this, PW7 has deposed that, the office in Ward no.165 is about 1½ kms away from Ward No.180.
46. IO has admitted that, the voice sample was not sent to expert, to confirm that the voice in the CDs allegedly containing the conversation between PW1 and accused, was that of either of the accused. Moreover, PW1 has denied of handing over any such CD to the IO. The CDs referred to by the IO, during his evidence, were not marked at the initial stage, for want of 65B Certificate, and the same was produced by the Prosecution, at a later stage, to mark the CD given by PW1 as MO16, and the one prepared at the time of trap proceedings as MO19, both with a common Certificate under Sec.65B of the IO, which is at Ex.P.29.
47. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24, (Anv Ar P.V. v/s. P.K. Basheer and others), and submitted that, as electronic records are more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, 30 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 excision etc., safe guards to ensure the source and authenticity of electronic records is a must, and without such safe guards provided under Sec.65B, trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice, and that in the instant case, the CD allegedly containing the conversation of PW1 and accused persons has not been proved as per law. Apart from this, as already stated, the said CDs were not sent to voice test, nor the voice in the CDs was identified by any of the witnesses, to confirm that the conversation in the CDs, was the one between PW1 and the accused persons. Also, PW1 himself has categorically denied of any demand by the accused persons. Hence, it is not safe to rely on MO16 and MO19 CDs, to hold that the voice in the CDs are that of the accused persons, and that the accused persons had demanded money from PW1.
48. Pendency of work with the accused is an essential element to be established by the prosecution, but however, there is no concrete evidence placed by the prosecution, to show that the work of PW1 was pending with the accused persons. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2016 (1) KCRR 815, (R. Srinivasan and another v/s. 31 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 State by Police Inspector Lokayuktha, Bangalore), and submitted that, the scope for demanding bribe by a Public Servant would arise only if there a possibility of doing official favour, and the prosecution is expected to make out a case that the accused had opportunity to do official favour, and that, in the instant case, no work was pending with the accused persons, in respect of work of PW1.
49. PW1 though has stated that, there was some revenue problem with regard to his site, prosecution has not elicited anything further, about the revenue problems so referred to by PW1. The evidence of shadow witness is not helpful, to prove the pendency of work with the accused. The IO has admitted that, no power was vested with the accused persons under KMC Act, to issue notice to PW1, and the said power was vested only with the Commissioner. PW3 the Sanctioning Authority has also stated that, if the construction is carried out in violation of the provisions of KMC Act, it is the Commissioner, who is empowered to take action. Though PW3 has stated that, the Commissioner can delegate his powers to the officer in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, he has categorically 32 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 admitted that, a Gangman has no authority to deal with the allegations, in respect of Violation of Building Rules. It is also brought out during evidence of PW3 that, there was a stay order in respect of the site of PW1 and when there is a stay order from the competent Court, no further action can be taken either by the Commissioner or by any other officials of BBMP, for Violation of Building byelaws. The pendency of work with the accused persons is also therefore, not satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
50. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2012 (1) KCCR 414, (R. Malini vs. State of Karnataka), and submitted that, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, and when the prosecution fails to prove that the money was paid for a corrupt purpose, the guilt cannot be fastened to the accused.
51. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 1977 SCC (Cri) 516, (Hari Dev Sharma v/s. State (Delhi Administration), and submitted that, it is not safe to sustain conviction, when there is no demand from the accused. 33 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
52. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2010 (3) KCCR 1851, (State of Karnataka v/s. M. Gopalakrishnaiah and others), and submitted that, when the initial burden of proving demand and acceptance is not proved, the presumption under Sec.20 of the Act does not arise, and the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
53. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 878, (Meena (Smt) W/o. Balwant Hemke v/s. State of Maharashtra), and submitted that, the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise, and proper proof of acceptance of illegal gratification which is a vital ingredient of the offence is necessary, to procure a conviction, and in the instant case, the prosecution has not established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
54. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5740, (M.R. Purushotham vs. State of Karnataka), and submitted that, mere possession and 34 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 recovery of currency notes from the accused, without proof of demand, would not attract, offence under Sec.13(1)(d).
55. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010, (State of Kerala and another v/s. C.P. Rao) and submitted that, mere recovery of tainted money, is not sufficient to convict the accused, when there is no corroboration of testimony of complaintant regarding of demand of bribe by accused.
56. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (1979) 4 SCC 725, (Suraj Mal v/s. State (Delhi) Administration), and submitted that, mere recovery of bribe amount is not sufficient to convict, when the substantive evidence of the case is not reliable, and in the instant case, there is no substantive reliable evidence against the accused.
57. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2080, (B. Jayaraj v/s. State of A.P.), and submitted that, in the absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted money from accused, is not sufficient for his conviction.
35 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
58. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (2010) 4 SCC 450, (Banarasi Das v/s. State of Haryana), and submitted that, recovery of money is not sufficient to draw inference of demand and receipt of illegal gratification.
59. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2008 (2) KCCR 985, (Karnataka High Court v/s. Jagannathan J.), and submitted that, mere recovery of money is not sufficient to draw inference of demand and receipt of illegal gratification.
60. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 552, (P. Parsaurami Reddy v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh), and submitted that, when the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had fixed the time and place to receive the bribe money, recovery of money cannot be held to be proved and in the instant case, the prosecution has not established the time and place of receiving the bribe money.
61. Regarding the role of panch witness, the learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2006 (3) 36 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 KCCR 1422, (Manjunath Basappa Basavamurthy vs. State of Karnataka), and submitted that, when the independent panch witness has not played his role as instructed, and his evidence remains uncorroborated, it is not safe to base conviction and in the instant case, the panch witness - PW2 has not accompanied PW1, to watch the happenings closely.
62. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 1997 SCC (Cri) 750, (State of Gujarat through CBI v/s. Kumudchandra Pranjivan Shah), and submitted that, when the evidence of panch witness, is not corroborated, conviction could not be based only on the evidence of panch witness and police witness, and that in the instant case, the panch witness is a stock witness of the police, and his evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of the complainant and therefore evidence of PW2 cannot be considered.
63. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (1972) 3 SCC 652, (Ram Prakash Arora v/s. State of Punjab), and submitted that, trap witness being an interested witness, his evidence must be tested like other interested witnesses.
37 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
64. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 2016 (1) Kar 181, (Dr. S.R. Chowdaiah v/s. State of Karnataka, and submitted that, panchas being the government servants there is likelihood that they would support the prosecution against the accused because of fear of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and involvement of independent witness is essential in such circumstances, and in the instant case, though the trap was conducted in a public office, no member of the public has been involved.
65. As already stated above, though the trap proceedings were done in a public office, no member of the public is examined as an independent witness to speak about the incident. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in 1981 SCC (Cri) 586, (Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v/s. State of Gujarat), and submitted that, failure of the prosecution to examine the independent witnesses, naturally present on the occasion must be considered while appreciating the evidence, and in the instant case, though it is the case of the prosecution, that the trap was conducted in a public office, 38 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 no independent witness from among the public, has been examined.
66. The prosecution relied upon Ex.P.7 the statement of accused No.1, and Ex.P.8 the statement of accused No.2, to contend that, the accused persons have given statements before the IO, with regard to recovery of money. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decisions reported in 1969 Crl LJ 1016 and AIR 1973 SCC 2773, (Kali Ram v/s. State of Himachal Pradesh), and submitted that, statement of the accused recorded by police is hit by Sec.162 of Cr.P.C. Apart from this, on a careful perusal of the statements at Ex.P.7 and P.8, no such unequivocal admission of the accused persons, is found.
67. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (1979) 4 SCC 526, (Panlal Damodar Rathi v/s. State of Maharashtra), and submitted that, the complainant cannot be placed on a better footing than that of an accused, and when he offers bribe, he is guilty of abatement of bribery under Sec.165A IPC and in the instant case, no charge has been made against PW1, under Sec.165A of IPC, and the said 39 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 inaction on the part of the IO itself is an indication that, the accused persons are innocent.
68. The learned counsel for accused relied on the decision reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, (P. Sathyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police), and submitted that, the suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and in a suspicious case, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Further, when PW1 himself has not stated anything about the demand by the accused, it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification.
69. While appreciating the evidence on record, I am also guided by these decisions, and I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the entire material placed on record carefully, in the light of aforesaid decisions. There is absolutely no satisfactory evidence, to show demand of bribe by the accused persons from the Complainant. There is no satisfactory evidence, to prove the acceptance also, of the bribe amount. The prosecution has also failed to establish, the actual acceptance of tainted currency notes by the accused. The Complainant himself has not supported the prosecution case, 40 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 with regard to acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. Though PW2 has stated that, Rs.80,000/ was recovered from the pants of the accused No.1, he had not seen PW1 handing over the amount to accused No.1. Nothing is found in the evidence of PW2, that he had personally witnessed PW1 handing over the amount either to accused No.1 or accused No.2. Further, according to PW2, the currency note numbers noted during pretrap proceedings, and the seized currency note numbers, did not tally with each other.
70. In view of the decisions cited above, unless there is a proof of demand of illegal gratification, mere recovery of the amount is not sufficient to hold that, the accused persons have demanded illegal gratification, and accepted the same. Admittedly, the Investigation Officer is not an eye witness to the demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. MO9 - CD containing the conversation between complainant and accused, has not been sent to FSL. No reasons are forthcoming in the evidence of PW7, for not sending the CDs for voice test. Even if the contention of the prosecution, with regard to the acceptance of tainted notes, by the accused persons is accepted, as the 41 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 prosecution has failed to discharge, the initial burden of proving the demand itself, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
71. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe by the accused persons, which is an essential requirement to constitute the offence under Sec.7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Nothing is found in the evidence of PW2, that the accused persons had counted the currency notes, and then kept it in the pocket of the pants of accused No.1. PW2 was standing at a considerable distance from the place, where the complainant and the accused persons were standing. None of the other witnesses have stated anything about acceptance of the tainted notes by the accused persons. Therefore, receipt of the tainted notes by the accused as illegal gratification, to do official favour, is not established. As already stated, even if the acceptance of tainted currency notes by the accused is accepted, the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove, that the tainted currency notes, amounting to 42 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Rs.80,000/ was the bribe amount or the illegal gratification received by the accused, on their demand.
72. The cumulative effect of all these aspects lead me to draw an irresistible conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, beyond reasonable doubt. No satisfactory and convincing evidence is placed by the prosecution, to establish the essential ingredients, to attract the offences under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In the circumstances, and for the reasons stated, I answer point No.2 and 3 in the Negative.
73. Point No.4: In view of my findings on point Nos.2 and 3, by extending the benefit of doubt to accused No.1 and 2, I hold that the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 - Syed Ibrahim, and accused No.2
- Ramu, are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.43 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014
Their bail bonds and the surety bonds are cancelled.
M.O.1 Metal seal is directed to be returned to Lokayukta Police, MO2 Cash of Rs.80,000/ is confiscated to the State, and MO3 to MO20 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.
Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to execute personal bonds for Rs.50,000/ each, as per Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., for their due appearance before the Appellate Court, in case if any Appeal is preferred against this Judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 27th day of July 2022).
Sd/ 27.07.2022 (Vineetha P. Shetty) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru. (CCH79) 44 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 : Masood Ahmad P.W.2 : M.K. Shivakumar P.W.3 : M. Lakshminarayana P.W.4 : Mohan Kumar N.R. P.W.5 : Mohamed Mukaram P.W.6 : Dr. Ravishankar P.W.7 : R. Madhu List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Exhibit No. Description of the document Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.1(c) Documents enclosed with complaint Ex.P.2 Pretrap Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.3 Details of Currency notes Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.3(c) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.4 Transcription of Conversation Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.5 Trap Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW2 45 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of CW3 Ex.P.5(c) & Signature of Accused No.1 and 2 (d) Ex.P.5(e) Signature of Investigating Officer Ex.P.5(f) Signature of CW1 Ex.P.6 Transcription of trap proceeding from voice recorder Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.7 Explanation of accused No.1 Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.8 Explanation of accused No.2 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.8(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.9 Acknowledgement from accused No.2 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.10 Sample Seal Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.11 Statement of Muddharaju Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.11(b) Signature of Muddharaju Ex.P.11(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.12 Statement of R. Madhu Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of Madhu Ex.P.12(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.13 File pertaining to complainant 46 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.13(b) Notice to Masood Ahmed Ex.P.13(c) Notice to Masood Ahmed Ex.P.13(d) Notice to Masood Ahmed Ex.P.13(e) Order dated 25.01.2014 Ex.P.14 Attendance Register Extract Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.15 161 statement of PW1 Ex.P.16 Prosecution Sanction order of accused No.1 Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.17 Prosecution Sanction order of accused No.2 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.17(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.18 FIR Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.19 Requisition to secure witness Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.20 Transcription of conversation during Pretrap proceedings Ex.P.21 Rough Sketch Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.22 PF No.5/2014 Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.23 Chemical Examination Report Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.23(b) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.24 Requisition to FSL Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW5 47 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Ex.P.24(b) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.25 Letter for preparing sketch Ex.P.26 Service Particulars of accused No.2 Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.27 Service Particulars of accused No.1 Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.27(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.28 Sketch from Engineering Ex.P.29 Certificate under Sec.65(b) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.30 Certificate under Sec.65(b) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.31 Sample seal of FSL Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW6
Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence:
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Exhibit Description of the document No. Ex.D.1 Colour copy of photo (containing 3 sheets) Sketch showing the BBMP office, taken under Ex.D.2 RTI Act Sketch showing the location of Banashankari Ex.D.3 Temple Ward Office Order of the Appellate Tribunal in the Appeal Ex.D.4 No.89/2014 dated 29.01.2014 48 Spl.C.C.No.439/2014 Material Objects marked by Prosecution:
MO1 : Metal seal "L"
MO2 : Currency notes of Rs.80,000/
MO3 : Blue jeans pant
MO3(a) : Cover containing MO3
MO3(b) : Signature of PW2
MO4 : Sample Carbonate Solution
MO5 : PW2's hand washed Solution
MO6 : Sample Carbonate Solution
MO7 & 8 : Accused No.1's right hand washed Solution
MO9 & 10 : Accused No.1's left hand washed Solution
MO11 : Sample Carbonate Solution
MO12 & 13 : Accused No.2's right hand washed Solution
MO14 & 15 : Accused No.2's left hand washed Solution
MO16 to 20 : CDs
Sd/ 27.07.2022
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act),
Bengaluru.
****