Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs V. Muniyappa on 28 March, 2026
KABC010037372017 IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.24) Dated: This the 28th day of March, 2026 :PRESENT: K.M. RADHAKRISHNA B.A.LL.B., XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City. Special C.C.No.78/2017 Complainant : The State of Karnataka, represented by the Police Inspector-09, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru Urban Wing, Bengaluru. (By the Public Prosecutor) -Versus- Accused : Sri. V. Muniyappa, S/o. Late Venkatappa @ Venkatanaboyi, Aged about 59 years, R/o. No.438, "Kirana", 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru. 2 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Permanent resident of : Yadahalli, Balla Post, Mulabagilu Taluk, Kolara District. (By Sri. G. Nataraj, Advocate) **** **** Date of offence Check period from 09.12.1982 to 15.7.2014 Date of report of offence 15.07.2014 Date of arrest of the -- accused Date of release on bail -- Total period of custody -- Name of the complainant Sri. M.N.Ravishankar, PI Date of commencement of recording evidence 4.6.2018 Date of closing of evidence 2.12.2022 Under Section 13(1)(e) read Offences complained of with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Opinion of the Judge As per the order Sd/- (K.M. RADHAKRISHNA), XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru. 3 Spl. C.C.78/2017 JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector-09 Sri. T. V. Manjunatha from the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru Urban Division has charge-sheeted the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) in Crime No.31/2014.
2. Allegations in brief are that, the accused was working as the Managing Director of the Karnataka Council for Technical Up-gradation at Basava Bhavana of Bengaluru City. The period of service applicable to the accused relating to the crime is 09.12.1982 to 15.07.2014 (for short, the check period). During this period, the accused had accumulated the total assets worth Rs.3,21,03,390.93 (77.78%) disproportionate to his known sources of an income at Rs.4,12,73,631.00. Having failed to give satisfactory accounts therefor, the accused has committed the afore-referred offence.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was got registered by this Court. The presence of the accused was secured. He was represented by a 4 Spl. C.C.78/2017 counsel and got enlarged on bail. After the complying the requirement under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., this Court has framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, read over and explained the same in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty, but claims to be tried. Hence, the trial of the case was fixed.
4. To prove its allegations, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses as PW1 to 20 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P134. After closure of the prosecution evidence, and getting compliance of Section 437(A), the accused has been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denies the incriminating circumstances appearing against him to be false. The accused has adduced the evidence as DW1, apart examining 3 witnesses namely Sri. Kiran, Sri. Y. K. Somashekar and Smt. Jayalaxmi as DW2 to 4 respectively. He has got marked documents as per Ex.D1 to 10 in support of his defence that, he is an innocent.
5 Spl. C.C.78/2017
5. Heard arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel with reference to his written explanations of 3 parts. After going through the record, the following points would arise for the consideration.
1. Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused was a public servant during the check period?
2. Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused had accumulated the assets worth Rs.3,21,03,390.93/- (77.78%) disproportionate to his known sources of an income during the check period and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988?
6. Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative for the following :
6 Spl. C.C.78/2017 REASONS
7. Point No.1: It is not in dispute that, the accused was working as the Managing Director of Karnataka Council for the Technical Up-gradation at Bengaluru. As the accused is not disputing his status as a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act, the further discussion does not warrant to answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
8. PW13 - Sri. M. N. Ravishankar is the Police Inspector. He deposes to have conducted the preliminary enquiry on the assets of the accused, and submitted the source report vide Ex.P5 dated 28.06.2014. PW14 Sri. Mohammed Mukharram, the Police Officer has got registered the FIR as per Ex.P21 against the accused vide the order of the Police Superintendent (for short, the SP) at Ex.P22 under Section 17 of P.C Act.
9. The evidence of PW14 and PW13 reveals, the raid conducted on the house and office of the accused under mahazars at Ex.P2 and 4 dated 16.07.2014. The panchas PW1 Smt. Manjulakshi and PW2 Sri. D.
7 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Prasahanth Kumar admits the raid in their presence. PW14 Sri. Mohammed Mukharram states to have carried out the investigation in-part after the raid. PW18 Sri. G. Siddaraju the Police Inspector is another officer deposes to have conducted further investigation in-part. PW19 Sri. T. V. Manjunatha, (for short, the IO) the Police Officer has concluded the remaining part of the investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused. The allegation therein is that, the accused had acquired the assets disproportionate as per the following details, during the check period from 09.12.1982 to 15.07.2014 :
Total Assets Rs. 5,45,57,974.84
Expenditure Rs. 1,88,19,047.09
Total Rs. 7,33,77,021.93
Income Rs. 4,12,73,631.00
DA Rs. 3,21,03,390.93
Percentage 77.78%
10. Whereas, the accused denies the said
allegation as baseless. He asserts that, he is an innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. His counsel while advancing the arguments, 8 Spl. C.C.78/2017 has initially questioned the legality and maintainability of the present proceedings on the following grounds :
(a) No prosecution sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the PC Act was obtained against the accused.
(b) PW14 being the Police Inspector was not competent under Section 17 of the PC Act to register the FIR as per Ex.P21 that too, on the basis of the source report dated 15.07.2014 instead of the report at Ex.P5 dated 28.06.2014.
(c) The order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the PC Act at Ex.P22 is without the proper application of mind.
11. It is seen that, the prosecution sanction was not obtained against the accused by the investigation agency. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that, it was not mandatory against the retired public servant under the Pre-Amended PC Act, 1988. He justifies the correctness of taking cognizance in respect of the alleged offence. Here, it is not in dispute that, the charge-sheet was laid against the accused on 19.01.2017 and this Court took the 9 Spl. C.C.78/2017 cognizance of the offence on 10.02.2017 in the absence of prosecution sanction. The reason is that, the accused was admittedly retired from the service w.e.f. 30.09.2014. The learned defence counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri. B. A. Srinivasan Vs. The Station House Officer, CBI/ACB Bangalore and Another, registered as Crl. R. P. No.834/2015 to contend that, the prosecution sanction is necessary to prosecute even a retired public servant. Therefore, according to him, the present proceedings against the accused cannot be sustained.
12. In the light of the above, it is made clear that, the intention behind obtaining the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is to protect, the public servant from the false and vexatious litigation. Needless to say that, the 2018 amendment to the PC Act mandates the requirement of the prosecution sanction even against the retired public servant. Whereas, the Pre-amended Act mandates no such requirements. This position of law is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 10 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Kali Charan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa reported as AIR 1998 SC 2595. While following the same, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in the case of B. A. Srinivasan that, the prosecution sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is a must even against the retired public servant in respect of offences under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the defence contention on this count would not get any justification. The reason is that, sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act alone is relevant for the case on hand but, not Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am to sustain the prosecution stand.
13. In so far as the defence contention at (b) and
(c) of para 10 above is concerned, the learned defence counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M. Puttaswamy Vs. The State of Karnataka Rep. by Lokayukta Police registered as Crl. P. No.391/2017 c/w other cases, and the case of B. Narayana Reddy reported as 2002 Crl.L.J
845. On the strength of the law laid down therein, he questions the correctness of the order at Ex.P22 under Section 17 of the PC Act passed by the Superintendent of Police (for short, the SP).
11 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Wherein, PW14 was directed to register the FIR and to investigate the case. Here, it is not in dispute that, PW14 was the Police Inspector. Section 17 of the PC Act makes clear that, the Police Officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P is competent to register the FIR in respect of the offence under the PC Act. The order at Ex.P22 reveals that, 7 Dy.S.Ps were working in the Lokayukta Police Wing of Bengaluru Urban Division at the relevant point of time. This has become the ground for the learned defence counsel to question, the competency of PW14 and validity of the FIR registered by him.
14. The accused is not disputing the prosecution's stand that, PW14 was a well trained Police officer, and having vast experience in the department. The reason given by the SP in his Order at Ex.P22 to justify is that, all the 7 Dy.S.Ps were involved and found busy in finalizing other cases registered under the PC Act. This inevitability for him to get register the FIR through PW14 is one among the three circumstances guided by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M. Puttaswamy, to sustain the contention of the prosecution that, the FIR was 12 Spl. C.C.78/2017 validly registered. The further defence of the accused is that, the investigation done by PW19 without the authority under Section 17 of the PC Act gets vitiated. In this context, he relies on the following authorities :
(a) 1990 STPL 6493 SC in the case of Bajan Lal.
(b) (2010) 2 Kar.L.J.-1 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Basappa Vs. State.
As already discussed above, the SP concerned in his order at Ex.P22 has permitted PW14 to register the FIR and investigate into the crime. Once the order as such is validly passed, PW19 being his successor officer does not require further order in writing rather than the oral direction of the same SP to continue the investigation. In other words, I am to hold that, the order at Ex.P22 itself holds good for PW19 for the purpose of an investigation. Therefore, the law laid down in the authorities relied on by the learned defence counsel, would not support his contention to that extent.
15. It is seen that, the source report at Ex.P5 dated 28.06.2014 was the basis for the SP to pass the 13 Spl. C.C.78/2017 order vide Ex.P22 dated 15.07.2014. Yes of course, the copy of another source report bearing the date as 15.07.2014 is available on record. But, the same cannot be connected to the report at Ex.P5. Hence, the defence contention with reference to the so-called another report dated 15.07.2014 has to ignore. In so far as the validity of the order at Ex.P22 under Section 17 of the PC Act is concerned, the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. N. Sudhakar Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka reported as 2025 INSC 229 would be the answer. In the circumstance, the law laid down in the case of Satish S., Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta registered as Crl. P. No.22483/2023 cannot be made applicable herein. Therefore, no more discussion to that extent is a matter of necessity.
16. Generally, and even as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Krishna Reddy Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported as (1992) 4 SCC 45, the case of Vasanth Rao Guhe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 14 SCC 442, the obligation is on the prosecution to prove the offence of criminal misconduct, rather than 14 Spl. C.C.78/2017 expecting the accused to prove his defence. In case if the prosecution discharges its burden, the onus automatically shifts upon the accused to prove his defence particularly in the cases of this nature. In this context, I am to make a mention that, the nature of allegation herein rests on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence. I mean to say that, the documentary evidence plays the crucial role in deciding the offence. With this background, I am to decide the offence in question against the accused with reference to the material evidence pertaining to his assets, expenditure and the income.
I. ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED
17. The oral evidence of the I.O and contents of his final investigation report exposes, the acquisition of assets by the accused under 48 different heads as detailed at page No.157 to 161 of Volume-I worth Rs.5,45,57,974.84 during his check period from 09.12.1982 to 15.07.2014 as hereunder :
Item Description of assets
Value (in Rs.)
No.
The property bearing No.438, 'Kirana' 60,050 &
1
6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru 15 Spl. C.C.78/2017 & The valuation of house 45,31,670 The site bearing No.120/14 measuring 72,000 30 x 40 is located at Chellikere village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru & 2 The valuation of the ground floor of the building built therein & 1,34,434 The valuation of the 4 floors building therein 12,00,000 The site bearing No.120/2 measuring 1,03,000 90 x 40 situated at Chelakere, K. R. 3 Pura Hobli, Bengaluru & The value of plot purchased in Keerthi Apartment 1,35,43,236 The site bearing No.11 measuring 40 x 43,20,000 60 situated at Akkamma Badavane, 4 Banasavadi, Bengaluru The value of the house built therein 92,47,244 The value of the building built in the site No.10 measuring 30 x 50 situated 5 7,50,000 in Katha No.69/4P, Horamavu village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru The site No. 11 measuring 30 x 50 6 situated at Katha No.69/4P, Horamavu 12,00,000 village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru The site No. 12 measuring 30 x 50 7 situated at Katha No.69/4P, Horamavu 7,50,000 village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru The site No. 37 measuring 40 x 60 situated at Katha No.214/1, Horamavu 8 9,00,000 Agara village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru The property measuring 4047 sq. ft situated in Sy. No.66 and 82, Flot No.222 situatd att Narasapura 9 st 75,00,000 Industrial Area, 1 Stage, Karinayakanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Maluru Taluk, Kolara District The land measuring Sy. No.7 acres 15 10 guntas in Sy. No. 82/3, 84/2, 88 00.00 situated at Byadabele, Kasaba, 16 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Bangarapete Taluk (It is an ancestral property) SBI Bank A/c No. 30315020766 opened at Kacharakanahalli 11 Kammanahalli Branch, No.63, 1,87,201.64 Koddakallappa Badavane, M. S. Nagara Post, Bengaluru SBI Bank Account bearing No. 20164929752 opened at Kacharakanahalli Kammanahalli 12 88,070 Branch, No.63, Koddakallappa Badavane, M. S. Nagara Post, Bengaluru SBI Bank Account bearing No. 20007011574 opened at Kacharakanahalli Kammanahalli 13 4,759.36 Branch, No.63, Koddakallappa Badavane, M. S. Nagara Post, Bengaluru Vijaya Bank Account bearing 14 No.14000301000514 situated at 23,74,137.55 H.B.R. Badavane Branch, Bengaluru Vijaya Bank Account bearing 15 No.117801010024219 situated at R.C 6,19,661.35 Road Branch, Bengaluru SBM Bank Account bearing 16 No.54032923758 situated at H.R.B.R. 29,694 Layout Branch, Bengaluru Canara Bank Account bearing 17 No.2456101501094 situated at 66,060 Kalyana Nagara Branch, Bengaluru SBM Bank Account bearing No.54032919050 situated at H.R.B.R. 18 1,03,751.71 Layout Branch, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru Canara Bank Account bearing 19 No.2456101501093 situated at 1,29,273.52 Kalyana Nagara Branch, Bengaluru Canara Bank Account bearing 20 No.2456101006718 situated at 3,402.26 Kalyana Nagara Branch, Bengaluru Canara Bank Account bearing 21 8,146.45 No.2456101501090 situated at 17 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Kalyana Nagara Branch, Bengaluru Canara Bank Account bearing 22 No.0768101054321 situated at 5,46,402 Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru Canara Bank Account bearing 23 No.07668101054438 situated at 19,006 Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru ICICI Bank Account bearing No.029801500057 situated at 24 15,152 Kammanahalli Branch, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru 25 Membership Fee of the HBCC Club 1,000 40 Shares held in Janatha Seva Co-
26 1,000 operative Bank Ltd (101318 to 101357) Shares of the Bharath Co-operative 27 250 Bank Ltd (3867018 to 3867027) 28 The value of N.S.C 2,25,899 The Maruthi Car bearing Reg. No. KA- 29 1,33,000 05-6092 The Bajaj Scooter bearing Reg. No. CAP 30 11,500
-8778 The Hundai I20 Car bearing Reg. No. 31 7,14,925 KA-03-MS-8466 The Hundai CTS Car bearing Reg. No. 32 8,87,000 KA-03-MK-8619 The Zen Car bearing Reg. No. KA-03- 33 4,08,837 MA-2574 The Bajaj Pulsur Bike bearing Reg. No. 34 56,423 KA-03-EN-9382 The Cavasaki Ninja Bike bearing Reg. 35 2,76,998 No. KA-03-HJ-7116 36 The value of Jewells 00.00 37 One Diamond Nose Pin 34,000 38 The value of Silver Items 1,63,529 39 Cash 13,71,500 40 Home Furniture 17,58,762 The Deposit amount pertaining to House No.438, Kirana, 6th B. Main, 41 130 Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru (House Meter No.R.R.No.5, EP 1685) The Deposit amount pertaining to 42 House No.438, Kirana, 6th B. Main, 2,270 Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru (House 18 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Meter No.R.R.No.E5, EH 6651) The Deposit amount pertaining to House No.438, Kirana, 6th B. Main, 43 840 Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru (House Meter No.R.R.No.E5, EH 9153) The Deposit amount pertaining to House No.438, Kirana, 6th B. Main, 44 470 Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru (House Meter No.R.R.No.5, EEH 14316) The Deposit amount pertaining to House No.438, Kirana, 6th B. Main, 45 690 Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru (House Meter No.R.R.No.5, EH 9154) Deposit amount paid for BSNL 46 Landline Service bearing 500 No.9448069425 Deposit amount for Gas Consumer 47 1,200 bearing No.604414 Deposit amount for Gas Consumer 48 900 bearing No.606551 Total Rs.5,45,57,974.84 In his written arguments dated 01.08.2025, the accused admits the value of assets at item No.10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 29, 44, 46, 47 and 48 for Rs.10,40,936.99 Thus, his dispute is in respect of assets at Item No.1 to 9, 12 to 14, 18 to 24, 28, 30 to 33, 34, 35 to 43 & 45 worth Rs.5,35,17,037.85. Therefore, the item-wise value of the disputed assets needs a detail discussion to decide its correctness or otherwise as considered by the I.O.
19 Spl. C.C.78/2017
18. Item No.1 : is the site bearing No.438 worth Rs.60,050/- at Kalyana Nagara of Bengaluru city. Admittedly, its dimension is 40 x 65 sq.fts. On 17.10.1987, it was allotted to the accused by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, the BDA) on his individual application. The allotment was subsequently confirmed, through the absolute Sale Deed dated 18.05.2001 at page 21 of Ex.P46. The contention of the prosecution is that, it was acquired by the accused out of his earnings. The accused denies this allegation with the defence as if, acquired by the joint family in his name and subsequently, constructed the RCC building consisting of the ground and 1st floors, between 1992 to 1994. According to the accused, the house of 8 squares at the 1st floor fell to his share in a family partition under the palupatti dated 01.02.1996 and the entire building under the revised palupatti dated 01.08.2002, in terms of the compromise entered into between him and the kartha of the joint family in O.S.No.8635/1995.
18.1 Admittedly, Sri.Kariyappa, Thimmappa, Venkatappa, Narayanappa, and one V. Krishnappa 20 Spl. C.C.78/2017 are brothers of the accused. The existence of their joint family under the karthaship of Sri. Kariyappa prior to February 1996 is also admitted by the IO. But, no piece of document is before the Court to prove the purchase of this site or the construction of the building therein by the joint family. The site allotment and purchase related document at Ex.P46 goes to reveal that, the accused has acquired the site in his individual capacity to the exclusion of the joint family. Needless to say that, a person to apply for the allotment of a BDA site, must be the resident continuously for a particular period within its territorial limits. This fact gets strengthened with the contents in the affidavit of the accused at page 18 of Ex.P46 submitted to the BDA that, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV PÀ¼ÉzÀ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¨ÉAUÀ¼À ÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀ zÀ¯Éèà ¸ÀévÀAvÀæåªÁV ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¤ªÉñÀ £À ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆ AqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV ¤ªÉñÀ £ÀzÀ°è PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M¦àPÉÆ ArgÀÄvÀÉÛãÉ.
18.2. It is seen that, an injunctory suit in O.S.No.8638/1995 was filed by the brother of the accused Sri.Kariyappa before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Wherein, his prayer was to restrain the 21 Spl. C.C.78/2017 defendant from leasing out the building in item No.1 property to the third parties. Within 39 days from the date of the suit, the accused has got allotted, the 1st floor building of 8 squares to his share vide the family palupatti dated 01.02.1996. Within 5 days thereafter, the suit gets disposed off with the filing of a compromise petition dated 06.02.1996 found at page 211 and 212 of Vol-III. Again on 01.08.2002, the accused claims to have got allotted the entire building in item No.1 site under the revised palupatti.
18.3. On perusal, the nature of pleadings in O.S.No.8638/1995 and contents of the compromise petition and the conduct of the accused goes to expose that, it is he who got it filed against himself through his brother and managed to get back item No.1 property on the pretext of a palupatti and revised palupatti with the projection of the joint family, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. When there is no evidence to reveal the nexus of either the purchase or the construction of the building to the joint family, the ocular evidence and his self serving APRs would not justify the defence of the accused. Rather, the purchase of this 22 Spl. C.C.78/2017 site worth Rs.60,050/- and the construction of the building therein by the accused stands proved. Therefore, the question of giving Rs.2,20,000/- by the accused to the kartha of the joint family towards the construction as he deposed would not arise.
18.4. Admittedly, the ground and 1st floor building in the dimension of 40 x 65 sq.fts. was constructed during the year 1992-1994. PW8 Sri.Achutha Bidarahalli is the then Asst. Executive Engineer of PWD. The IO states to have got assessed the cost of construction through PW8. This witness admits the inspection of the building on 10.11.2014. He reiterates the contents of his report at Ex.P10. The fact emanating from his evidence and the report that, the building was consisting with the ground floor in the plinth area of 1655.37 sq.fts., the 1st floor in the plinth area of 2011.62 sq.fts., and the 2nd floor in the plinth area 789.25 sq.fts. is not disputed by the accused. This is evident to say that, the 2nd floor building must have been constructed after 1996 and before the spot inspection did by PW8 on 10.11.2014. The defence suggestion to this witness at para 10 of the cross-examination that, PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À 23 Spl. C.C.78/2017 ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è £É®ªÀĺÀr, 1£Éà ªÀĺÀr ºÁUÀÆ 2£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀnÖ¹gÀĪÀ 1995-96, 2001-02, 2004-05 gÀ r-PÉÆ Ãqï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¸ï.Dgï zÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ L.f.Dgï zÀgÀ C¼ÀªÀr¹ ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj is evident to confirm the construction of the 2nd floor between 2001-02 and 2004-05.
18.5. PW8 deposes to have assessed the net cost of building comprising of the ground, 1st and 2nd floors at Rs.45,31,670/- after deduction of the depreciation, to the tune of Rs.11,21,399/- at the rate of 1% for 22 years, out of the total cost of Rs.56,53,069/-. The IO has considered the net cost of Rs.45,31,670/- to the assets accounts of the accused. According to the accused, the entire cost of construction was borne by the kartha and states to have disclosed it, in his APR for the year 1993-94. Here, I am to reiterate that, the purchase of the site by the accused stands proved. No material is on record to substantiate the construction of the building at the hands of the kartha or the expenses of the joint family, except its projection and roping the story in its name, as rightly argued by the learned 24 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Public Prosecutor. Therefore, his self serving APR for the year 1993-94 would not be the basis to accept his defence. Rather, the construction of the building by the accused stands proved.
18.6. Now, the cost of construction is in dispute. The accused in his evidence at para 9 states that, in the year 2002, he had borrowed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the SBM Bank at Kalyana Nagar Branch under the permission of the Government at Ex.P69. He got repaired and renovated the entire building by spending Rs.5,00,000/- + his savings of Rs.1,06,118/-, in all Rs.6,06,118/-. With this, his defence is that, the entire construction and renovation cost is Rs.11,85,000/- only. By which, he mean to say that, the construction cost of 3 floors building in the area of 40 x 65 sq.fts is just Rs.5,78,882/- if the renovation cost is excluded. In this way, his defence by itself gets falsified.
18.7. No doubt, PW8 admits to have adopted the IGR Notification bearing No.CVC24/2013-2014 dated 03.07.2013 to assess. The prevailing rates in the year 2014 are the basis for him to assess the cost. The 25 Spl. C.C.78/2017 depreciation he deposed to have deducted for a period of 22 years is totally unknown to the law, particularly in the case of this nature. The object behind the assessment is to ascertain the actual amount spent for construction by the public servant and the source for him in the relevant years. In fact, PW8 should have assessed the building cost based on the table of schedule rates fixed by the public works department for the relevant years. These are the considerable lapses, I can notice on the part of PW8.
18.8. However, the accused is not disputing the marble used to the flooring of ground floor, the teakwood for its doors and windows. Similarly, the granite to the floorings of the 1st and 2nd floors with the use of matti and nandi wood. As discussed above, the ground and 1st floor building came to be constructed during the year from 1992 to 1994 and the 2nd floor between 2001-02 and 2004-05. Even otherwise, the construction of 3 floors building during the said period, with the use of above materials in Bengaluru city, at the cost of just Rs.56,53,069/- cannot be expected. However, the lapses noticed hereinbefore on the part of PW8 inspires me to opine 26 Spl. C.C.78/2017 that, the deduction of Rs.13,00,205/- at the rate of 23% on the actual cost of Rs.56,53,069/- would ensures the justification. That means, the construction cost of 3 floors building is Rs.43,52,863/- + 6,06,118/- + 60,050/- towards the cost of renovation and the site purchase value would be Rs.50,19,031/-, as assets of the accused.
19. Item No.3 : Item No.3 is the site No.120/2 measuring 90 x 40 sq.fts at Chelakere village. Admittedly, it was purchased in the name of DW4- Smt.Jayalakshmi w/o the accused under the sale deed dated 12.08.1994 at Ex.P43 for Rs.1,03,000/-. The contention of the prosecution is that, the accused has purchased it out of his earnings. He denies this allegation. According to him, the kartha Sri. Kariyappa has purchased it, out of the joint family income. To prove it, the accused relies on the xerox copy of a Jnapana patra dated 20.10.1994 on a plain paper found at page 360 of Vol-III. It is alleged to have executed by the kartha and other members of the joint family confirming the purchase of this property in the name of the accused's wife. Very surprising is the cross-examination version of DW4 at 27 Spl. C.C.78/2017 para 13 that, F Rjâ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ UÉÆ wÛgÀ°®è. Similar version of the accused at para 27 of his cross- examination that, ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.120/2 £ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CtÚ £À£Àß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀA¢gÀ°®è. £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ F PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀ°®è. It clearly exposes their conduct of withholding the purchase of this site by the accused. This gives raise a question as to how, honest the accused is, in declaring the purchase by the kartha in his APR of 1994-95 if really not known to him?.
19.1. The accused admits that, this site was subsequently allotted to his share in the family partition under the palupatti dated 01.02.1996. He notices its declaration in the APR for the year 1995-
96. But, his wife DW4 contradicts it with the statement that, the kartha has given it to her under a revised palupatti dated 01.08.2002. Admittedly, the other five brothers and their respective wives and children were also the members in the joint family. The accused and his wife were living independently outside the joint family as admitted by himself in the affidavit at Ex.P46. She is and was a house wife with 28 Spl. C.C.78/2017 no income of her own. Now, the fact to appreciate is the necessity to the kartha to purchase the site in the wife's name of the accused, to the exclusion of other members of the joint family out of their hard earned money. Moreover, no evidence is before the Court to prove the source of the joint family to the extent of purchasing properties after taking care of its maintenance. Admittedly, the wife of the accused was not the party or the signatory to the palupatti. This gives raise a question that, how can the site in the name of DW4 be allotted, to the share of the accused without her notice or consent?. The palupatti refers nothing about the purchase of the site by the kartha in the name of DW4. No explanations are forthcoming as to the purpose and necessity for the kartha to stealthily purchase the site without any information to the accused and then allot to his share. Indeed, except the verbal version, no evidence is there to prove the purchase by the kartha out of the joint family nucleus. Even the sale deed would not reflect it. These circumstances goes to unfurl that, the accused having purchased the site in the name of his wife, has succeeded to get it allotted to his share by 29 Spl. C.C.78/2017 way of hit back, under the shadow of the palupatti and the revised palupatti. Therefore, the purchase value of Rs.1,03,000/- should be his asset and no fault is seen with the IO in arriving at the conclusion as such.
19.2. Admittedly, the residential apartment comprising of the ground + 4 floors in the area of 90 x 40 sq. fts. came to be constructed, step by step during the years 1996, 2001, and 2004 respectively. The mosaic tiles were used for the floorings, and the jungle wood for doors and windows with the lift facility in the building. PW8 Sri. Achutha Bidarahalli, the Engineer deposed to have inspected the spot on 10.11.2014 and assessed the value of the building. His report is at Ex.P11. According to him, the total construction cost assessed was Rs.1,54,80,000/- in the year 2014. He clarifies to have assessed the net value of the construction at Rs.1,35,43,236/- after deducting the depreciation at Rs.7,89,387/- for 18 years from 1996 till 2014 towards the ground and part of the 1st floor, Rs.5,62,183/- for 13 years from 2001 till 2014 towards the remaining part of the 1st floor and 2nd floor, Rs.5,85,194/- for 10 years from 30 Spl. C.C.78/2017 2004 to 2014 towards the 3rd and 4th floors. Thus in all, he has deducted Rs.19,36,764/- as the depreciation. The IO admits that, he has considered the net value of Rs.1,35,43,236/- to the account of the accused.
19.3. On the other hand, the accused disputes the assessment as baseless and questions, the correctness of the report at Ex.P11. His defence is that, after he had obtained the permissions from his department vide Ex.PD2, 6 and 7, the building was constructed by his wife at the total cost just Rs.36,00,000/- out of her individual savings and loans from the banks. But, the accused himself contradicts in his evidence at para 13 with the statement that, his wife took the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Bharath Co-Operative Bank (the statement at Ex.P44) and has constructed 4 houses on the ground floor in the year 1996. Again, she took the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the same bank and got constructed 4 houses of the 1st floor in the year 2001. She got constructed the 2nd and 3rd floors comprising of 4 houses each in the year 2004 by investing Rs.9,00,000/- loan having borrowed 31 Spl. C.C.78/2017 from the Canara Bank at Kalyana Nagara. Thus in all, the construction cost of ground + 3 floors was at the cost of Rs.19,00,000/- according to him.
19.4. Contrary to the above, the wife of the accused sets a different story that, she has constructed 4 houses in the ground floor and single room in the 1st floor out of Rs.20,000/- loan borrowed from her mother and Rs.5,00,000/- from the Bharath Co-operative Society (as per Ex.P44). She let the ground floor houses for the rent and the room at the 1st floor to one Abhilash on the lease for Rs.3,50,000/- in the year 1998. She had received Rs.50,000/- rental advance from the tenants apart borrowing the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Bharath Co-Operative Bank (the sanction letter at page 910 to 914 of Vol-4A). Out of this Rs.9,00,000/-, she got constructed 2 houses in the 1st floor, 3 houses + a room in the 2nd floor. She had the rental income of Rs.2,59,168/- and borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- from the Canara Bank vide the document at Ex.P71. Out of this Rs. Rs.11,59,168/-, she got constructed the 4 houses in the 3rd floor. In all, she claims to have 32 Spl. C.C.78/2017 constructed 16 houses in the ground + 3 floors at the total cost of Rs.25,79,168/- only.
19.5. The above divergent versions of the accused and his wife discloses different figures of expenses i.e., Rs.36,00,000/-, Rs.19,00,000/- and Rs.25,79,168/- etc. These contradictions goes to expose their deliberate acts of withholding the truth before this Court. Moreover, they have not placed any material to prove Rs.20,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.2,59,168/- etc., the wife of the accused had with her. Admittedly, she was and is the house wife with no independent source of income, prior to the purchase of properties by the accused in her name. Possessing or acquiring the properties worth crores of rupees, by a house wife with no source of her own, is highly impossible to believe and cannot be expected. Both the accused and his wife have used to project, the joint family and its kartha to justify the acquisition of assets in their names and their son. The noteworthy is their failure to prove the financial competency and source of the joint family to purchase each and everything in their names, to the exclusion of the other members of the joint family 33 Spl. C.C.78/2017 notwithstanding their own problems, desires and demands. Thus obviously, she has become an instrument to represent the assets of the accused and manage them in her name for various purposes. Therefore, whatever loans she may have borrowed on the strength of such properties, and the income she may have received, cannot be of her own. Rather, would be the properties and income of the accused. In the circumstances, the construction of the apartment with the ground + 4 floors by the accused in the name of his wife is crystal clear.
19.6. Here, the existence of the ground + 4 floors building as shown in the report of PW8 at Ex.P11 is not disputed by the accused. The material fact omitted by the accused and his wife is the construction of the 4th floor and its expenses evidences their conduct. Moreover, they have not disputed the fact that, the assessment report at Ex.P11 admittedly does not include the costs of interiors. It is not in dispute that, each floor construction is in the area of 3,600 sq.fts. as can be seen in the report of PW8. Thus, 3,600 x 5 floors would be 18,000 sq. fts. Hence, the construction of 34 Spl. C.C.78/2017 the apartment in this vast area, at the cost of just Rs.36,00,000/- that too at the Bengaluru city even prior to 2004 is highly impossible as rightly noticed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
19.7. Here, the deduction of the depreciation noticed by PW8 would not arise as already observed. However, if the nature of the building, the quality of materials used for the construction and the total the plinth area is taken into consideration, the gross cost of construction assessed by PW8 at Rs.1,54,80,000/- still, appears to be at the lower side. Hence, the defence of the accused against the assessment does not bear any force. In the meanwhile, PW8 admits to have considered the schedule rates of construction for the relevant years. It is seen that, the prevailing schedule rates of the year 2014 was the basis for him to assess. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the deduction of 15% at Rs.23,22,000/- out of Rs.1,54,80,000/- ensures the reasonable justice. Thus, the net value of the building at Rs.1,31,58,000/- + the purchase value of the site at Rs.1,03,000/- = Rs.1,32,61,000/- should be considered as the assets of the accused.
35 Spl. C.C.78/2017
20. Item No.2 : is the site No.120/14 with the dimension of 30 x 40 sq. fts. at Chelakere village of Bengaluru city. This site was admittedly purchased in the wife's name of the accused, under the sale deed dated 17.09.2002 at Ex.P40 for Rs.72,000/-. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused has purchased it in the name of his wife. While denying it as false, the accused contends that, his wife has purchased it out of her rental income and advances of Rs.75,000/- from the apartment constructed in item No.3 site. But, the purchase of item No.3 and construction of ground + 4 floors building by the accused in the name of his wife is a proven fact. Hence and for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5 hereinabove, the defence of the accused would not survive for the consideration. I mean to say that, the purchase of site No.120/14 by the accused in the name of his wife for Rs.72,000/- stands established.
20.1. It is not in dispute that, subsequent to the purchase, a RCC building comprising of the ground + 4 floors came to be constructed between 2001 to 2006-07. DW4 Smt. N. Jayalaxmi admits to have constructed the RCC car parking shed in the ground 36 Spl. C.C.78/2017 floor in the year 2001 at the cost of Rs.1,33,000/-, out of her rental income and advances. The accused contradicts it with his evidence at para 14 and his information at page 134 of Ex.P112 that, the RCC car parking in the area of 1000 sq.fts was constructed at the cost of Rs.1,34,434/-. DW2 Sri. Kiran is the son of the accused. DW4 the wife of the accused deposes that, there was a dispute between her and a neighbor one Shivanagowda. As she was not in a condition to get it solved, she gave the GPA to her son to look after item No.2 site.
20.2. DW2 states to have joined his hands with DW3 Sri. Somashekar (son of Kariyappa) and got constructed 5 floors building in the area of 40 x 30 at the cost of Rs.8,00,000/- during the year 2006-07 after borrowing the hand loans as hereunder.
1. Rs.2,00,000/- from the kartha Sri. Kariyappa.
2. Rs.1,00,000/- from a friend Banashankar
3. Rs.50,000/- from a friend Raghavendra
4. Rs.50,000/- from his mother-DW4
5. Rs.4,00,000/- from DW3 Sri. Somashekar Interesting is the failure of DW2 to produce the evidence of any kind to prove the hand loans.
37 Spl. C.C.78/2017 According to him, his mother is also one of the lender. But failed to explain the necessity to borrow the loan from her as a GPA holder for construction of the building in the site of her name. In fact, his mother is silent and has not spoken anything about the loan of Rs.50,000/-. Moreover, DW2 was still a student in the year 2009-10 and dependent of the accused by the time, the construction of 5 floors building was completed in the year 2006-07. He was not having the independent source of income. Therefore and in the absence of the supporting evidence, the loan of Rs.50,000/- said to have borrowed from his mother has to rule out.
20.3. DW2 asserts in his evidence that, he had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from his cousin DW3 Somashekar. But, in his cross-examination at para 20, he has changed his version stating that, £À£Àß zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÉÆêÀıÉÃRgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁæVUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¹ªÉÄAmï, d°èPÀ®Äè, ºÁ¯ÉÆéæPïì, ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÄ, nJAn PÀA©UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á®zÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆr¹zÀgÀÄ. ¨Át¸ÀªÁrAiÀÄ CUÀgÀªÁ¯ï mÉæÃqÀgïì ºÉ¸Àj£À CAUÀr¬ÄAzÀ Rjâ¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. This has been reiterated by 38 Spl. C.C.78/2017 DW3 at para 2 of his chief evidence and himself rebuts his stand in the cross-examination. Wherein, he claims to have supplied the materials worth Rs.5,00,000/- with the statement as if, DW2 has subsequently repaid Rs.4,00,000/- cash. The repayment as such is not at all spoken by DW2. Even otherwise, none of them have produced any documents to prove it. Similarly, no other lenders are examined to prove the source and the payment of the hand loans. In the circumstances and for want of proof, the story of hands loans would not inspire to believe.
20.4. The noteworthy is the schedule No.13A submitted by the accused before the investigation officer. Wherein, he admits the construction of 4 floors building excluding the ground floor at the cost of Rs.12,00,000/- (see page No.60 & 61 of final investigation report). This renders to be a piece of evidence to disbelieve the construction cost of Rs.8,00,000/- stated by DW2. The construction of ground + 4 floors building in the area of 1200 sq.fts. at Bengaluru city in the year 2006-07 even at the cost Rs.15,00,000/- is impossible and cannot be 39 Spl. C.C.78/2017 expected. Therefore, the decision of the I.O in considering Rs.12,00,000/- towards 4 floors and Rs.2,06,434/- towards the ground floor in all Rs.14,06,434/- to the account of the accused cannot be interfered.
21. Item No.4 : is the residential site No.11 measuring 40 x 60 sq.fts at Akkamma layout of Banasavadi village. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused has purchased this site in the name of his wife for Rs.43,20,000/- vide the sale deed dated 07.11.2012 at Ex.P47. The defence of the accused is that, his wife has purchased in her individual capacity, out of her rental savings from item No.3 and loans. Therefore according to the accused, this amount has to be deducted from his assets. DW4 the wife of the accused has reiterated the same at para 4 of her evidence and deposed to have mobilized the amount as per the following details to purchase this site.
Rs.21,17,000/- savings of rental income from 1996-2012. Rs.25,00,000/- given by the kartha of joint family on 28.10.2012 Rs.25,00,000/- loan from the family doctor Sri. Niranjan from 2005-12 40 Spl. C.C.78/2017 21.1. But for reasons discussed at para 19.1 and 19.5 hereinabove, the alleged savings of Rs.21,17,000/- by her in the absence of evidence has to rule out. DW4 claims to have constructed the apartment on item No.3 and, purchased item No.2 site by investing the rental source, the loans borrowed from different banks etc., That means, she was over burdened with the loans from banks and others. Now the question is, how can she save the huge amount of Rs.21,17,000/-?. If really, she was having the huge amount of savings, the necessity for her to borrow the loans from different banks and private persons is not explained. Therefore, the contention of the so called savings by the wife of the accused does not inspire to believe.
21.2. The accused and his wife have relied on the affidavit at page 357 of Vol-III said to have executed by the joint family members to prove the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- by the kartha on 28.10.2012. In this context, I feel the necessity to reproduce the contents of the said affidavit as hereunder for better appreciation :
41 Spl. C.C.78/2017 ¢£ÁAPÀB01.02.1996 gÀ ¥Á®Ä¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¹ÝgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ AqÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀð£ÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°è vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ M¦àPÉÆ ¼Àî¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀºÉÇ ÃzÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.«. ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀÄ (DgÉÆ Ã¦) CªÀgÀ ¥Á°£À £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ.25,00,000/- PÉ®ªÀÅ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹zÀÝjAzÀ F ºÀtªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ªÀ±ÀzÀ°è G½zÀÄPÉÆ ArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ²æêÀÄw.
J£ï.«dAiÀÄ®Qëäà gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB05.10.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÉÃÛ ªÉ.
Thus, it is clear that, the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- said to have paid by the kartha of the joint family on 05.10.2012, under the affidavit, is not the amount deposed to have borrowed by the wife of the accused on 28.10.2012. The noteworthy is the severance of the joint family with the palupatti and revised palupatti dated 01.02.1996 and 01.08.2002 respectively. But, the amount reflected in the affidavit and entitlement of the accused as deposed therein does not find place in the palupattis. If really this huge amount was the share of the accused, the necessity for the joint family members to retain it with them even after nearly 10 years from the date of partition is not explained. No evidence is placed to prove the source for the kartha or the joint family to the extent of paying Rs.25,00,000/- after taking care 42 Spl. C.C.78/2017 of its maintenance. Therefore, it is highly difficulty to believe this story.
21.3. As admitted by the accused, Dr. Niranjan is a medical professional. He was migrated and has been staying in Australia as a overseas citizen of India, since 2005. As per the affidavit in his name at page 347 of Vol-III, the interest free loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to DW4 on 28.05.2012. But, he has not been examined by the accused to prove it. This payment even gets contradicted with the evidence of DW4 that, she had borrowed the loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from Dr.Niranjan in 3-4 installments during the period from 2005-2012. This entire story indeed stands disproved with her cross-examination version that, £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è (2005- 2012) qÁ. ¤gÀAd£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ D¸ÉÖæðAiÀÄzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ. When this is the truth, how can she borrow the loan from him on 28.05.2012 and get execute his affidavit in India on 10.10.2014?. That apart, the payment of interest free huge loan of Rs.25,00,000/- without the proof is not worthy to believe. Under these circumstances, I am to sustain the contention of the prosecution that, the 43 Spl. C.C.78/2017 accused has purchased this site in the name of his wife for a sum of Rs.43,20,000/-.
21.4. It is not in dispute that, a multistoried residential apartment of 11 houses comprising of the ground + 5 floors was constructed at item No.4 in the area of 40 x 60 sq.fts. Each floor of the building is in the plinth area of 1700 sq.fts. That means, 700 x 6 = 10,200 sq.fts. The evidence of PW8 and his assessment report at Ex.P12 to that extent, is not under the dispute. Ex.P12 is the basis for the IO to consider the cost of this apartment at Rs.92,40,244/- to the account of the accused. It is seen that, the accused in his evidence has not spoken anything on this aspect. But his wife(DW4) disputes, the cost of construction assessed by PW8 and relies on the estimate(at page 1 to 12 of Vol-2A) for Rs.74,00,000/-. However, she admits the total cost of construction at Rs.82,00,000/-. It is also the suggestion of the accused at para 174 in the cross- examination of the IO. Thus, only Rs.10,40,244/- difference amount is in dispute between the accused and the prosecution.
44 Spl. C.C.78/2017 21.5. The evidence of DW4 is that, she had borrowed the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- on 28.08.2013 from the Canara Bank of Marathhalli for the construction of the apartment. Her Nephew DW3 Sri. Somashekar has agreed to contribute Rs.30,00,000/- of his own with an undertaking to construct the building and take a house for him in the 2nd floor as per the terms in the unregistered memorandum of understanding (for short, the MOU). This MOU is at page 348 to 353 of Vol-III. DW3 in his evidence at para 3 also reiterates it. He asserts the completion of the building construction in the month of July, 2015. But the learned Public Prosecutor contends that, his contribution and construction of building by him is a roped story and the MOU is a created justification.
21.6. Here, even if the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- by the wife of the accused is believed, it is of no surprise. Because, the site was purchased by the accused in her name. Therefore, it cannot be her individual loan for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5 of this judgment. DW3 is a developer as per the MOU. But, no piece of evidence is placed to prove his status as such and his experience in the construction field. Nothing is on 45 Spl. C.C.78/2017 record to disclose his source of income and his competency to contribute, the huge amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. Admittedly, his father Sri. Kariyappa died in the year 2015. According to him, after the death of his father, he started to receive the agricultural income. But, he has not explained his earnings source prior thereto. This is evident to rule out his competency to contribute Rs.30,00,000/- for the construction of the building.
21.7. DW3 states to have purchased the building materials like jelli from one Varadappa of Varadaganahalli, hallow block bricks from SLV hallow blocks at Mulabagilu and the sand from one Yathish etc. But, failed to produce the purchase receipt or the payment related documents. He simply says as if, he lost them. He admits the receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- from DW4 through cash and cheques towards the construction expenses. That means, there should have been entries to that extent at least in the statements of their bank accounts or passbooks. But, not produced to prove. These compelling circumstances inspires even to doubt the payment of Rs.50,00,000/- by DW4. DW3 admits to have taken a 46 Spl. C.C.78/2017 house bearing Flat No.7 in the 2nd floor for his contribution of Rs.30,00,000/-. But, it gets falsified with the evidence of DW4 at para 20 that, no house in the 2nd floor has been given to DW3 till now. Therefore, the construction of the building by DW3 as a developer and his contribution of Rs.30,00,000/- is highly impossible to believe. Hence, the unregistered MOU would not be basis to justify the story of DW3 and 4.
21.8. As per the evidence of PW8 and his report at Ex.P12, the construction of 12 houses apartment in 5 floors was in the year 2012-13. But, DW4 admits its construction in the year 2014-15. The use of vitrified tiles, sadahalli granite for the floorings, the wood and aluminum for doors and the windows is not disputed. The report at Ex.P12 to that extent that, PW8 has not included the expenses of the lift installed, 40 KVA generator set, interiors facilities in the cost of construction etc., is remained unchallenged. PW8 deposes that, he has assessed the net value of 11 houses apartment in 5 floors at Rs.92,47,244/- out of the total value of Rs.94,35,000/- after deducting Rs.1,87,756/- towards the depreciation.
47 Spl. C.C.78/2017 21.9. As already observed, the depreciation is not permissible in the case of this nature. However, he has considered the net cost of construction at Rs.92,47,244/- after deducting Rs.1,87,756/- towards the depreciation for 2 years. No doubt, the cost of construction should have been assessed, based on the prevailing schedule rates fixed by PWD for the relevant years of 2014-15. PW8 admits to have adopted the guidelines in the IGR Notification No.CVC 24/2012-13. Despite of it and having regard to the nature of building, the quality of materials used therefor, I am to agree with the prosecution stand that, the construction of 11 houses apartment in 5 floors in the year 2014-15 at Bengaluru city at Rs.94,35,000/- is obviously at the very lower side. Therefore the defence of the accused bears no justification. Rather, the site purchase value of Rs.43,20,000/- + the construction cost of Rs.94,35,000/- is = Rs.1,37,55,000/- should be the asset of the accused.
22. Item No.5 and 6 : are sites bearing No.10 & 11 measuring 30 x 50 sq.fts. each at Horamavu. These sites were admittedly purchased in the name of 48 Spl. C.C.78/2017 DW4-Smt.Jayalaxmi, under sale deeds at Ex.P45 dated 20.06.2011 and 02.03.2011 for Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively. The contention of the prosecution is that, both the sites were purchased by the accused in the name of his wife. The accused denies it as false. His defence is that, the kartha of the joint family has purchased them on a condition that, she has to return them to any of the member in the joint family as may be instructed by the kartha. DW4 reiterates the same in the evidence and denies her personal interest in these sites. The reliance is placed on the affidavits at Ex.D8 and D9 dated 20.08.2014 and 22.06.2011 said to have executed, by the kartha and his other brothers to the exclusion of the accused.
22.1. Interesting is the evidence of DW4 at para 21 that, the purchase of these sites by the kartha in the year 2011 was not known to the accused. Admittedly, the joint family was severed with effect from 01.02.1996 and 01.08.2002. Thus, the purchase out of the joint family nucleus that too, after the expiry of nearly 10 years from the date of its severance gets rebutted. Even otherwise, the sale 49 Spl. C.C.78/2017 deeds at Ex.P45 would not refer either the kartha of the joint family or its nucleus. The necessity for the kartha to stealthily purchase in the name of DW4 with no information to her husband is not explained. That apart, there is no evidence to establish the source for the kartha to the extent of purchasing several properties. Therefore, mere affidavits at Ex.D8 and D9 seen to have got executed subsequent to the raid, assumes no force to substantiate the defence. Rather, these affidavits appears to be an after thought. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution has to be sustained. In the situation, the decision of the IO in considering the purchase value of site No.10 & 11 at Rs.7,50,000/- + Rs.12,00,000/- = 19,50,000/- as the assets of the accused cannot be interfered.
23. Item No.7 and 8 : are the site No.9 and 37 measuring 50 x 30 and 60 x 40 sq. fts. respectively at Horamavu village of Bengaluru City. These sites were admittedly purchased for Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran under sale deeds at Ex.P54 & 55 dated 20.06.2012 and 25.05.2011 respectively. The contention of the 50 Spl. C.C.78/2017 prosecution is that, both the sites were purchased by the accused. Admittedly, DW2 was not having the independent source of income to purchase these properties. But, the contention of the accused is that, the kartha has purchased them out of the joint family nucleus. In support of this defence, DW3 has produced the affidavits at Ex.D6 and 7 said to have executed by the kartha and other members of the joint family. In fact, there was no existence of the joint family by the time. The purchase of sites by the kartha 10 years after severance of the joint family is unimaginable. Except these affidavits, executed subsequent to this raid, obviously no material is before the Court to prove the purchase by the kartha. Hence and for reasons at para 22.1 above, I am to discard the defence as baseless so also, the purchase of these sites by the kartha. Rather, the contention of the prosecution that, it was the accused who has purchased these sites stands established. Therefore, the purchase value of Rs.7,50,000 + Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.16,50,000/- considered by the IO to the assets account of the accused is justified.
51 Spl. C.C.78/2017
24. Item No.9 : is the industrial site bearing plot No.222 with the dimension of 4047 sq.mtrs (1 acre of land) at the Narasapura industrial area, Malur Taluk of Kolara District. According to the IO, the accused has got it allotted from the KIADB in the name of his son (DW2) Sri. Kiran for Rs.75,00,000/-. The accused counters it as baseless. His defence (as per schedule
5) is that, on 07.01.2014, DW2 had borrowed loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from the KSFC at Kolar, through the RTGS and purchased it for the establishment of an industry. DW2 falsifies it with his evidence that, he had borrowed the interest free hand loans of Rs.79,25,000/- from various persons as hereunder and got it paid to KIADB directly through the demand drafts.
1. Rs.15,75,000/- from Sri. Gangadhar of Kolar
2. Rs.15,00,000/- from Sri.Naresh Kumar of Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
3. Rs.10,00,000/- from Bhemegowda of Kolar
4. Rs.16,00,000/- from Hanumanthegowda of Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
5. Rs. 5,00,000/- from Loganathan of Jalahalli.
6. Rs. 7,50,000/- from his mother Smt. Jayalaxmi(wife of the accused)
7. Rs.10,00,000/- from the accused. Rs.79,25,000/- total 52 Spl. C.C.78/2017 24.1. According to DW2, the KIADB has allotted the industrial plot on accepting Rs.75,00,000/- vide the lease cum sale agreement dated 16.01.2013 and has refunded the excess amount of Rs.4,25,000/- to his bank account. Subsequently, he got sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- on 31.12.2013 from the KSFC. He got constructed the industrial building out of the 1st installment at Rs.49,01,685/- released on 24.10.2014 by the KSFC. He repaid the hand loans after July-2014, out of the subsidy at Rs.50,00,000/- given by the Social Welfare Department and Rs.25,00,000/- by the department of Industries and Commerce. With this, he urged to consider it as his asset.
24.2. It is seen that, the IO admits the suggestions of the learned defence counsel as hereunder in the cross-examination at page 180 :
QgÀuï (DW2) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆ AqÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃUËqÀ ¤¦-74 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-29gÀ ¥ÀÅl 201 gÀAvÉ DgÉÆ Ã¦ 10 ®PÀë, CªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw 7.50 ®PÀë ²æà ¯ÉÆ ÃUÀ£ÁxÀ£ï gÀÆ.5 ®PÀë, ²æà . ©üêÉÄÃUËqÀ 10 ®PÀë, ²æÃ.
£ÀgÉñï PÀĪÀiÁgï 15 ®PÀë, ²æÃ. UÀAUÁzsÀgï 15.75 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß rr ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉLJr© UÉ PÉÆ nÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ 53 Spl. C.C.78/2017 ¸Àj. £À£Àß vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è QgÀuï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆ AqÀ PÉÊ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢vÀÄÛ.
These admissions exposes the failure of the I.O to investigate on these admissions. Interesting is, the cross-examination version of DW2 at para 11 that, £Á£ÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆ ArzÀÝ ¸Á®zÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ UÉÆ wÛgÀ°®è. Here admittedly, he was not having his own source of income by the time he claims to have borrowed the huge interest free loan of Rs.61,75,000/- from the private persons. The alleged lenders namely Sri.Gangadhar, Naresh Kumar, Beemegowda, Hanmanthegowda & Loganathan are not examined to prove the hand loans, their source of income and the manner in which, they have mobilized the amount etc. 24.3. The letter dated 15.06.2016 at Ex.P74 is not of Sri. Hanumanthegowda as suggested by the learned defence counsel. Rather, it is alleged to have given by one Naresh Kumar. Wherein, the payment of interest free loan at Rs.15,00,000/- to DW2 and its repayment by him in the year 2014 is referred. In fact, the said Naresh Kumar is not examined to prove 54 Spl. C.C.78/2017 its contents and his financial competency. In so far as Ex.P29 is concerned, it does not disclose the names of hand loan lenders, or the details of the demand drafts through which, they have paid the amount directly to the KIADB on behalf of DW2. However, he states to have repaid the entire hand loans, out of the subsidy amount after withdrawing it from the bank account. But, no evidence is placed to prove the withdrawal of the amount and repayment in cash. Even DW2 has not given convincing reasons as to the necessity, to withdraw and repay the huge amount in cash. In the circumstance and not withstanding the cross-examination admission of the I.O for his own reasons to explain, the hand loans from the private persons and its repayment has to rule out. Therefore, mere declaration in the IT returns of the relevant years as deposed by DW2 would not be basis to believe the story set up by him.
24.4. The accused and his wife admits the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- + Rs.7.50,000/- respectively as hand loan to DW2, towards the allotment of the industrial plot. However, the amount said to have paid by the wife of the accused cannot be 55 Spl. C.C.78/2017 of her own. Rather, has to construe to be the asset of the accused for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5 of this judgment. Having regard to the above, I find no justification to rule out the contention of the prosecution that, it was the accused who paid the entire amount of Rs.79,25,000/- to the KIADB through the alleged lenders on the pretext of hand loans. By which, Rs.79,25,000/- stands proved to be the asset of the accused.
25. Item No.12, 18, 19, 22 and 24 : are the bank accounts bearing Nos.20164929752 at State Bank of India, 54032919050 at State Bank of Mysore, 2456101501093 at the Canara Bank, 0768101054321 at the State Bank of India in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi. The account No.029801500057 at ICICI Bank is in the joint names of herself and the accused as per the document at Ex.P34 with the closing balance of Rs.88,070, Rs.1,03,751, Rs.1,19,273.52, Rs.5,46,402/- and Rs.15,152/- respectively. In all, it would be Rs.8,72,648/- as on the last day of the check period. Admittedly, the IO has considered this amount as the asset of the accused. On the other hand, the accused 56 Spl. C.C.78/2017 contends that, this amount was accrued out of the individual income of his wife. But, his contention cannot be accepted for reasons at para 19.1 & 19.5. Therefore, the decision of the IO in considering Rs.8,72,648/- as the asset of the accused is found correct.
26. Item No.13, 20, 23 and 14 : are the accounts bearing Nos.20007011574 at SBI, 2456101006718 at Canara Bank, 0768101054438 at Canara Bank in the name of DW2 Sri.Kiran and the account bearing No.1400001000514 at Vijaya Bank, HBR Layout in the name of M/s Aadhya Tools. The related documents are at Ex.P61 and Ex.P30. The closing balance maintained in the accounts at item No.13, 20, 23 and 14 as on the last day of the check period was, Rs.4,759/-, Rs.3,402/-, Rs.19,006/- and Rs.23,74,137/- respectively. The IO has considered this amount to the assets account of the accused. On the other hand, the accused contends as if, this entire amount was accrued on the individual income of his son.
57 Spl. C.C.78/2017 26.1. In so far as the closing balance in account at item No.13, 20 and 23 is concerned, DW2 deposes that, he was getting the salary of Rs.8,000/- + upto 800 towards the fuel allowance per month, as a quality control manager in M/s Perfect Tools at Peenya. He mean to say that, he has maintained the balance in the bank account out of his earnings. He relies on a letter at Ex.P66 in support of his evidence. In fact, this document does not reveal the total period he worked after his alleged employment. Even otherwise, his employer has not been examined to prove the contents of the document. The author of Ex.P66 is seen to be the son of Sri. Loganathan, whom DW2 has projected as one of the interest free hand loan lender. Under circumstances and in the absence of the convincing evidence, I am unable to believe but to rule out his employment and the independent income. My opinion as such gets strengthened with the fact that, DW2 was a dependent of his father prior to the establishment of his industry called M/s Adhya Tools in the year 2015-16. Therefore, the IO is perfectly correct in 58 Spl. C.C.78/2017 considering Rs.27,167/- found at item No.13, 20 and 23 as the asset of the accused.
26.2. The account at item No.14 is standing in the name of M/s Adhya Tools at the Vijaya Bank of HRBR Layout. The defence of the accused is that, Rs.23,74,137/- is the part of the loan amount belongs to his son. Therefore according to him, it has to be deducted from his assets. DW2 reiterates the same in his evidence at para 3. Their contention as such, stands proved with the statement of bank account at page 403 and 404 of Ex.P38. It reveals that, the KSFC has credited Rs.49,01,685/- through RTGS on 24.01.2014 to the account of M/s Adhya Tools. The available balance in his account as on 28.01.2014 was Rs.51,35,689/-. Out of which, he is seen to have paid certain amount to various persons and retained the balance of Rs.23,74,137/- as on 14.06.2014. This amount cannot be connected to the accused as part of the industrial loan borrowed by DW2. Therefore, has to be deducted from the asset account of the accused.
59 Spl. C.C.78/2017
27. Item No.21 : is the account bearing No.2456101501090 at the Canara Bank of Kalyana Nagara Branch, Bengaluru standing in the name of Mis.Keerthi. She is the daughter of the accused. The available balance therein as on the last day of the check period was Rs.8,146/-. Admittedly, she was a student and dependent of the accused. The IO admits the cross-examination suggestion of the learned defence counsel at para 257 to the extent that, a sum of Rs.2,786/- was accrued in the form of interest on the available amount in this account. The statement of account at Ex.P62 goes to reveal, the total transaction did by Mis. Keerthi during the period from 01.01.2001 to 14.07.2014(check period) was for Rs.12,17,784/-. Admittedly, she was not having the source of her own to do this transaction. Very unfortunate is the failure of the investigation officer to look into it and consider. It appears that, he simply ignored for reasons to be explained for this serious lapse. However, his decision in considering the closing balance of Rs.8,146/- in the account of Mis. Keerthi as the asset of the accused cannot be disturbed.
60 Spl. C.C.78/2017
28. Item No.28 : is the amount of Rs.2,25,899/- admittedly invested by the accused for purchasing of NSCs during the period from 1988 to 2003. The document at Ex.P84 at page 321 to 324 makes it clear. The IO admits to have considered it as the asset of the accused. On their maturity, the interest of Rs.1,09,809/- was accrued on the face value of NSCs of Rs.2,25,899/-. Now the contention of the learned defence counsel is that, since the NSCs were already matured and the certificates were not in existence as on the date of the raid, the entire amount of Rs.3,35,708/- should have considered as the income, rather than the asset. This defence appears to be of a misconception. The reason is that, the investment to purchase NSCs, amounts to an asset. The interest of Rs.1,09,809/- accrued thereon alone could be the income. Hence, the defence of the accused shall fail. In view of the above, the cross- examination admission of the IO at para 191 that, he has considered the entire maturity value as the income of the accused is not correct. Thus, the face value of NSCs at Rs.2,25,899/- is an asset of this accused.
61 Spl. C.C.78/2017
29. Item No.29 : is the Maruthi 800 car bearing No. KA-05-6092. Admittedly, it was purchased by the accused for Rs.1,33,000/- in the year 1995-96. Now his defence is that, since the vehicle was already sold in the year 2001 for Rs.85,000/-, the entire purchase value should be considered as the income. This dispute is similar to the dispute on item No.28. Therefore and for reasons therein on item No.28, I discard the defence of the accused. Consequently, the decision of the I.O in taking the purchase value of Rs.1,33,000/- as an asset is sustained.
30. Item No.30 : is the Bajaj Scooter bearing No. CAP-8778. The accused admits to have purchased it for Rs.11,500/- on 23.02.1990 in his name. The IO has considered it as the asset of the accused. The subsequent sale of this vehicle by the accused in the year 1995 for Rs.3,500/- is not in dispute. Now the defence of the accused is similar as in para No.28 above. Therefore, no more discussion warrants to justify the acts of the IO in considering the value invested to purchase the vehicle at Rs.11,500/- as an asset of the accused.
62 Spl. C.C.78/2017
31. Item No.31 : is the i20 Sports car bearing No.KA-03-MS-8466. Admittedly, it was purchased in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran on 27.09.2009 for Rs.7,14,925/- (Ex.P52 page 510) from the Trident Automobiles. Now the grievance of the accused is that, it was purchased by his son by availing the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Canara Bank and repaid it. Therefore according to him, it should have considered as the asset of his son. In his evidence at para 7, DW2 deposes as per the defence of the accused. Of course, DW2 was the holder of the SB account bearing No.768101054438 at the Canara Bank of Marathhalli Branch.
31.1. As observed already, he was a student by the time and had no income source of his own. But the basis on which, the loan was got sanctioned and the source for its repayment is not explained by the accused. Even DW2 failed to clarify as to the source of the remaining Rs.1,14,925/- admits to have added to the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/-for purchasing of the Car. Under circumstances, I am to hold that, it was no other than the accused who repaid the loan amount by being behind the entire transaction. There 63 Spl. C.C.78/2017 exists no reason to say that, the purchase value is the asset of DW2. Therefore, the IO is correct in considering Rs.7,14,925/- as the asset of the accused.
32. Item No.32 : is the Honda City car bearing No. KA-03-MK-8619. Admittedly and as seen from the 'B' extract annexed to the document at Ex.P52(b) (page 515 of Vol-4), it was purchased in the wife's name of the accused for Rs.8,87,000/- on 19.03.2009. DW4 (wife of the accused) corroborates the defence of the accused that, she had borrowed the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- and purchased it. It is not in dispute that, the accused had obtained the prior permission from his department to purchase the said car. The accused disputes the correctness of the IO in considering the purchase value as his asset. According to him, this vehicle loan should have considered as the personal loan and asset of his wife. But, his defence bears no justification for reasons discussed at para 19.1 and 19.5 of this judgment. Therefore, the loan borrowed and its repayment in her name must have been made by the accused. Hence, the information said to have declared in the 64 Spl. C.C.78/2017 ITR and APR noticed by the accused, would not be the basis to accept his defence in the absence of the evidence. No fault be found with the I.O in considering Rs.8,87,000/- as the asset of the accused.
33. Item No.33 : is the 2nd hand Maruthi Zen car bearing No. KA-03-MA-2574. Admittedly, it was purchased in the name of DW4 (accused's wife) for Rs.4,08,837/- on 04.04.2001 from Dr.Niranjan. The related document is at Ex.P52. The decision of the IO in considering the purchase value as the asset of the accused is in question. DW4 Smt. Jayalaxmi states that, it was purchased out of her savings and needs to consider it as her asset. It is true that, the IO in his cross-examination at para 205 admits the suggestion of the learned defence counsel that, DgÉÆæ ¤¦-112 zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅl 106 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 93 gÀ° è2005-06 ºÁUÀÆ 2006- 07 £Éà ¸Á°£À APR £À°è ªÀiÁgÀÄw eÉ£ï ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAvÀ G½vÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄÄ Rjâ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. But, on the strength of reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5 of this judgment, the evidence of DW4 and the defence of her husband cannot be accepted. I 65 Spl. C.C.78/2017 find no fault with the IO in considering Rs.4,08,837/- as the asset of the accused.
34. Item No.35 : is the Kawaski Ninja Bike No.KA-03-HJ-7116 as per Ex.P52. It was purchased in the name of DW2 for Rs.2,76,998/- on 15.03.2011 (Doc at page 521-523 of Vol-4). According to the accused (as per Schedule 14c), it was gifted to DW2 by his grandfather on the occasion of his 25th birthday. Therefore, his defence is that, it should be an asset of his son. As observed already, DW2 was not having the source of his own by the time. No material except the ocular evidence is before the Court to justify the purchase of this vehicle by the grandfather of DW2. Therefore, mere providing the information in schedule 14(c) by the accused to that extent, would not be the proof. In the absence of evidence, the purchase value of Rs.2,76,998/- as an asset of the accused stands proved.
35. Item No.36 : relating to the golden ornaments of 833.9 grams worth Rs.21,68,140/- were admittedly found in the house of the accused on the day of raid. It is seen that, the I.O has got 66 Spl. C.C.78/2017 assessed the value with the help of an Appraiser under the mahazar at Ex.P2. The basis for the assessment was the prevailing market value as on the date of raid. In fact, the ornaments and its value as assessed is not disputing by the accused. Very interesting is the failure of the I.O to consider it as an asset of the accused. The reasons given by him at page 104 of his final report that, ¸ÀzÀj D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À §UÉÎ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ DAiÀÆ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À J¦Dgï £À°è ¥üÉÄÆö¹PÉÆArgÀÄzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀĨsÀAzsÀzÀ°è D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w vÁ¼É¬ÄgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.21,68,140/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ ¥ÀjUÀt¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è is the most unfortunate and the serious investigation lapse.
35.1. The above justification of the IO reflects, his deliberate muteness to ascertain the way through which, the accused had acquired them and the source therefor. Mere declaration in the APR and providing the information to that extent at the schedule in the absence of proof, should not have been the basis for the IO to simply ignore it. Interestingly, the accused is seen to have submitted 67 Spl. C.C.78/2017 the schedule No.12A before the IO. Wherein, the accused has declared as if, fell to his share during the family partition vide the palupatti. In fact, the said palupatti would not reflect it. Being aware of the same, the justification of the IO in respect of 883.9 grams worth Rs.21,68,140/- is totally unwarranted. This is another serious lapse on his part.
36. Item No.37 : is relating to the diamond nose ring, a diamond ring, a watch and the white gold hangings. They were admittedly found in the house of the accused on the day of raid. The I.O deposes that, he has got assessed the value of these articles at Rs.34,000/- with the help of an Appraiser vide the panchanama at Ex.P2 to consider it, as an asset of the accused. The defence of the accused is that, the I.O has assessed the articles, based on the prevailing market value as on the date of raid. The assessment and the basis therefor as noticed by the accused, is not disputed by the prosecution. It is seen that, PW14 Sri. Mohammed Mukharam the Police Inspector has conducted the search and got assessed the value. But, he has committed the blunder in not ascertaining the total weight of these articles. His 68 Spl. C.C.78/2017 approach as such, being the senior most Police officer in the department and having the vast experience is unexpected.
36.1. However, it is not the case of the accused that, these articles were acquired over a period of time. He is the person who should have disclosed the date of purchase and value. But, he and his wife DW4 have never whispered anything about it either in the schedule or in the defence evidence. This reveals their intention of withholding the truth. Purchasing of a diamond ring, a diamond nose ring, including the white gold hangings and a watch at the cost of just Rs.34,000/- even prior to 2014 cannot be expected. In other words, I am of the opinion that, the value fixed by the I.O is obviously found lower than the actual cost. Therefore, I am declined to accept the defence. Rather hold that, considering Rs.34,000/- as an asset of the accused bears no wrong.
37. Item No.38 : is relating to the silver articles of 5753 grams, admittedly found in the house of the accused on the day of raid. The I.O admits that, he got assessed the value at Rs.1,63,529/- with the help 69 Spl. C.C.78/2017 of an Appraiser and considered it as an asset of the accused. The defence of the accused is the same as in respect of item No.37 that, the market value on the date of raid was the basis for the I.O to assess. Therefore according to him, it should not be considered as his asset. But, neither the accused nor his wife have spoken about them in their evidence, except disputing it in the written arguments.
37.1. The information provided by the accused through his schedules and the palupattis dated 01.02.1996 and 01.08.2002 would not disclose, any kind of silver articles fell to his share. That means, he must have purchased the disputed 5753 grams of silver only after 2002. As can be seen from historical data, the market value of the silver per k.g between 2002-05 was Rs.10,000/-. It was Rs.27,255/- in the year 2010 per k.g and Rs.56,000/- between the years 2011-2014. Thus, the average price of 1 k.g silver would be Rs.31,085/-. That means, the total cost of 5,753 grams of silver would be Rs.1,78,739/-. Therefore, I am to discard the defence contention as the actual value is, much higher than the value got 70 Spl. C.C.78/2017 assessed by the IO at Rs.1,63,529/-. No reasons to interfere with it.
38. Item No.40 : is pertaining to the house hold articles admittedly belongs to the accused. The details of these articles can be seen at page 3 to 12 of the search mahazar at Ex.P2. The IO deposes that, he has got assessed the value of these articles at Rs.17,58,762/- in the presence of witnesses and assistance of the accused. Both the witnesses and the accused admits their presence at the time of search and assessing the articles. But, the value fixed by the I.O is in serious dispute at the hands of the accused. As rightly noticed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the accused being one of the signatory to the search mahazar, has not opposed the fixation of the value at the spot, before subscribing his signature. However and obviously, the guess work was the basis for the I.O to fix the approximate value of these articles. In the circumstance, the possibility of inflating the value bound to have taken place. Therefore and considering the purchase of these articles over a period of time, every now and then, I am inclined to extend the 71 Spl. C.C.78/2017 benefit of 25% reduction i.e., Rs.4,39,690/- out of Rs.17,58,762/-. Thus, the total value of the house hold articles belongs to the accused would be Rs.13,19,072/-.
39. Item Nos.41, 42, 43 and 45: are relating to Rs.130/- + 2,270/- + 840/- + 690/- = Rs. 3,930/- admittedly deposited in respect of the electrical meters bearing R.R.No.5EP-1685, E5EH-6651, E5EH- 9153 and 5EH-9154 got installed to the house in item No.1 site bearing No.438 at Kalyana Nagara of Bengaluru city. The I.O has considered these deposits as the asset of the accused. While disputing it, the accused contends that, it was deposited out of the joint family nucleus. But, the fact to appreciate here is that, the purchase of item No.1 site and the construction of the building therein at the cost of the accused to the exclusion of the joint family is a proven fact. Therefore, no more discussion is required to discard the defence. The deposits of Rs.3,930/- considered by the I.O as the asset of the accused cannot be found with fault. Having regard to the 72 Spl. C.C.78/2017 overall discussion, I am to indicate the proved value of disputed and admitted assets as hereunder :
Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total in Rs. Rs. 50,19,031 14,06,434 1,32,61,000 1,37,55,000 7,50,000 12,00,000 3,53,91,465 Item No. 7 8 9 12 13 18 Rs. 7,50,000 9,00,000 79,25,000 88,070 4,759 1,03,751 97,71,580 Item No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Rs. 1,19,273.52 3,402 8,146 5,46,402 19,006 15,152 7,11,381.52 Item No. 28 29 30 31 32 33 Rs. 2,25,899 1,33,000 11,500 7,14,925 8,87,000 4,08,837 23,81,151 Item No. 35 36 37 38 40 41 Rs. 2,76,998 21,68,140 34,000 1,63,529 13,19,072 130 39,61,869 Item No. 42 43 45 Rs. 2,270 840 690 3,800 5,22,21,246.5 +Admitted Value 10,40,936.99 Grand 5,32,62,183 Total
II. Following item No. 1 to 49 are relating to the income of the accused and his family members as detailed at page No.169 to 173 of charge-sheet.
Item
Particulars Value (in Rs.)
No.
The salary drawn by the accused in his 1 61,55,859 check period The salary drawn by the accused's son 2 from his company i.e., Perfect Tools 3,21,000 Company 73 Spl. C.C.78/2017 The income derived from selling the house bearing No. 120/14 measuring 30 3 30,00,000.00 x 40 situated at Chellikere Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru The maturity amount of ICICI Prudential 4 1,39,868.52 Life Insurance (Policy No.00794727) The maturity amount of Post Office 5 92,742.00 Insurance (Policy No.KTCE0247430) The maturity amount of LIC (Policy 6 1,17,500.00 No.610307522) The maturity amount of KGIDs (Policy 7 Nos. 688471, 908228, 1164178, 30,5191 1797537) The Loan borrowed from KGID to 8 3,600.00 purchase a site 9 The loan borrowed to purchase a Car 1,20,000.00 The loan borrowed from the department 10 10,000.00 to purchase a bike The maturity amount of Yulif bearing No. 11 11,40,00.00 940311009098 12 The maturity amount of NSC 3,35,700.00 Vehicle loan amount borrowed from the Canara Bank, Marathahalli Branch, 13 Bengaluru (Loan A/c No. 6,00,000.00 0768603003726) The loan amount borrowed from SBI (Loan A/c No. 54032964988) for 14 5,00,000.00 renovating the Home No.438, 'Kirana' 6th B Main, Kalayana Nagara, Bengaluru. The Mortgage Loan borrowed from KSFC relating to M/s Aadya Tools Master Kiran 15 M., Floor No.222, Narasapura Industrial 50,92,835.00 Area, 2nd Stage, Narasapura, Kolara Taluk Housing Loan borrowed from Canara 16 Bank Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru 50,00,000.00 (Loan A/c No.0768619003761) Car Loan borrowed from Canara Bank 17 Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru (Loan 9,00,000.00 A/c No.2456603001936) Housing Loan borrowed from Canara 18 9,00,000.00 Bank Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru 74 Spl. C.C.78/2017 (Loan A/c No.2456619001694) The House loan amount borrowed from The Bharath Co-Operative Bank Limited, 19 5,00,000.00 Jayanagara, Bengaluru (Loan Account No.5332) The House loan amount borrowed from The Bharath Co-Operative Bank Limited, 20 5,00,000.00 Jayanagara, Bengaluru (Loan Account No.26293) The House loan amount borrowed from 21 The HDFC Bank, Bengaluru (Loan 1,50,000.00 Account No.100894) Dividend amount of shares from the 22 Socieity of Employees of Industries and 146.00 Commercial department Dividend amount of shares from the 23 45.00 Bharath Co-Operative Bank, Jayanagara The interest accumulated from the Canara Bank Account bearing No. 24 11563 2456101501094, Kalayana Nagara Branch.
The interest accumulated from the Canara Bank Account bearing No. 25 2456101501093, Kalayana Nagara 16,135.00 Branch.
The interest accumulated from the Canara Bank Account bearing No. 26 24,319.00 2456101006718, Kalayana Nagara Branch.
The interest accumulated from the Canara Bank Account bearing No. 27 2,786 2456101501090, Kalayana Nagara Branch.
The interest accumulated from the 28 Canara Bank Account bearing No. 24,304.00 0768101054321, Marathahalli Branch. The interest accumulated from the 29 Canara Bank Account bearing No. 624.00 07681010544380, Marathahalli Branch. The interest accumulated from the SBM 30 Bank Account bearing No. 54032919050, 31,445.00 HRBR Badavane Branch, Kalayana 75 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Nagara, Bengaluru Hand loan borrowed by accused's son from one Sri. S. Naresh Kumar S/o Late. 31 Shamanna, Aged about 41 years, 15,00,000.00 No.539, 20th Main, 4th T. Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
Hand loan borrowed by accused's son from one Sri. V. Gangadhar, R/o. No.6, 32 15,75,000.00 H. T. Line, Ramamurthy Nagara, Bengaluru Hand loan borrowed by accused's son from one Sri. Hanumanthagowda H, R/o. 33 15,00,000.00 No.396, 5th Main, 1st Cross, 2nd Block, Banashankarai 3rd Stage, Bengaluru Hand loan borrowed by accused's son 34 5,00,000.00 from one Loganathan Hand loan borrowed by accused's son 35 1,000,000.00 from one Bhimegowda Maturity amount of ICICI Bond Nos. 36 4421456, 0011050 and IDBI Bond 95,170.00 Nos.22IFB2973452 Rental amount of the residential house 37 i.e., Home No.438, 'Kirana' 6th B Main, 60,500.00 Kalayana Nagara, Bengaluru.
Advance amount and rental amount of Keerthi Apartment (90 x 40) situted at 38 61,59,000 No.120/2, Chellikere, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru Advance amount and rental amount of 39 Keerthi Royal, Akkamma Badavane, Banasavadi, Bengaluru (Site No.11). The rent of the house measuring 30 x 40 40 situated at No.120/14, Chellikere Village, 7,80,000.00 K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru Agricultural income derived from the lands to an extent of 4 acres in Sy. No. 41 62 and 2 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No.56 of 7,79,000.00 Yadahalli Village, Avani Hobli, Mulabagilu Taluk Agricultural income from the lands bearing Sy. No. 82/3, 84/2 and 88 of 42 4,633.61 Byadabele village, Kasaba, Bangarapete Taluk 76 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Agricultural (Horticultural) income from the lands bearing Sy. No. 82/3, 84/2 43 19,09,165.00 and 88 of Byadabele village, Kasaba, Bangarapete Taluk The amount derived from selling the 44 Maruthi 800 Car bearing Reg. No. KA-05- 85,000.00 M-6092 The amount derived from selling the 45 Maruthi Zen Car bearing Reg. No. KA-03- 1,52,000.00 MA-2574 The amount derived from selling the 46 3,500.00 Bajaj Scooter bearing Reg. No.CAP-8778 Cheque bearing No.285919 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- Gifted by 47 2,00,000 accused's mother by name Smt. Venkatalakshmamma Cash given to accused's wife by one 48 --
Kariyappa and his brothers 500 Grams Gold given by accused's 49 --
mother by name Venkatalakshmamma Total = Rs.4,12,72,631.13 The total income under 49 heads during the check period is found at Rs.4,12,72,631.13, and not Rs.4,12,73,631.00 as calculated by the IO in the final report. The accused in his written arguments dated 04.08.2025 admits, the income of Rs.17,44,825.52 under Item No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36 and 44. But, he disputes the income at Rs.3,95,27,805.61 detailed by the I.O under item No.1 to 3, 12, 13, 15 to 20, 25 to 35, 37 to 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. Therefore, the following are the item-wise discussions and findings.
77 Spl. C.C.78/2017
40. Item No.1 : The I.O has considered the net salary of the accused at Rs.61,55,859/- during the check period from 09.12.1982 to 15.07.2014. On the contrary, the accused asserts his net salary of Rs.65,86,224/-. But, his assertion gets contradicted with his own information at schedule-1 with the indication of his net salary at Rs.54,05,760/- after the exclusion of deduction at Rs.3,60,155/- out of the gross at Rs.87,07,200/-. In the cross-examination at para 277 - 280, the I.O admits the gross salary of the accused including the leave encashment at Rs.86,17,982/- and his failure to consider Rs.1,38,549/- towards the salary for the months of June & July-2014 + Rs.10,000 leave encashment. Therefore, if the left out amount of Rs.1,48,549/- is added, the gross salary income of the accused would be Rs.87,66,531/-. Out of which, Rs.24,56,549/- is admitted to be the standard deductions. Thus, Rs.63,10,131/- being the net income, should have considered by the I.O. Therefore, the defence of the accused to the extent of Rs.65,86,224/- does not bear any force.
78 Spl. C.C.78/2017
41. Item No.2 : DW2 Sri. Kiran states that, he was working as a Quality Control Manager in M/s Perfect Tools at Peenya since 2011 till the end of the check period. According to him, he was getting the salary of Rs.8,000/- + fuel expenses upto Rs.800/- p.m. He claims to have earned the total income of Rs.3,21,000/- during the said period. To prove it, he relies on a letter at Ex.P66 said to have issued by M/s Perfect Tools. The I.O in cross-examination at para 244 admits to have considered it, as the income of the accused. Now the grievance of the accused is that, it should have considered as the income of his son. Here, the fact that, the employment of DW2 at M/s Perfect Tools and his alleged salary is already held to have not proved for reasons at para 26.1 of this judgment. Therefore, I decline to accept either the defence of the accused or the decision of the I.O in considering this amount as an asset of the accused.
42. Item No.3 : According to the accused, his wife as the owner of the building in site No.120/14 (asset item No.2) has sold it to the Royal Concord 79 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Educational Trust for Rs.30,00,000/- in the year 2012. To prove it, the accused relies on the letter dated 10.06.2012 of his wife at page 370 of Vol-3 and the reply dated 15.06.2012 of the educational trust at Ex.D10. Based on these documents, the IO has considered this amount as the income of the accused. Now, the dispute of the accused in his written argument is that, the sale proceeds should be reckoned as the income of his wife. DW4 the wife of the accused has also reiterated the same in her evidence at para 10 & 24. Here the truth is that, the purchase of this site for Rs.72,000/- and construction of ground + 4 floors apartment therein by the accused in the name of DW4 held to have proved for reasons at para 20. Therefore, this property cannot be of his wife.
42.1. Now the sale of this property to Concord Educational Trust is the question. Generally the sale agreement or the sale deed would be the crucial documents to accept the sale transaction. But, no such documents are produced by the accused, except the self serving letter of his wife and the alleged reply 80 Spl. C.C.78/2017 of the educational trust at Ex.D10. The alleged purchaser is not examined to prove the sale transaction. Even not examined the author of Ex.D10 to prove its contents. In fact, the letter dated 10.06.2012 of DW4 unfurls the sale of the property for Rs.18,88,000/-. Out of which, the payment of Rs.16,30,000/- was made during 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006. Subsequently, there was an enhancement of sale consideration from Rs.18,88,000 to Rs.30,00,000/- and payment of the balance amount at Rs.13,70,000/- in installments. This payment gets falsified with the contents of Ex.D10 to the extent that, the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid on 06.06.2010 and the existing building in the site was demolished. In the above circumstances and in the absence of proof either to disclose the completion of sale transaction or the receipt of consideration amount, the letter of DW4 and suspicious reply at Ex.D10, would not be basis to sustain the defence. The IO has to explain the circumstances, which prompted him to consider the questioned sale consideration as the income of 81 Spl. C.C.78/2017 the accused without taking any pain in the matter of ascertaining the truth.
43. Item No.12 : NSC matured amount at Rs.3,35,708/-. It is not in dispute that, the accused has invested Rs.2,25,899/- for the purchase of the national saving certificates as per Ex.P87 during the period from 1988-2003. On their maturity, admittedly, the interest of Rs.1,09,809/- was accrued. The I.O admits to have considered Rs.3,35,708/- as the expenditure of the accused mistakenly. The defence of the accused is that, the entire amount should be reckoned as the income of the accused. But, both the accused and the IO are totally under the misconception. The reason is that, the investment for purchase of NSCs amounts to an asset. The interest of Rs.1,09,809/- accrued thereon would alone becomes an income as already discussed at para 28 of this judgment.
44. Item No.13 : Relating to the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- availed by the son of the accused from the Canara Bank vide account No.0768603003726 to purchase the i20 car. The I.O has considered it to the 82 Spl. C.C.78/2017 income head of the accused. Whereas, the defence of the accused is that, it should be reckoned as the income of DW2. But for reasons already discussed at para 31 and 31.1, I am to decline the accept the defence and sustain the prosecution stand that, this loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- becomes the income of the accused. Therefore, the conclusion of the I.O to that extent gets justified.
45. Item No.15 : Relating to Rs.50,92,835/- released by the KSFC towards the 1st installment in favour of DW2 Sri. Kiran, out of the industrial loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- granted to him. The I.O admits to have considered the 1st installment amount as the income of the accused. This amount is already held to be of DW2 Sri. Kiran for reasons and findings at para 26.2 of this judgment. Therefore, it has to be deducted from the income head of the accused.
46. Item No.16 : is relating to the housing loan of Rs.50,00,000/- availed from the Canara Bank under the A/c No.076861900376 in the name of DW4 Smt. Jayalaxmi on 28.08.2013 for construction of the building in site No.11 at Akkamma Layout. The I.O 83 Spl. C.C.78/2017 has on the basis of Ex.P36, considered it as the income of the accused. While disputing the same, the accused contends that, this amount should be treated as the income of his wife. In this context and without inviting further discussion, I am to reiterate that, the purchase of this site and construction of the building therein by the accused in the name of DW4 is already held to have proved for reasons at para 21.5 to 21.7. Therefore, the conclusion of the I.O is found correct in considering Rs.50,00,000/- loan as the income of the accused.
47. Item No.17 : is pertaining to Rs.9,00,000/- loan availed from the Canara Bank at Marathalli Branch in the name of DW4 vide A/c No.2456603001936 as per Ex.P70 for the purchase of Honda City car. The I.O has treated it as the income of the accused. The accused while finding fault with the I.O contends that, this amount is the individual loan of his wife. Therefore according to him, this amount should be treated as her income. This dispute is already decided at para 32. No more evidence or discussion is a matter of necessity to hold 84 Spl. C.C.78/2017 that, this loan amount of Rs.9,00,000/- is the income of the accused.
48. Item No.18 : is the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- was availed from the Canara Bank at Marathhalli branch in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi for construction of the building at Site No.120/2 (asset item No.3). The document at Ex.P71 makes clear that, the account bearing No.2456619001694 through which, Rs.9,00,000/- loan was borrowed is in the joint names both the accused and his wife. The I.O has considered it as the income of the accused. The dispute of the accused is the same as in para 47 above with the assertion that, it is the income of his wife. Needless to say that, the construction of the building in this site by the accused is a proven fact for reasons at para 19.2 to 19.5. Therefore, no more discussion warrants to hold that, the loan amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in question is the income of the accused.
49. Item No.19 & 20 : relating to the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- was made availed from the Bharath Co-operative Bank at Jayanagara 85 Spl. C.C.78/2017 in the wife's name of the accused. The relevant document is at Ex.P44. The I.O has taken this amount to the income head of the accused. The contention of the accused is that, it is the income of his wife. DW4 in her evidence at para 2, 24 & 25 reiterates the same. But for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5, I am to accept the prosecution stand that, Rs.10,00,000/- is the income of the accused as considered by the I.O.
50. Item No.25 : is the interest of Rs.16,135/- in the account bearing No.2456101501093 of DW4 Smt. Jayalaxmi at the Canara Bank, Kalyana Nagara Branch.
51. Item No.26 : is the interest of Rs.24,319/- in the account bearing No.2456101006718 of DW2 Sri. Kiran at the Canara Bank, Kalyana Nagara Branch.
52. Item No.27 : is the interest of Rs.2,786/- in the account bearing No.2456101501090 of Mis. Keerthi at the Canara Bank, Kalyana Nagara Branch.
86 Spl. C.C.78/2017
53. Item No.28 : is the interest of Rs.24,304/- in the account bearing No.0768101054321 of Smt. Jayalaxmi at the Canara Bank, Marathalli Branch.
54. Item No.29 : is the interest of Rs.624/- in the account bearing No.0768101054438 of Sri. Kiran at the Canara Bank of Marathalli Branch.
55. Item No.30 : is the interest of Rs.31,445/- in the account bearing No.54032919050 of Smt. Jayalaxmi at SBM bank at HRBR Layout.
55.1. It is not in dispute that, the I.O has taken the interest at item No.25 to 30 in all Rs.99,613/- to the income head of the accused. The defence set up by the accused is that, this interest amount was accrued on the individual income source of his wife, son and daughter. It is a proven fact and as already observed that, Smt. Jayalaxmi being the house wife was not having the income source of her own. She has been representing the assets and income of the accused in her name. The son and daughter of the accused, were students at the relevant point of time. They were dependents of the accused. Hence, for 87 Spl. C.C.78/2017 reasons at para 19.1 & 19.5, 22.1 & 22.2, the accrued interest of Rs.99,613/- is held to be the income of the accused.
56. Item No.31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 : are the interest free hand loans of Rs.15,00,000/- + Rs.15,75,000/- + Rs.16,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.10,00,000/- = Rs.61,75,000/- said to have borrowed by DW2 Sri. Kiran. The I.O is seen to have considered these hand loans as the income of the accused. While opposing the same, the accused took a stand that, this amount should have considered as the independent income of his son. In fact, this issue has already been decided at para 24 to 24.3. Hence and for reasons therein, I cannot sustain the defence of the accused and the conclusion of the I.O since these hand loans held to be disproved.
57. Item No.37 : is the rental income of Rs.60,500/- from the house bearing No.438 (Asset item No.1) during the period from 1996 to 01.08.2002. The IO states to have considered it as the income of the accused on the basis of APRs at page 59-156 of Vol-I. On the other hand, the 88 Spl. C.C.78/2017 assertion of the accused in his written arguments is that, he let his 8 squares house for rent after it was allotted to his share vide a family palupatti dated 01.02.1996. His defence is that, he had received the rent of Rs.1,78,400/- (see page 277 of Ex.P112) for the period from 1996 to 2001-02. But, himself has contradicted this amount in his evidence at para 5 by quoting the rent of Rs.1,85,000/-. Though he deposed to have declared it in his self serving APRs for the year 1995-96 at page 106-120 of Vol-1(A), the declared amount as hereunder goes against his own contention.
1) 1995-96 - Rs.10,500/- (for 5 months)
2) 2000-01 - Rs.30,000/-
3) 2001-02 - Rs.30,000/-
--------------------------------
Total - Rs.70,500/-
57.1. Thus, the contradictions as such, destroys the very base of his defence. Moreover, the letting of the house for the rent itself is doubtful and becomes a question. Because, his evidence at para 5 that, CA¢¤AzÀ®Æ (01.02.1996) D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 89 Spl. C.C.78/2017 £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¨ÁrUÉUÉ PÉÆ nÖzÉÝ gets rebutted with the suggestion of the accused himself through his counsel in the cross-examination of the I.O at para 258 that, 1995-96 £Éà ¸Á°£À GvÀÛgÀzÁ¬ÄvÀé ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è F ¤ªÉñÀ £ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß CtÚ¤UÉ ¨ÁrUÉUÉ PÉÆ nÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ DgÉÆ Ã¦AiÀÄÄ ¥üÉÆ ÃµÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. It evidences, the conduct of the accused in providing the false information wherever he may require for his convenience. The truth is that, the brother of the accused was admittedly residing with his family in a village called Yadahalli of Mulabagilu Taluk. There was no necessity or occasion for him to get this house of the accused on rent. Even he has not disclosed the name of others who took the same for rent nor examined them to substantiate his defence. In the meanwhile and as admitted by the accused, the house being in his possession was under the renovation. The above compelling circumstances and the absence of believable evidence goes to disprove the rental income to the accused. Therefore, the conclusion of the I.O in blindly considering the rental income to the account of the accused bears no justification to sustain.
90 Spl. C.C.78/2017
58. Item No.38 and 39 : is the rental income from the apartments in Site No.120/2 at Chelakere and Site No.11 at Akkamma Layout respectively. It is not in dispute that, 16 flats in Keerthi apartment comprising of ground + 4 floors at site No.120/2 were constructed step by step during 1996, 2001 and 2004. 11 flats in the apartment at site No.11 comprising of ground + 4 floors in the year 2006-07. Admittedly, 22 rental agreements marked at Ex.P113 to 134 were found and seized by the Police from the house of the accused, under the mahazar at Ex.P2, on the day of raid. These documents are seen to have got executed by and between the wife of the accused Smt. Jayalaxmi and various tenants. Based on Ex.P113 to 134, the I.O admits to have considered the rental income of Rs.48,34,000 + advance of Rs.13,25,000/- in all Rs.61,59,000/- as the income of the accused from both the apartments. As a counter, the accused asserts the rental income of Rs.76,20,125/- + Rs.5,44,250/- = Rs.81,64,375/-. Thus, the difference amount of Rs.20,05,375/- is in dispute. According to the accused, it is the individual rental income of his wife.
91 Spl. C.C.78/2017 58.1. In so far as the defence contention of individual rental income of DW4 is concerned, I am declined to accept the same for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5. No doubt, the accused relies on the APR's for the year 2000 to 2014 at page 8 to 180 of Vol-3 and states to have declared the rental income of Rs.81,64,375/- including the advance rent of Rs.13,25,000/-. His wife (DW4) has adduced the evidence. But, she has not spoken anything about the rent to that extent. Indeed, the undisputed income tax returns filed in the name of DW4 for the years 1997-98 to 2014-15 are at Ex.D1 (see page 407 - 425 of Ex.P112). These I.T returns reveals the total rental income declared at Rs.36,65,350/- only. The so- called rental advance of Rs.13,25,000/- does not find place in any of these returns. However, the declaration as such is evident to rule out the rent of Rs.81,64,375/-. Even otherwise, if the advance rent is added to Rs.36,65,350/-, it works out at Rs.49,90,350/-. Therefore, the defence of the accused is without any basis. However, the conclusion of the I.O shall stand modified to the extent that, the total net rental income to the accused from the apartments 92 Spl. C.C.78/2017 at site No.120/2 and site No.11 at Rs.49,90,350/- is proved.
59. Item No.40 : is relating to the rent from the building at site No.120/14 at Chelakere. It is not in dispute that, the ground + 4 floors building came to be constructed therein. DW2 Sri. Kiran claims that, as a GPA holder of his mother, he got constructed this building during 2006-07. According to him, he had received the total rent of Rs.19,23,150/- therefrom during 2008-09 to 2013-14. Ex.P67 is the rent related document. As per this document, the Royal concord educational trust is the tenant. This Ex.P67 appears to be the basis for the I.O to consider the rent of Rs.7,80,000/- as the income of the accused. Here, the purchase of site No.120/14 and the building construction therein by the accused in the name of his wife is already decided for reasons at para 20 to 20.4. Therefore, whatever rental income alleged to have received therefrom cannot be connected either to DW2 or his mother DW4.
59.1. In so far as the rent received is concerned, except relying on the unregistered agreement at 93 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex.P67 and self serving statements, no supporting material is placed before the Court by the accused either to rebut the prosecution stand or to prove the rental income of Rs.19,23,150/-. Even the tenant is not examined to prove the contents of Ex.P67. Very interesting is the evidence of DW4 that, she has sold the building to the Royale Concord Educational Trust on 01.04.2004 for Rs.30,00,000/-. This gives raise a question that, if really sold the building and handed over to it possession, how can the rent of Rs.19,23,150/- from 2008-2009 to 2013-14 be received?. This indeed, the accused had no answer for it. However, the claim put forth by his wife is that, she sold the building and received Rs.30,00,000/- came to be disproved for reasons at para 42.
59.2. The unregistered rental agreement at Ex.P67 reveals, its validity for 3 years and the rent fixed therein is Rs.60,000/- per month. The period of 3 years itself is evident to understand that, it is a compulsorily registerable document. As already observed, the tenant is not examined by the accused to prove its contents and payment of the rent at the 94 Spl. C.C.78/2017 fixed rate over a period of 3 years and thereafter wards. Under these circumstances, the uncorroborated ocular evidence would not inspire to believe the story. Even otherwise, the rent of Rs.60,000/- for 13 months as arrived at by the I.O is accepted, it works out at Rs.7,80,000/- to consider as the rental income of the accused.
60. Item No.41 : That, the land of 4 acres in Sy. No.62 and 2 acres 23 guntas in Sy.No.56 in all 6 acres 23 guntas at Yadahalli village, admittedly belongs to the accused. The I.O in his evidence at para 145 states that, he has considered Rs.7,79,000/- as the agriculture and horticultural income to the accused during the period from 1996 - 2001-02. It is seen that, the I.O has not at all investigated, to unearth the true income. Rather, seen to have completely relied on the APRs of the accused for the year 1996-2001 to consider Rs.7,79,000/-. This approach on the part of the I.O is unwarranted and has to explain by him for this kind of serious investigation lapse. However, the accused 95 Spl. C.C.78/2017 in his written arguments admits the correctness of the income arrived at Rs.7,79,000/- by the I.O.
61. Item No.42 & 43 : pertaining to the agriculture and horticultural income of the accused from the lands of 7 acre 17 guntas in Sy. No.82/3, 84/2 and 88 at Byadabele village. PW5 - Sri. Nagaraj S is the Asst. Director of Agriculture. PW6 - Sri. Narayana Swamy is the Asst. Director of Horticulture. Their respective reports at Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the basis for the I.O to consider the agriculture and horticultural net income at Rs.4,633/- + Rs.18,99,646/- = Rs.19,04,279/-. As a counter, the accused while relying on his APRs for the years 2002- 03 to 2010-11 at page 146, 129, 131, 137, 141, 144, 147 & 150 of Vol-1A states that, his income was Rs.24,82,585. He finds many defects on the reports of PW5 and 6 for their having relied upon only the RTCs to assess the income. This issue has already been decided while discussing in detail on expenditure item No.50 at para 110 to 110.6 of this judgment with the conclusion that, the total agriculture and 96 Spl. C.C.78/2017 horticultural income of the accused is Rs.7,64,134/- is justified.
62. Item No.45 : is relating to the income of Rs.1,52,000/- from the sale of the Zen car bearing No.KA-03-MA-2574. Admittedly, the I.O has considered the sale value as the income of the accused. Whereas, according to the accused, this value should be reckoned to the income of his wife. As this is already decided at para 33 of this judgment, I find no reason to accept the defence. Therefore, I am to hold and justify that, Rs.1,52,000/- should be the income of the accused.
63. Item No.46 : is relating to the income from the sale of Bajaj Scooter bearing No.CAP 8778. This sale and value is not in dispute. I.O has considered the sale value of Rs.3,500/- as the income of the accused. As the accused is not disputing the same, no more discussion warrants.
64. Item No.47 : is in respect of Rs.2,00,000/- under DD No.285919 dated 05.11.2006 drawn on Vishweshwariah Co-Operative Bank alleged to have 97 Spl. C.C.78/2017 given it as a gift to the wife of the accused by her mother. At para 151 of the evidence, the IO admits to have considered this amount as the income of the accused only on the basis as if, the accused has declared it in his schedule at page 403 (Ex.P110). This approach of the I.O is evident to indicate as to how irresponsible officer he is?. The reason is that, Ex.P110 reflects nothing about this gift of Rs.2,00,000/-. Even neither the accused nor his wife speaks on it in their evidence, except in the written arguments. The I.O failed to ascertain the source for the mother of DW4 or the encashment of the D.D amount by her. Therefore, the self serving statement alone would not be the proof to accept the value of this transaction either as the income of the accused or his wife. In other words, I am to say that, the gift in question stands disproved.
65. Item No.48 : is relating to a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- cash. This amount alleged to have given by the brothers of the accused to his wife DW4 Smt. Jayalaxmi on 05.10.2012. DW4 relies on an affidavit dated 13.08.2014 at page 357 of Vol-III said to have executed by the brothers of the accused to 98 Spl. C.C.78/2017 the extent of giving the amount. The I.O has declined to accept this amount either to the income account of the accused or his wife. The reason given by him is that, except the affidavit executed subsequent to the raid of this case, no other material is placed to prove. This issue has been already decided and held to have not proved for reasons at para 21.2 of this judgment. Hence and without giving scope for the further discussion, the decision of the I.O is justified.
66. Item No.49 : is the gold of 500 grams alleged to have gifted to the wife of the accused by her mother on 06.06.2007. Though the accused and his wife have been examined in this case, they have not referred anything about it. In his written arguments, the accused states to have declared it in the APR of the year 2006-07 at page 93 of Vol-3. Wherein, 360 grams gold is seen to have declared with the information as if, given to his wife by her parents on 06.06.1984, 28 grams given to his daughter on 12.12.2005 by her grandfather and 500 grams on 06.11.2006. But, the gold of 500 grams said to have given on 06.06.2007 does not find place in the APR. Indeed, the information provided by the accused in 99 Spl. C.C.78/2017 his schedule 12-A at page 355 of Vol-3 to the extent that, 500 grams gold worth Rs.12,00,000/- were given to his wife on 06.11.2006 by her mother is very surprising and it goes against his own defence.
66.1. The misleading information and the inconsistent defence of the accused, would not justify the possession of 888 grams of gold. Most unfortunate is the decision of the I.O in not considering the gold and his failure to investigate into it, to ascertain the source and the financial competency of the donor. This is another blunder and serious lapse on the part of the I.O he needs to explain.
LEFT OUT INCOME
67. Sl. No.1: is the interest of Rs.14,823/- admittedly accrued in the account of the accused bearing No.30315020766 at the State Bank of India of Kacherakanahalli Branch as per the document at Ex.P28. The I.O admits at para 273 of his cross examination to have not considered it, as the income 100 Spl. C.C.78/2017 of the accused. Therefore, Rs.14,823/- should be part of his income.
68. Sl.No.2: is the interest of Rs.17,408/- admittedly accrued in the account of the accused bearing No.117801010024219 at Vijaya Bank of R.C Road Branch. In his cross-examination at para 273, the I.O admits that, Rs.17,408/- was not considered. Hence, his grievance that, it should be the part of his income cannot be denied.
69. Sl.No.3: is Rs.23,000/- said to have borrowed by the accused from BBCF Chit Fund and disclosed it in his APR of the year 1993. But, in the cross- examination at para 281, the I.O refused to accept the grievance of the accused and consider this amount as his income. But no supporting evidence except the self serving APR is forthcoming to justify his defence. Mere declaration of this amount in his self serving APRs is not sufficient to interfere with the conclusion of the I.O.
70. Sl.No.4: is Rs.50,000/- each said to have borrowed by the accused from one Ramachandra Rao 101 Spl. C.C.78/2017 and Chandrashekar. His grievance is that, despite the declaration of this amount in his APR for the year 1983, the I.O failed to consider it as the part of income. In so far as this amount is concerned, the accused has not placed any kind of evidence. He being the responsible officer in the service of the State Government, should have obtained the prior permission from his department to borrow the loan if really he had borrowed. Even he failed to examine the lenders to prove their competency to pay. In the circumstance and in the absence of proof, I am declined to accept the defence and interfere with the decision of the I.O to that extent.
71. Sl.No.5 & 6: are relating to the interest of Rs.2,135/- and Rs.9,461/- admittedly accrued in the accounts of Smt.Jayalakshmi and Kiran bearing No.20164929752 & 20007011574 at the State Bank of India of Kammanahalli Branch. According to the accused the I.O should have considered the same as the income of his wife and son rather of him. In the mean while, I am to reiterate that, the wife and son of the accused were not having the income source of their own at the relevant point of time. Therefore, 102 Spl. C.C.78/2017 I am declined to accept the defence. Rather hold that the amount of Rs.2,135/- + 9,461/- = Rs.11,596/- should be the income of the accused.
72. Sl.No.7: is Rs.75,420/- said to have received by the accused from the department of agriculture as a subsidy. This fact gets substantiated with the cheque found at page No.74 of Ex.P112. The I.O in his cross-examination at para 283 also admits that, it should have been considered as the income of the accused. Therefore and having not found the necessity of further discussion, I am to hold that, Rs.75,420/- should be the income of the accused.
73. Sl.No.8: The accused claims that, he had received Rs.1,000/- as a festival advance during the year 1987-88. It is true that, the I.O admits to have not considered it as the income of the accused. Obviously, no evidence is before the Court to prove this festival advance. Therefore and in the absence of evidence, no fault is seen with the I.O. In other words the entitlement of the accused to get this amount to be the part of his income is denied.
103 Spl. C.C.78/2017
74. Sl.No.9: Admittedly, the lands in Sy.No.82/3, 84/2 and 88 at Byadabele village of Bangarpet Taluk belongs to the accused. His defence is that, he has given all these 3 lands to his brother one Kariyappa on lease and received Rs.15,00,000/- from him. The accused claims that, it should be the part of his income. The I.O in his cross examination at para 284 justifies his decision for not considering this amount for want of evidence. No doubt the accused relies on the xerox copy of the lease agreement found at page 283 of Ex.P112 to prove his defence. But to appreciate is that, if really he had received Rs.15,00,000/-, he should have disclosed it either in the I.T returns or in the APR of the relevant years being a public servant. Even not placed any material to disclose the source for his brother Kariyappa to pay the huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- at once that too in cash. Therefore, the story of this lease appears to have roped with the creation of the suspicious agreement. Consequently, his defence stands discarded.
75. Sl.No.10: is relating to Rs.25,00,000/- said to have borrowed in the form of interest free hand loan 104 Spl. C.C.78/2017 by the wife of the accused from Dr.Niranjan. He relies in the affidavit found at page No.347 of Ex.P112. This issue has already been decided at para 21.3 of this judgment with the conclusion to have not proved. Therefore, no further discussion is a matter of necessity.
76. Sl.No.11: The contention of the accused is that, he had borrowed the KGID Loan of Rs.5,000/- through the Tumkur Industrial Co-operative Bank. It gets corroborated with the document found at page 256 of Ex.P112. Therefore I am inclined to accept this amount of Rs.5,000/- as the income of the accused.
77. Sl.No.12 & 13: is the hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- said to have given by the accused and similar loan of Rs.7,50,000/- by his wife Smt. Jayalakshmi to their son Sri.Kiran to get allot the industrial site bearing No.222. No doubt, these payments are seen to have paid by them through the D.D's bearing No.469343 dated 25.10.2012 and 3071175 dated 01.08.2012 (see page 202 and 204 of Ex.P29). Now, the grievance of the accused is that, this amount of Rs.17,50,000/- should be considered 105 Spl. C.C.78/2017 as the income of his son. This amount already stands proved to be the asset of the accused at para 24.4 of this judgment. Therefore, the defence of the accused cannot be accepted. On the strength of these observations, I am to reflect the proved value of disputed and admitted income as hereunder :
Item 1 2 3 12 13 15 Total in Rs. No. Rs. 63,10,131 -00- -00- 1,09,809 6,00,000 00 70,19,940 Item 16 17 18 19 20 25 No. Rs. 50,00,000 9,00,000 9,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 16,135 78,16,135 Item 26 27 28 29 30 31 No. Rs. 24,319 2,786 24,304 624 31,445 -00- 83,478 Item 32 33 34 35 37 38 & 39 No. Rs. -00- -00- -00- -00- -00- 49,90,350 49,90,350 Item 40 41 42 & 43 45 46 47 No. Rs. 7,80,000 7,79,000 7,64,134 1,52,000 3,500 -00- 24,78,634 Item 48 49 No. Rs. -00- -00- -00- LEFT OUT INCOME Sl No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rs. 14,823 17,408 -00- -00- 2,135 9,461 43,827 Sl. No. 7 8 9 10 11 12 & 13 Rs. 75,420 -00- -00- -00- 5,000 -00- 80,420 Total 2,25,12,784 + Admitted Value 17,44,825.52 Grand Total 2,42,57,609.5 106 Spl. C.C.78/2017
III. The following 82 different heads are the expenditure details of the accused and his family during the check period as per the charge-sheet.
Item Amount
Particulars
No. (in Rs.)
Stamp duty and Registration fee on the 1 property bearing No.438, "Kirana" situated 1,125.00 at 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru. Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property bearing No.120/14 (30 x 40) 2 11,260.00 situated at Chellikere Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru.
Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property bearing No.11, Royal Apartment 3 2,85,510.00 (40 x 60) situated at Akkamma Badavane, Banasavadi Ward No.88, Bengaluru. Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property/Plot bearing No.222 (4047 sq. ft granted by KIADB) in Sy. No.66 and 82 of 4 1,13,940.00 (Narasapura Industrial Area) Karinayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolara District.
Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property (Keerthi Apartment measuring 90 5 x 40) bearing No.120/2 situated at 5,020.00 Chellikere Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru.
Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property (30 x 50) bearing No.10, Katha 6 58,245.00 No.69/4P situated at Horamavu Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru.
Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property (30 x 50) bearing No.11, Katha 7 92,980.00 No.69/4P situated at Horamavu Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru.
Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property (30 x 50) bearing No.9, Katha 8 58,245.00 No.69/4P situated at Horamavu Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru.
107 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Stamp duty and Registration fee on the property (40 x 60) bearing No.37, Katha 9 No.214/1 situated at Horamavu Agara 69,815.00 Village, K. R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru. Registration, Tax and Fuel expenses of the 10 Honda City S Car bearing Reg. No. KA-03- 1,41,416.00 MK-8619 Registration, Tax, Fuel and Repairs 11 expenses of the Zen Car bearing Reg. No. 3,04,335.00 KA-03-MA-2574 Registration, Tax, Fuel, Repairs and 12 Insurance expenses of the Zen Car 1,47,444.00 bearing Reg. No. KA-03-MS-8466 Registration, Tax, Fuel and Repairs 13 expenses of the Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing 71,700.00 Reg. No. KA-03-EN-9382 Registration, Tax, Fuel, Insurance and 14 Repairs expenses of the Bajaj Pulsar Bike 59,882.00 bearing Reg.KA-03-HJ-7116 Fuel expenses of the Bike bearing 15 3,344.00 Reg.CAP-8778 Fuel expenses of the Maruthi 800 Car 16 11,286.00 bearing Reg.KA-05-M-6092 Repayment of Home Loan borrowed by Canara Bank, Marathahalli Branch, 17 3,86,978.00 Bengaluru vide Loan A/c No.0768619003761 Repayment of Vehicle Loan borrowed by Canara Bank, Marathahalli Branch, 18 1,18,552.00 Bengaluru vide Loan A/c No.0768603003726 Repayment of Loan borrowed by Canara 19 Bank, Kalyana Nagara Branch vide Loan 11,72,729.00 A/c No. 2456603001936 Repayment of Loan borrowed by Canara 20 Bank, Kalyana Nagara Branch vide Loan 11,45,300.00 A/c No. 2456619001694 Repayment of Loan borrowed by the Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagara, Bengaluru vide Loan No. 21 8,09,894.00 5322 108 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Repayment of Loan borrowed by the Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd., 22 6,35,891.00 Jayanagara, Bengaluru vide Loan No. 26293 Repayment of Loan borrowed by SBM Bank, HRBR Extension Branch, Kalyana 23 6,34,938.00 Nagara, Bengaluru vide Loan A/c No. 54032964988 24 Amount spent on purchasing NSC 2,25,899.00 25 Premium of LIC bearing No.610307522 50,547.00 Premium of ICICI Prudential Life 26 60,000.00 Insurance bearing No.00794727 27 Premium of LIC bearing No.363067627 1,38,820.00 Premium of Post Office Policy bearing 28 39,494.00 No.KTCA0247430 Premium of Insurance of HSBC of Carana 29 3,00,000.00 Bank bearing No.0001982715 Amount spent on buying the New India Assurance Com. Ltd Insurance 30 5,398.00 No.67190031130100014404 for the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-MK-8619 Amount spent on buying Insurance 31 No.67190031130200014403 for the 531.00 vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-EN-9382 Amount spent on buying Insurance 32 No.67190031130100004242 for the 2,596.00 vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-MA-2574 Amount spent on buying Bajaj Alliance 33 6,00,000.00 Insurance No.0105399687 Amount spent on buying Bajaj Alliance 34 3,00,000.00 Insurance No.0105400781 Canara Bank HSBC Policy bearing 35 3,50,000.00 No.0001514912 Canara Bank HSBC Policy bearing 36 1,50,000.00 No.0027948012 37 Uilip Policy bearing No.940311009098 6,00,00.00 Loan given to Mr. S. G. Raju, Producer, 38 4,00,000.00 Sri. Kamakshi Enterprises, Gandhinagara 39 Spent on purchasing the Gas Cylinder 19,260.00 40 HBCC Club membership fee 19,800.00 Education expenses of his son in Holy 41 Mother School, Jeevan Bhimanagar, 1,650.00 Bengaluru 109 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Education expenses of his son in St. Maris 42 450.00 English School, Chellakere, Bengaluru Education expenses of his son in National 43 Junior School, Kacharakanahalli, 67,200.00 Bengaluru Education expenses of his son in CMR 44 50,975.00 National Public School, Bengaluru Education expenses of his son in 45 Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Collage, 27,200.00 V.V.Puram, Bengaluru Education expenses of his son in M. S. 46 Ramaiah Institute of Technology, 2,09,330.00 Bengaluru Education expenses of his daughter in 47 23,520.00 Mount Carmel PU Collage, Bengaluru Education expenses of his daughter in 48 Vydyi Instituate of Medical Science and 4,97,500.00 Research Centre, Whitefiled, Bengaluru. Education expenses of his daughter in 49 1,11,175.00 CMR National Public School, Bengaluru Agricultural expenses of the lands bearing 50 Sy. No.82/3, 84/2 and 88 of Byadabele 8,64,169.81 Village, Kasaba, Bangarapete Taluk 51 Passport Fee (No.J-9311668) 1000.00 52 Passport Fee (No.J-3247469) 1000.00 53 Passport Fee (No.J-9514832) 800.00 54 Passport Fee (No.J-8689762) 1000.00 Expenses incurred for having a PAN card 55 84,496.00 with number ADLPJ7338N Expenses incurred for having a PAN card 56 11,1240.00 with number BCGPK2699A Payment of the BWSSB Bill bearing No.E- 112749/HR-5-439 of the house No.438, 57 35,431.00 "Kirana", 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru Expenses for digging the borewell from 58 50,550.00 Sri. Krishna Borewells Payment of the Bill bearing Meter No.RR 59 SEP1685 of the house No.438, "Kirana", 7,702.40 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru Payment of the Bill bearing Meter No.E5 60 EH9154 of the house No.438, "Kirana", 6th 4,435.00 B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru 110 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Payment of the Bill bearing Meter No.5 61 EEH 14316 of the house No.438, "Kirana", 25,320.00 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru Payment of the Bill bearing Meter No.5 62 ESEH 9153 of the house No.438, "Kirana", 45,803.00 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru Payment of the Bill bearing Meter No.E5 63 EH 6651 of the house No.438, "Kirana", 1,74,215.86 6th B Main, Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru 64 Electricity Bill of the PWD Quatres 1800.00 65 Domestic Expenses 16,03,514.00 Repayment of the hand loan given by Sri. S. Naresh kumar S/o late. Shamanna, 66 15,00,000.00 Aged about 41 years, R/o.539, 20th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru Repayment of the hand loan given by Sri. 67 V. Gangadhara R/o No.6, H.T. Line, 15,75,000.00 Ramamurthy Nagara, Bengaluru - 16. Repayment of the hand loan given by Sri.Hanumanthegowda H, R/o No.396, 5th 68 15,00,000.00 Main, 1st Cross, 2nd Block, Banashankarai, 3rd Stage, Bengaluru - 85. 69 Cable Fee (Rs.120 pm) 13,200.00 Salary given to the Domestic worker 70 13,200.00 (Rs.1,100p.m) Payment made towards the BSNL Mobile 71 1,26,875.00 No.9448069425 72 Invoice bill of M/s Mamatha Traders 83,750.00 73 Invoice bill of M/s Mamatha Traders 67,000.00 74 Invoice bill of M/s Mamatha Traders 2,55,750.00 75 Invoice bill of M/s Universal Mobile Tax 6,500.00 Invoice bill of M/s Pai International 76 43,200.00 Electronics Ltd., Invoice bill of M/s Surya Elevators and 77 5,00,000.00 Escalators India Pvt. Ltd., 78 Tax Invoice bill of M/s Titan I+ 14,140.00 79 Tax Invoice bill of M/s Titan I+ 5,231.00 80 Tax Invoice bill of M/s iPlanet 3,674.00 Cash Bill of L. G. Electronics India Pvt. 81 276.00 Ltd., 82 Tax Invoice bill of Sports Zone 47,000.00 Total = Rs.1,88,18,446.26 111 Spl. C.C.78/2017
78. The expenditure of the accused under the above 82 heads during the check period is Rs.1,88,18,446.26 and not Rs.1,88,19,047.07 as calculated by the IO in his final report. The I.O admits in his written arguments dated 04.08.2024, the expenditure as detailed at Sl. No.15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 64, 69, 70, 71, and 75 worth Rs.17,82,805.00. The correctness of the expenditure at Sl. No.1 to 14, 17 to 22, 24, 30 to 36, 38, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59 to 63, 65 to 68, 72 to 74, 76 to 82 worth Rs.1,70,35,641.26 is under the dispute. Therefore, the item-wise discussion as hereunder.
79. Item No.1 : is Rs.1,125/- paid towards the stamp and registration on lease cum sale agreement at Ex.P50 dated 25.08.1990 executed by the BDA, in favour of the accused relating to site No.438 at Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru city.
80. Item No.2 : is Rs.11,260/- paid towards stamp and registration charges on the sale deed dated 08.04.2015 at Ex.P39 in the name of Smt. N. 112 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Jayalaxmi the w/o the accused pertaining to site No.120/14 at Chelakere Village.
81.Item No.3 : is Rs.2,85,510/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed at Ex.P75 in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi pertaining to site No.11 at Akkamma Layout of Banasavadi village, Bengaluru city.
82. Item No.4 : is Rs.1,13,940/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed dated 30.01.2013 at Ex.P29, executed by the KIADB in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran in connection with the allotment of an industrial plot bearing No.222 measuring 4047 sq. mtrs. at Narasapura Industrial Area, Kolara District.
83. Item No.5 : is Rs.5,020/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed dated 04.07.1996 at Ex.P43 in the name of Smt. N. Jayalaxmi pertaining to site No.120/2 at Chelakere village, K. R. Pura Taluk of Bengaluru city.
113 Spl. C.C.78/2017
84. Item No.6 : is Rs.58,245/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed at Ex.P45 in the name of Smt. N. Jayalaxmi pertaining to site No.10 at Horamavu village of Bengaluru city.
85. Item No.7 : is Rs.92,980/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed dated 02.03.2012 at Ex.P45 in the name of Smt. N. Jayalaxmi pertaining to site No.11 at Horamavu village of Bengaluru.
86. Item No.8 : Rs.58,245/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed dated 20.06.2012 at Ex.P54 in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran in respect of site No.9 at Horamavu village of Bengaluru city.
87. Item No.9 : Rs.69,875/- paid towards the stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed dated 25.05.2011 at Ex.P55 in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran relating to site No.37 at Horamavu of Bengaluru city.
114 Spl. C.C.78/2017
88. Admittedly, the I.O has considered the stamp duty and registration charges detailed at item. No.1 to 9 together at Rs.6,96,140/- to the expenditure account of the accused. While disputing the same, the accused contends that, the entire expenses were borne by the kartha, out of the joint family nucleus. On this ground, he sought to deduct the amount from the account of his expenditure. The expenditure item No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 are, item No.1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7, & 8 in the assets unit. The purchase of all these sites by the accused out of his earnings, came to be established as discussed in detail on the respective items. Similarly, the purchase of an industrial plot at Sl. No.4 by the accused in the name of his son is a proven fact for reasons on item No.9 of the assets unit. Therefore, the stamp duty and registration charges at item No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 including item No.4 of the expenditure unit cannot be said to have borne by the joint family or the son of the accused. Therefore, I am to agree with the prosecution stand that, Rs.6,96,140/- spent is to be taken to the expenditure account of the accused.
115 Spl. C.C.78/2017
89. Item No.10 : is Rs.1,41,416/- paid towards the registration fee, tax, fuel and maintenance charges of the Honda City Car No.KA-03-MK-8619 purchased in the name of Smt. N. Jayalaxmi on 19.03.2009.
90. Item No.11 : is Rs.3,04,335/- spent towards the registration fee, tax, fuel and maintenance charges of Maruthi Zen car bearing No.KA-03-MA- 2574 purchased in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi on 04.04.2001.
91. Item No.12 : is Rs.1,47,445/- spent towards registration fee, insurance, tax, fuel and maintenance charges of the i.20 car bearing No.KA-03-MS-8466 purchased in the name of DW2 - Sri. Kiran on 27.09.2013.
92. Item No.13 : is Rs.71,700/- spent towards fuel, maintenance, insurance, tax etc., of a Bajaj pulsar bearing No.KA-03-EN-9382 purchased in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran on 31.07.2004.
116 Spl. C.C.78/2017
93. Item No.14 : is Rs.59,882/- spent towards fuel and maintenance etc., of a Kawasaki Ninja bike bearing No.KA-03-HJ-7116 purchased in the name of DW2 Sri. Kiran on 15.03.2011.
94. The subject matter of the dispute at item No.10 to 14 warrants the following discussion in detail. Generally, the mileage of a motor vehicle depends on the expertise of the rider/driver, the road conditions, the age of the vehicle, time to time service, fitness and its running condition etc., In fact, the mileage goes on decreasing as the time passes or the age of the vehicle grows. As per the discussion and reasonings at para 32, 33, 31, and 36 of this judgment, the purchase of motor vehicles at item No.10 to 13 and the vehicle at item No.14 by the accused is a proven fact. As observed at para 19.1 and 19.5 in respect of Smt.Jayalaxmi, and para 20.2 in respect of Sri. Kiran, both of them were not having the income source of their own. Therefore, they cannot be expected to maintain these vehicles out of their own source. PW20 Sri. G. Vasudeva is the then Motor Vehicle Inspector from the Indira Nagara RTO 117 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Office. His ocular evidence and reports at Ex.P52(a) to
(e) is the basis for the I.O to consider the expenses as indicated at Item No.10 to 14 to the expenditure head of the accused. In the situation of this nature, I find no fault with the IO to consider the expenses to the account of the accused rather than of his wife and son.
94.1. The accused is not disputing the expenses towards the registration fee, tax, and insurance paid in respect of vehicles at item No.10 to 14. His only dispute is in respect of the fuel expenses considered by the I.O. According to the defence counsel, the reports at Ex.P52(a) to 52(e) are imaginary and have no basis for the assessment therein. But his contention as such cannot be accepted. Because, the total distance, average fuel price, and the mileage as deposed by PW20 would be the basis to assess not only, the fuel expenses but also the maintenance of the motor vehicle. Even anybody can do it on the basis of information as such, but need not necessarily be an expert. In so far as the Honda City car at item No.10 is concerned, the total distance of 118 Spl. C.C.78/2017 8149 K.M at the rate of 25 KMPL ran by it till the end of the check period is not in dispute. PW20 has considered the price of petrol per litter at Rs.53. The method he has adopted is 8149/25 x 53 = Rs.17,275/-. He deposed to have added to it the registration fee at Rs.300/- and tax of Rs.1,23,841/- to indicate the total expenses at Rs.1,41,416/-.
94.2. In fact, PW20 is seen to have misleaded with the wrong calculation and suppression of the truth. The reason is that, as per the certification of ARAI, the millage of Honda city was upto 19 KMPL during the year 2001-2014. The data history of the fuel price from 2001-2014 was Rs.28.70, 29, 31.60, 36.10, 41.90, 45.20, 43, 47.50, 43.30, 51.40, 64.70, 67.90, 72.20, and 72.40 respectively. Thus, the average fuel price was Rs.48.20. As per the 'B' extract annexed to the report at Ex.P52(b) of this vehicle, the insurance premium paid was Rs.14,516/-. This amount is seen to ignored by PW20 for reasons to explain by him. Thus, if the maximum mileage of 19 KMPL is considered, the correct calculation would be 8149/19 = 428.89 x 48.20 = Rs.20,673/-. Therefore, 119 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Rs.20,673/- + Rs.300/- + Rs.1,23,841/- + Rs.41,516 = Rs.1,86,330/- stands proved to be considered as the expenditure incurred by the accused.
95. Item No.11 : The report of PW20 at Ex.P52(c) with 'B' extract disclose the registration fee, tax, and battery replacement at Rs.150 + 30,050/- + 29,000/- = Rs.59,200/- paid and the total mileage of 54074 KM. These facts are not under the dispute. PW20 failed to ignore to consider the insurance premium paid and also the maintenance expenses. However, he is seen to have adopted the method 54074/15 = 3604 x 68 = Rs.2,45,135/-. The same mistake is committed by him as observed at para 94.2. Therefore, the revisit of the calculation is required for just decision. The average millage of Maurthi zen was upto 17 KMPL and fuel price was Rs.72. Thus, 54074/17 = 3604 x 72 = 2,45,072/- + 59,200/- = Rs.3,04,272/- would be the expenses of the accused.
96. Item No.12 : Ex.P52(a) is the report issued by PW20 along with the 'B' extract. The registration fee, tax, insurance at Rs.636/- + 1,13,432 + 26,995 = Rs.1,41,063/- is not in dispute. Admittedly, the total 120 Spl. C.C.78/2017 distance was 10732 KM ran by this car during the period from 2001-2014. PW20 has indicated the KMPL at 18, the fuel price at Rs.56/- per liter. The method adopted by him is 10732/18 = 596 x 56 = Rs.33,376/-. But, he has ignored the insurance premium. In this way, PW20 has repeated the mistake with the wrong information and thereby exposes his negligence. The reasons at para 94.2 warrants the re-calculation i.e., 10732/18 = 564.84 x 48.20 = Rs.27,225/- + Rs.1,41,063/- + Rs.26,995/- = Rs.1,95,283/- would be the expenditure of the accused.
97. Item No.13 : the oral evidence of PW20 is supported by his report at Ex.P52(d). The 'B' extract annexed thereto reveals the registration fee, tax, insurance premium paid at Rs.260/- + 1,414/- + 1,173/- = 2,847/-. The total distance of 51965 KM ran by this vehicle with the mileage of 40 KMPL is an undisputed fact. His method of calculation is, 51965/40 = 1299 x 53 = 68,853/-. But for reasons at para 94.2, the calculation should be 51965/40 = 1299 x 48.20 = Rs.62,611/- + Rs.2,847/- = 121 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Rs.65,459/- and it should be the expenditure of the accused.
98. Item No.14 : The evidence of PW20 and his report at Ex.P52(e) goes to reveal the payment of Rs.260/- + Rs.36,564/- + Rs.5,329/- = Rs.42,153/- towards the registration fee, tax, insurance premium and the total distance of 2763 KM is not under dispute. The only fuel expenses are in dispute. The method adopted by PW20 to assess is, 2763/12 = 230.25 x 77 = Rs.17,729/-. PW20 again is seen to have exposed his irresponsibility in assessing the fuel expenses. In fact, the average mileage of this bike was 32 KMPL between 2011 and 14 in the city. The average fuel price was at Rs.69.3. Therefore, the actual fuel expenditure is 2763/32 = 86.34 x 69.3 = Rs.5,984. If the admitted expenses at Rs. 42,153/- is added, the total expenditure of the accused works out at Rs.48,137/-.
99. Item No.17 : is the account bearing No.07681010554321 at the Canara Bank of Marathahalli branch in the joint names of the accused and his wife as per the document at Ex.P34.
122 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Admittedly, the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- was borrowed vide the loan account No.076819003761. In his evidence at para 64, the I.O admits to have considered Rs.3,86,978/- as if spent by the accused towards the loan related expenses. The accused while disputing it, states in his written argument that, both the accused and his wife have incurred Rs.1,713/- only. Therefore according to him, 50% out of this amount should be his expenses. His further contention is that, the loan account is in the exclusive name of Smt. Jayalaxmi and she had incurred Rs.9,877/- out of her own source.
99.1. Ex.P34 makes clear that, the accused is also the co-holder of the loan account. His defence stands rebutted with his admission in schedule-5 that, he paid Rs.3,75,388/- to the bank towards the interest for the loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. The payment of Rs.1,713 and Rs.9,877/- paid towards other expenses is admitted. But, the expenses Rs.3,75,388/- + Rs.1,713/- + Rs.9,877/- = Rs.3,86,978/- cannot be attached to the wife of the accused for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5. Therefore, 123 Spl. C.C.78/2017 no fault is seen with the I.O in considering Rs.3,86,978/- as expenditure of the accused.
99.2. Item No.18 : Relating to Rs.1,18,552/- as per the document at Ex.P30 issued by the Canara Bank of Marathhalli Branch. This document is relating to the account bearing No.0768603003726 in the joint names of accused and his son DW2. It is not in dispute that, the vehicle loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was borrowed on 26.09.2013. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.1,18,552/- was incurred by them towards the loan related expenses. The I.O states that, it was the expenditure spent by the accused. But, the contention of the accused is that, his son had borrowed the loan in his individual capacity and therefore Rs.1,18,552/- is to consider as the expenditure of his son. But, this defence cannot be justified for reasons at para 20.2 of this judgment. There exists no reasons to disbelieve the payment of Rs.1,18,552/- by this accused.
100. Item No.19 : is relating to Rs.11,72,729/- admittedly paid towards the repayment of Rs.9,00,000/- loan borrowed in the name of 124 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Smt.Jayalaxmi. The relevant document is at Ex.P72. The entire amount together at Rs.11,72,729/- is considered by the I.O as the expenditure of the accused. On the contrary, the defence of the accused is that, his wife has repaid out of her own source of income. No doubt, DW4 has reiterated the same in the evidence. But, for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5, the defence of the accused cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am to justify the I.O in considering Rs.11,72,729/- to expenditure account of the accused.
101. Item No.20 : is in respect of Rs.11,45,300/- admittedly repaid together with interest towards Rs.9,00,000/- loan borrowed in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi. The relevant document is at Ex.P72. The I.O has considered this amount to the expenditure head of the accused. On the contrary, the defence of the accused is that, his wife has repaid it out of her own source of income. No doubt, DW4 has reiterated the same in the evidence. But, for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5, the defence of the accused cannot be 125 Spl. C.C.78/2017 accepted. Therefore, I am to consider Rs.11,45,300/- to expenditure account of the accused.
102. Item No.21 : is Rs.8,09,894/- repaid together with interest to the Bharath Co-Operative Bank, as against the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- borrowed in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi in the year 1996. The defence of the accused is that, this amount should have considered as the expenses of his wife. With this, he finds fault with the I.O to that extend. As already observed, she was just representing the assets of the accused in her name with no source of her own. Therefore, mere repayment in her name would not be basis to construe that, it was paid out of her own source. I find no fault with the I.O in taking Rs.8,09,894/- to the expenditure head of the accused.
103. Item No.22 : is relating to Rs.6,35,891/- admittedly repaid to the Bharath Co-Operative Bank against the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- borrowed in the name of Smt.Jayalaxmi under the account No.26293 on 17.08.2001. The related document is at Ex.P44. The defence of the accused is the same as in para 126 Spl. C.C.78/2017 101 on item No. 21 above. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary to hold that, the I.O has rightly considered Rs.6,35,891/- to the expenditure head of the accused.
104. Item No.24 : is Rs.2,25,899/- admittedly invested by the accused to purchase the National Savings Certificates (for short, the NSC) during the period from 1984 - 2003. On their maturity, the accused had received interest of Rs.1,09,809/- as per the document at Ex.P87. As already decided at para 28 on asset item No.28, the amount invested by the accused to purchase the NSCs would be his asset and the interest accrued thereon at Rs.1,09,809/- alone becomes the income. Therefore, never comes under the head of the expenditure.
105. Item No.30 : is Rs.5,398/- admittedly paid by the wife of the accused under Ex.P76 towards the insurance premium of the Honda City car bearing No.KA-03-MK-8619 on 14.03.2014. Here, I am to reiterate that, the ownership of the accused on this car is a proven fact. Therefore and for reasons at para 19.5, I am declined to accept that, it is the 127 Spl. C.C.78/2017 expenditure of Smt. Jayalaxmi. Rather, the I.O is correct in considering Rs.5,398/- to the expenditure head of the accused.
106. Sl. No.31 : is the insurance premium of Rs.531/- in respect of the Bajaj Pulsar bike No. KA- 03-EN-9382. Admittedly, it was paid in the name of DW2 Kiran in connection with the Policy No. 67190031130100014403 as per Ex.P76. The decision of the I.O in considering Rs.531/- as the expenditure of the accused is admitted in the defence written argument at page 22.
107. Item No.32 : is the insurance premium of Rs.2,596/- paid in respect of the Maruthi Zen car No.KA-03-MA-2574 in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi under the document at Ex.P93. DW4 supports that, she paid it out of her own earnings to the exclusion of the accused. But, the purchase of this car by the accused in the name of his wife is already decided. Therefore and having regard to the observations at para 19.1 and 19.5, the premium amount of Rs.2,596/- is held to be the expenditure of the accused.
128 Spl. C.C.78/2017
108. Item No.33 & 34 : are relating to Life Insurance policy No.0105399687 and Bajaj Insurance Policy No.0105400781 in the name of DW2 Kiran. The premium of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- was admittedly paid under the document at Ex.P77. It is not in dispute that, DW2 was a student and dependant of the accused. Therefore, I am to rule out the defence that, Kiran himself has paid the premiums out of his earnings. Consequently, I am to sustain the prosecution stand that, it must have paid by the accused. Hence, no wrong is seen with the I.O in considering Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- to the expenditure head of the accused.
109. Item No.35 & 36 : are the Canara HSBC Insurance policies No.0001514912 dated 26.08.2008 and 0027948012 dated 28.11.2011 in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi. The premium of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- was admittedly paid under the document at Ex.P92. But for reasons already discussed, I am declined to accept that, the wife of the accused has paid this amount. Therefore, no wrong be seen with the I.O to treat Rs.3,50,000/-
129 Spl. C.C.78/2017 and Rs.1,50,000/- to the expenditure head of the accused.
110. Item No.38 : is relating to the hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- said to have lent by the accused to a film producer Sri. Raju vide the agreement dated 01.01.2000. The prosecution justifies its allegation on the ground that, the agreement was found in the house of the accused during the search. The I.O deposed that, he has recorded the statement of said Raju to that extent. But, the prosecution has not examined the alleged borrower to prove the hand loan. Ex.P2 is the search mahazar which does not even reflect this agreement. Hence and in the absence of supporting evidence, the hand loan allegedly lent by the accused bears no basis. In view of the same, the disputed amount has to be deducted from the expenditure head of the accused.
111. Item No.41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 : are relating to the educational expenses of Sri. Kiran and Dr. Keerthi. Admittedly, Sri.Kiran was a student from 1990 to 2009-10. PW7 Sri. Babitha Saldana is the Principal of the Mount Carmel P.U 130 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Collage. PW12 Smt. Sabitha Ramamurthy is the Principal of CMR NPS School. PW10 Dr. S. N. Nataraj is the then Principal of Jain Collage. PW11 Dr. G. Prabakar is the Principal of Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre. As per their ocular evidence, schedule-17 of the accused, the documents at Ex.P13 and 14, the following are the educational expenses of Sri. Kiran :
1. Holy mother school : Rs.1,650/-
2. St. Marry English School: Rs.450/-
3. National Junior School : Rs.67,200/-
4. Jain Collage : Rs.27,200/-
5. M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology : Rs.2,09,330/-
-------------------------------------------------------
Total : Rs.3,05,830/-
111.1. The I.O in his evidence at para 84 admits to have considered the educational expenses of Kiran at Rs.3,56,805/- to the expenditure account of the accused. But, the actual expenses as per the above total works out at Rs.3,05,830/-. However, in the cross-examination at para 288, he admits to have not excluded the scholarship Rs.85,300/- received by Kiran as per Ex.D4. It has to be deducted. In such an event, the total expenses works out at Rs. 2,20,530/- should have considered to the expenditure head of 131 Spl. C.C.78/2017 the accused. In so far as the daughter of accused Dr. Keerthi is concerned, her total educational expenses upto MBBS degree at Rs.6,32,195/- is considered by the I.O. The documents at Ex.P9, 15 and the schedule-17 of the accused are the relevant documents. Here, the dispute is in respect of Rs.30,000/- stipend for 12 months at the rate of Rs.2,500/- each said to have received by Dr. Keerthi from the Vydehi Medical Collage. The grievance of the accused is that, the stipend amount has to be deducted. But except disclosing it in his self serving schedule, the accused has not produced any document to prove the receipt of stipend. Therefore, I decline to accept the entitlement of the accused to that extent. In view of the above, the educational expenses of DW2 Kiran at Rs.2,20,530/- and of Dr. Keerthi at Rs.6,32,195/- in all Rs.8,52,725/- stands proved.
112. Item No.50 : is relating to the agriculture and horticultural expenditure of the accused. It is not in dispute that, the land of 7 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No.82/3, Sy. No.84/2 and Sy. No.88 at Byadabele 132 Spl. C.C.78/2017 village of Bangarapete Taluk, were acquired by the accused from his father vide a gift deed dated 04.10.2001 (see page 171 - 174 of Ex.P112). PW5 Sri. Nagaraja S. is the then Asst. Director of Agriculture. PW6 Sri. Narayana Swamy is the then Asst. Director of Horticulture. PW5 deposed to have assessed the gross agricultural income, expenditure and net income of the accused at Rs.4,11,549/- - Rs.3,37,077/- = Rs.74,472/- respectively as detailed in his report at Ex.P7. PW6 while referring his report at Ex.P8, justifies the gross horticultural income, expenditure and net income at Rs.30,20,175/- - Rs.9,22,210/- = Rs.20,97,965 respectively for the period from 1986-2014. Thus according to them, total agriculture and horticultural expenditure is Rs.3,37,077/- + Rs.9,22,210/- = Rs.12,59,287/- and the net income of Rs.21,72,437/-.
112.1. In the light of the above, the fact to notice is that, all the three lands came to the hands of accused in the year 2001-02. Therefore, the assessment of PW5 and PW6 from 1986 till the year 2001 is not relevant to the issue. The relevant assessment is for the period from 2002-03 till July-
133 Spl. C.C.78/2017 2014. Surprisingly, the I.O is seen to have sidelined the assessment of PW5 and 6. Rather, he deposed that, he has considered the agriculture and horticultural expenses at Rs.8,64,169.81 even against his own conclusion at para 148 of the final report (Vol-1(a)) that, the income from the forest crops, horticulture and agriculture at Rs.7,200/- + Rs.10,958.81 + Rs/8,62,210/- respectively, in all at Rs. 8,80,369.81. Therefore, his conclusion to the extent of Rs.8,64,169.81 towards the expenses is without any basis. He being the public servant having undertaken the greater responsibility of the investigation has committed this blunder for reasons to be explained.
112.2. It is seen from the reports of PW5 at Ex.P7 that, the ragi crops in 6 guntas at Sy. No.82/3 for the year 2002-03 and the teak with no other crops in the rest of 1 acre 4 guntas till 2014. No crops is shown in Sy.No.88 except the Banana crops for the year 2007- 08 and 2009-11. No crops is forthcoming at Sy.No.84/2 except the potato for the year 2008-09 in 1 acre land, the tomato in 32 guntas of land for the year 2007-08, 2009-10, 2012-14. But, the crops 134 Spl. C.C.78/2017 indicated in these lands for the year 2011-12 gets disproved, with the information provided by the accused himself in Sl.No.3 at para 4 of Ex.P112 that, 2011-2012 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ªÀļÉAiÀÄ D¨sÁªÀ¢AzÀ PÉÆ ¼ÀªÉ ¨Á«AiÀÄ°è ¤Ãj®èzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ vÀl¸ÀܪÁVzÉ. Whereas, PW6 in his report at Ex.P8 has shown the coconut crop in 1 acre at Sy.No.82/3 for the year 2002-03 as against the crop of ragi and teak in the report of PW5. Similarly, the report at Ex.P8 reveals, no crops for the year 2007-08 to 2009 as against the banana crop in Sy.No.88 as indicated by PW5 in his report at Ex.P7.
112.3. The above contra versions of PW5 and 6 exposes no basis for their assessment. They have not personally visited the spot to ascertain the required information. The RTCs admits to have referred by them to assess the income alone should not have been the basis for them. They should have visited the spot and gathered the information with the assistance of the concerned village accountant or other revenue officials in the locality, the cultivators and the neighbors with reference to crops might have entered in the RTCs. They should have personally 135 Spl. C.C.78/2017 inspected and disclosed the nature of lands as to whether dry or irrigated, the details of the water source as to whether mansoon, open well or bore well based etc. In case, if the long standing crop yielding trees like coconut or teak etc., are noticed in the land, they should have collected the information relating to the total number of crop yielding trees/plants, their age, yielding capacity, the year in which the crops started to yield and the extent of the land utilized to grow.
112.4. In fact, the reports of PW5 and 6 discloses nothing about the required information as detailed above. They need to explain the basis for their assessment. They appears to have prepared the reports to the satisfaction of invisible hands. In this way, they have not only committed dereliction of duty, but also misleaded the Court by providing the baseless information. Therefore, they needs to explain the reasons for the impropriety they have committed being the responsible public servants.
112.5. Similarly, the duty of the I.O to collect the evidence relating to the sale of agriculture and 136 Spl. C.C.78/2017 horticultural produce, its quantity, details of the purchasers and payment, apart discussing with the experts to ascertain the veracity of their reports. But, he is seen to have not taken any responsibility as such, except receiving the reports of PW5 and 6 by closing his eyes. More interesting is, his approach of sidelining these reports and adopting the way to consider the expenses. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that, the reports of PW5 and 6 so also, the conclusion of the I.O are unfit to rely. Needless to say that, the fixed income cannot be expected from the agriculture or horticulture. Asserting the definite income is possible, only if the accurate accounts are maintained.
112.6. Amidst the above uncertainty, the accused asserts his net agriculture and horticultural income of Rs.24,84,585/- for the period from 2001-02 - 2014. But, it is not supported by any material except, the receipts at page 17 and 18 of Ex.P112 to reveal the sale of vegetables and banana to Sri.Ram Traders at Chennai, ARS Vegetables Merchants for Rs. 1,98,845/- + Rs.3,20,000/- respectively. In fact, the accused has not spoken 137 Spl. C.C.78/2017 anything about the cultivation of lands and nature of crops he grew prior to 2011 nor even disclosed the total number of coconut trees in the lands by the time. Therefore, his alleged declaration in the self serving APRs for the year 2001-02 found at page 281 of Ex.P112 would not assume the place of proof in the absence of supporting evidence.
112.7. The evidence of the accused at para 6 that, 2012 gÀ°è ¨ÁåqÀ¨É¯É UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 88, 82/2, 84/3 gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ K¼ÀĪÀgÉ JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÀgÀ°è EzÀÝ vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ £À£Àß CtÚ PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ ¨sÉÆÃUÀåPÉÌ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ. ¨sÉÆÃUÀå ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ gÀÆ.2 ®PÀëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß CtÚ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ still creates the curiosity as to the truth of his defence. No evidence is before the Court to justify the payment and receipt of the lease amount. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that, the accused has intelligently created certain the self serving documents in anticipation of problems like this, so as to justify his acts of misleading etc., bears the considerable force. However, if the lease of lands in the year 2012 to his brother for Rs.2,00,000/- p.a is 138 Spl. C.C.78/2017 believed to be true, hardly, he could have received not more than Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 2 ½ years till 2014. If this amount is added to the sale proceeds of vegetables and banana at Rs.5,18,845/-, it works out at the gross income of Rs.10,18,845/-. This income cannot be expected without spending the expenses. Therefore, if the least of 25% at Rs.2,54,711/- is deducted, his net agriculture and horticultural income would be Rs.7,64,134/-. Thus, the expenditure of Rs.2,54,711/- has to be considered to the account of the accused.
113. Item No.55 and 56 : are relating to Rs.84,496/- and Rs.1,11,240/- said to have paid by the wife of the accused and his son towards the income tax for the period from 2008 - 2014. The IO admits to have considered these payments to the expenditure head of the accused. Here it is not in dispute that, both the wife and son of the accused are the holders of PAN cards No.ATLPJ7338N and BCGPK2699A respectively. Now the contention of the accused is that, as his wife and son have paid the tax out of their own incomes, it should be considered as their independent expenditure. No doubt, both DW2 139 Spl. C.C.78/2017 and DW4 supports the defence of the accused in their evidence. Here I am to reiterate the proven fact that, DW2 was a student till the year 2009-10 and a dependent of his father. DW4 having no income source of her own, has been representing the assets and income of the accused as observed at para 19.1 and 19.5. Therefore, mere holding of PAN cards would not be basis to assume the independent income for them. Rather, the payment of Rs.84,496 + Rs.1,11,240/- towards the income tax for the hidden reasons in the name of DW2 and 4 by the accused stands proved.
114. Sl. No.57 : Rs.780/- + 34,651/- = Rs.35,431/- are the expenses spent towards getting the water meter for the house in site No.438 (asset No.1) and the related work. The defence of the accused is that, these expenses were borne by the joint family till the partition took place in the year 1996. According to him, Rs.35,431/- is to be considered as the expenditure of the joint family. In this context, I am to say that, the purchase of site No.438 and subsequent construction of the house therein by the accused to the exclusion of the joint 140 Spl. C.C.78/2017 family is a proven fact for reasons at para 18 to 18.8. There exists no reason to fasten these expenses to joint family. In the circumstance, I am to justify the conclusion of the I.O in considering Rs.35,431/- as the expenditure of the accused.
115. Sl. No.59 to 63 : is relating to the expenses of electric meter bills and other services at Rs.2,59,215.86/- in respect of house in site No.438. The relevant documents are at Ex.P65 and 89. The accused contends as if, the entire amount was spent by the joint family. But, I am declined to accept his defence on the strength of findings at para 114 on item No.57. Therefore, the accused cannot deny the expenses spent by him at Rs.2,59,215/-.
116. Item No. 65 : Domestic expenses/per capita monthly expenses of the accused and his family. This head includes 9 visible / verifiable expenses namely fuel, light, education, medical, conveyance, rent, durable goods, taxes, mis consumer services and 19 invisible / non verifiable house hold expenses, for the purpose of computing per capita income. PW4 Sri. K. N. Kantha Raju is the Deputy Director of Statistic 141 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Department. His report at Ex.P6 has become the basis for the prosecution to assert the domestic expenses at Rs.16,03,514/- for the check period of 32 years. While reiterating the contents of his report, PW4 admits to have assessed the expenditure on the basis of the general family income and expenditure survey-2009. The meticulous evaluation of his evidence exposes that, he was not acquainted with the computer knowledge. His officials uploads and fills the information of domestic expenses in the format stored at the computer. He has not independently gathered any information relating to the domestic expenses of the accused and his family, except the request letter of the I.O for the report at Ex.P6.
116.1. Thus needless to say that, the report at Ex.P6 was not personally prepared by him. He just has subscribed his signature to the report prepared by his official. I am to agree with the learned defence counsel to say that, the report of PW4 is based on the imaginations and assumptions. This indeed, not the way of assisting the Court by a responsible public servant in the justice delivery system. This type of 142 Spl. C.C.78/2017 irresponsible approach on the part of PW4 has to view seriously. Admittedly, the accused has married on 06.06.1984. His first male child was born on 20.03.1986 and the daughter on 02.12.1990. This makes clear that, the size of his family was with 4 units. The defence of the accused is that, himself and his family members are vegetarians. No one of them were using the alcohol etc., is not disputed by the prosecution. Admittedly, the accused and his family members are Hindus by religion. Generally, the pregnant women in Hindus goes to their parents' house well in advance for the delivery as a custom. The parents takes care of expenses for the mother and the child till the last day of their stay. Here, the wife and the children of the accused are not an exception to this custom as rightly argued by the learned defence counsel. Usually, the pregnant women goes to parents house at least 2 months prior to the delivery and remains there with the child at 5 - 7 months after the delivery (for short, the delivery period).
116.2. Thus, the reduction of expenses in the family of the accused during the delivery period is 143 Spl. C.C.78/2017 quiet natural. But in the instant case, PW4 is seen to have assessed the expenses of the accused's wife and children during the delivery period. In fact, he has computed the expenses continuously for all the units till the last day of the check period. Even it is seen that, he has computed the expenses of the children from the moment of their birth on par with the adults. However, if the living standard of the accused and his family as a class-I officer, his background and status in the society are taken into consideration, the disputed expenses of Rs.16,03,514/- for 4 units over a period of more than 30 years cannot be unreasonable. However and in the light of the defects noticed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that, the deduction of 25% at Rs.4,00,878/- bears the justification. Therefore, Rs.12,02,636/- would be the domestic expenses of the accused for 33 years.
117. Sl. No.66, 67 and 68 : DW2 Sri. Kiran deposed to have borrowed the interest free hand loans of Rs.15,00,000/- + 15,75,000 + 16,00,000 from Sri. Naresh Kumar, Gangadhar V. and Hanmanthegowda H respectively. As these 144 Spl. C.C.78/2017 transactions came to be disproved for reasons at para para 24 to 24.3, no further discussion warrants in this regard.
118. Item No.72, 73 & 74 : Expenses towards the purchase of certain materials for construction of the building in plot No.222 of the Narasapura Industrial area. The I.O states to have considered Rs.4,06,500/- into the expenditure account of the accused on the basis of the purchase bills dated 05.05.2014 abd 13.05.2014 marked at Ex.P98. As already decided at para 26.2, I am to sustain the defence contention that, these expenses being the expenses of the DW2 proved to have spent out of his industrial loan, has to deduct from the expenditure head of the accused.
119. Sl. No.76 : It is seen that, the refrigerator at the cost of Rs.43,200/- was purchased in the name of DW4 Smt. Jayalaxmi vide the document at Ex.P79 dated 27.06.2010. The I.O has considered the same to the expenditure account of the accused. But as rightly noticed by the learned defence counsel, it has already been included in the search mahazar at 145 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex.P2 and decided under the head of house hold articles. Hence, it is to be ignored.
120. Item No.77 : As seen from the document at Ex.P83, the escalator was purchased in the name of Smt. Jayalaxmi for Rs.5,00,000/-. This has been considered by the I.O as the expenses of the accused. The purchase of site No.11 at Akkamma layout and construction of the apartment therein by the accused is already decided for reasons at para 21 of this judgment. Therefore, the defence of the accused that, this purchase cost should be the expenses of his wife does not survive for the consideration. The I.O is found correct in taking Rs.5,00,000/- to the expenditure account of the accused.
121. Item No.78 to 82 : are relating to the purchase of 2 Titan plus eye specks, iPad, LG electronic items and the tread mill under receipts vide Ex.P100, 101 & 102 at the cost of Rs. 14,140/-, 5,231/- + Rs.3,674/-, Rs.276/- + Rs.47,000/- respectively in all Rs.70,321/-. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused has spent this amount. While denying it, the accused contends that, 146 Spl. C.C.78/2017 all these items were purchased by his wife out of her own income. But, I am declined to sustain the defence for reasons at para 19.1 and 19.5. Therefore, no question of interfering with the conclusion of the I.O that, Rs.70,321/- is the expenditure of the accused. On the strength of the above observations hereinabove, I am to indicate the proved value of the disputed and admitted expenditure as hereunder :
Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Rs. 1,125 11,260 2,85,510 1,13,940 5,020 58,245 4,75,100 Item No. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rs. 92,980 58,245 69,875 1,86,330 3,04,272 1,95,283 9,06,985 Item No. 13 14 17 18 19 20 Rs. 65,459 48,137 3,86,978 1,18,552 11,72,729 11,45,300 29,37,155 Item No. 21 22 24 30 36 32 Rs. 8,09,984 6,35,891 -00- 5,398 531 2,596 14,54,400 Item No. 33 34 35 36 38 41 to 46 Rs. 6,00,000 3,00,000 3,50,000 1,50,000 -00- 2,20,530 16,20,530 Item No. 47, 48 & 50 55 56 57 59 to 63 49 Rs. 6,32,195 2,54,711 84,496 1,11,240 35,431 2,59,215 13,77,288 Item No. 65 66 to 68 72 to 74 76 77 78 Rs. 12,02,636 -00- -00- -00- 5,00,000 14,140 17,16,776 Item No. 79 80 81 82 Rs. 5,231 3,674 276 47,000 56,181 1,05,44,415 +Admitted Value 17,82,805 Grand 1,23,27,220 Total 147 Spl. C.C.78/2017
122. In the light of the above, the proved and admitted consolidated value of the assets, income and expenditure of the accused is as hereunder:
Heads Amount (in Rs.)
A. Assets acquired 5,32,62,183/-
B. Expenditure 1,23,27,220/-
C. Total assets and expenditure 6,55,89,403/-
D. Income 2,42,57,609/-
E. Assets disproportionate 4,13,31,794/-
Percentage 170.38
Thus, A + B = C-D is Rs.4,13,31,794/- of the assets disproportionate to the known source of an income acquired by the accused, as a public servant during the check period stands successfully established by the prosecution. The accused failed to give the satisfactory accounts to accept his defence that, he is an innocent. These foundational facts, unambiguously attracts the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C Act,1988 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, the accused is found guilty of the offence. In the result, I pass the following :
148 Spl. C.C.78/2017 ORDER By exercising the powers vested under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C, the accused Sri. V. Muniyappa S/o Late.
Venkatappa @ Venkatana bovi, Aged about 66 years, is convicted for the offence defined under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
His bail bonds shall stands cancelled forthwith.
Sd/- 28.03.2026 (K. M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the accused on the sentence in the presence of his counsel. The accused submits that, he is an innocent of the alleged offence. He is a senior citizen, at the age of more than 72 years, having the 149 Spl. C.C.78/2017 family consisting of his wife and two children with the responsibility of maintaining. He is a diabetic patient since 2006. However, he sought for leniency in imposing the sentence. The submission of the accused is placed on record. But, his plea that, he is an innocent of the alleged offence is declined to accept. Since the offence stands established under the Special enactment, the accused is not entitle for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. The conduct of the accused being a public servant in illegally accumulating the assets disproportionate, to his known source of an income warrants, the stringent punishment in the atmosphere where the evil of corruption has been deep routed in the system. So that, the stringent punishment would be the lesson to the officials involves in the corrupt activities. Having regard to the larger interest of the society involved in the offence of socio-economic in nature and its impact, I am of the opinion that, extending the benefit of leniency would not be the justification. However, the offence is found to have committed by the accused prior to amendment to the P.C Act in the year 2018. The punishment prescribed 150 Spl. C.C.78/2017 therein was not less than 1 year and extendable upto 7 years. Therefore, the accused is liable for the punishment under the pre-amended P.C Act of 1988. With these observations, I pass the following :
ORDER The convicted offender Sri. V. Muniyappa is sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.4,50,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and Fifty Lakhs only) for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default to pay the fine, he shall undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The default sentence shall run
separately.
151 Spl. C.C.78/2017
Office is directed to furnish the true copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.3 directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2026) Sd/- 28.03.2026 (K.M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
REMARKS
1. Notwithstanding the successful attempt of the prosecution in bringing home guilt of the accused, I am to notice the serious investigation lapses on the part of the investigating agency. PW19 Sri. T. V. Manjunath, the Police Inspector is one of the investigation officer. He has laid the charge sheet against the accused after conclusion of the investigation. The blunders he has committed as observed at para 24.2, 24.3, 27, 35, 35.1, 42.1, 64, 66, 66.1, 111.1, 112 to 112.6 of this judgment 152 Spl. C.C.78/2017 exposes not only his negligence, but also ignoring the investigation on many assets and his failure to collect the related evidence. This kind of conscious lapses not only helps the real culprits to escape, but also ends the cases in acquittal. These lapses are because of the lack of time to time supervision, scrutiny and control over the investigation by the superiors concerned. These kinds of lapses have become common in majority of cases as observed by this Court. Unnecessary delay in the matter of investigation years together, the entrustment of the investigation responsibility in a single case to multiple officers, deciding the quality of investigation depending on the background, position and societal status of the true culprits, is another face of destroying the evidence. Unless this approach gets an end, perhaps the very purpose of an investigation and the object behind the P.C Act would certainly be defeated.
2. Generally, the law Courts happens to get the assistance of experts and officials from the departments of PWD, Statistics, the transport, 153 Spl. C.C.78/2017 agriculture and horticulture etc., in the process of justice delivery system. These officials must have commitments with the honesty and greater responsibility in the matter of assisting the Courts without fear, favour and expectations as the part of their respective duties. The absence of these qualities is always dangerous. These personalities should come out of their illusions, misconceptions that, no accountability be fastened to them against their irresponsibility, dereliction of duties, providing false information, favouring the culprits while assisting the Courts.
3. In the case on hand, PW4 Sri. Kantharaju, the Assistant Director of Statistics, PW5 Sri. Nagaraju S., the Assistant Director of Agriculture, PW6 Sri. Narayana Swamy, the Assistant Director of Horticulture and PW20 Sri. G. Vasudev, the Motor Vehicle Inspector have exposed their negligence, dishonesty, dereliction of duties, and misleading the Court. This kind of conduct on the part of the public servants is totally intolerable. It is the time to view these lapses seriously in the interest of justice.
154 Spl. C.C.78/2017
4. Therefore, office is directed to call for explanations from PW19 for lapses as observed at para 24.2, 24.3, 27, 35, 35.1, 42.1, 64, 66, 66.1, 111.1, 112 to 112.6, PW5 and PW6 for observations at para 112 to 112.6, PW4 for reasons at para 116 to 116.2, PW20 for reasons at para 89 to 98 within 20 days as to why, the disciplinary actions shall not be recommended against their respective lapses.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Smt. Manjulakshmi
PW 2 : B. Prashanth Kumar
PW 3 : M.N. Ravishankar
PW 4 : K.N. Kantharaju
PW 5 : Nagaraja S.
PW 6 : Narayana swamy
PW 7 : Smt. Babitha Seldana
PW 8 : Achyutha Bidarahalli
PW 9 : S.Y. Kulakarni
PW 10 : Dr. S.N. Nataraj
PW 11 : Dr. G. Prabhakar
PW 12 : Smt. Sabitha Ramamurthy
PW 13 : N.G. Shivashankar
PW 14 : Mohammad Mukharam
PW 15 : N.R. Jaganmatha
PW 16 : Dr. Mahanthesh Karur
155 Spl. C.C.78/2017
PW 17 : Smt. Sheethal M. Hiremath
PW 18 : G. Siddaraju
PW 19 : T.V. Manjunatha
PW 20 : J. Vasudeva
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 : House Search warrant dtd 15.07.2014 ExP1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 : House Search mahazar dtd 16.07.2014 ExP2(a) : Signature of Pw.1 ExP2(b) : Signature of Pw.14 Ex.P3 : Locker Search mahazar dt 17.07.2014 ExP3(a) : Signature of Pw.1 ExP3(b) : Signature of Pw.14 Ex.P4 : Office Search mahazar dt 16.07.2014 Ex P4(a) : Signature of Pw.2 Ex P4(b) : Signature of Pw.13 Ex.P5 : Source report 28.06.2014 Ex P5(a) : Signature of Pw.3 Ex.P6 : Food and Family expenditure report dt 16.07.2016 given by PW4 (Volm 4A, Pgs from 1033 to 1038) Ex P6(a) : Signature of Pw.4 156 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex.P7 : Agriculture income report along with Covering letter dt.5.3.2016 (Volm 4A, Pgs 992A to 992H Ex P7(a) : Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P8 : Horticulture income report along with covering letter dt 5.5.2016 (Volm 4A, Pgs 923 to 925) Ex P8(a) : Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P9 : Letter dtd.1.9.2014 issued by the Principal of the Mount Carmel P.U. College regarding educational expenses I/R/O Kumari M. Keerthi.
(Volm 4A, Pgs 970) Ex P10 : Building valuation report I/R/O House No.43B, "Kirana" situated at Kalyana Nagara, Bengaluru given by PW8 with covering letter dt 21.11.2014 (Volm 4, Pgs 31 to 33) ExP10(a) : Signature of Pw.8 Ex P11 : Building valuation report I/R/O House No.120/2, "Keerthi Apartment" situated at Chelikere, Bengaluru given by PW8 (Volm 4, Pgs 92 to 93) Ex P11(a) : Signature of Pw.8 Ex P12 : Building valuation report I/R/O Keerthi Royal building situated at Site No.11, Akkamma Layout, Banasavadi, Bengaluru given by PW8 157 Spl. C.C.78/2017 (Volm 4, Pgs 105 to 106) Ex P12(a) : Signature of Pw.8 Ex P13 : Letter dtd.23.02.2015 issued by PW9, Principal of M. S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology regarding educational expenses I/R/O Sri. Kiran (Volm 4A, Pgs 965) ExP13(a) : Signature of Pw.9 Ex P14 : Letter dtd.27.08.2014 issued by PW10, Principal of Sri. Bhaagavan Mahaveer Jain college regarding educational expenses I/R/O Sri. KiranM.
(Volm 4A, Pgs 967) Ex P14(a) : Signature of Pw.10 Ex P15 : Letter dt 24.11.2015 issued by PW11 Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center regarding educational expenses of Dr. Keerthi M with enclosures.
(Volm 4A, Pgs 971 to 982) Ex P15(a) : Signature of Pw.11 Ex P16 : Letter dt 10.03.2016 of PW12, CMR National Public School regarding educational expenses I/R/O Kiran M. (Volm 4A, Pgs 963 - ) ExP16(a) : Signature of Pw.12 Ex P17 : Letter dt 10.03.2016 of PW12, CMR National Public School regarding educational expenses I/R/O Keerthi M. 158 Spl. C.C.78/2017 (Volm 4A, Pgs 968 - ) ExP17(a) : Signature of Pw.12 Ex P18 : Office Search warrant dt 15.07.2014 Ex P19 : Attested copy of admission register extract I/R/O Kiran M given by PW12 Ex P20 : Attested copy of admission register extract I/R/O Keerthi M given by PW12 Ex P21 : F.I.R.
Ex P22 : Authorization dtd 15.07.2014 U/Sec.17 of the P. C Act given by the SP, KLA Ex P23 : Request Letter dtd 15.07.2014 of PW14 addressed to Pollution Control Board to Depute to persons as witnesses / panchas Ex P24 : Requisition dtd.22.7.2014 seeking permission for depositing seized cash in SP's account Ex P25 : Counterfoil dtd 26.7.2014 regarding deposit of seized cash Ex P26 : Letter dated 31.7.2014 of Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank Ltd regarding shares held by the accused (Volume 4, Page 501) Ex P27 : Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, dtd.29.8.2016 given by Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank (Volume 4, Page 502) 159 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P28 : Letter dated 16.07.2014 of SBI, Kammanahalli Main Road Branch along with statement of account pertaining to the accused and his family members. (Volume 4, Page 346 - 384) Ex P29 : Letter dated 28.7.2014 of KIADB enclosed with documents related to Industrial shed allotted to Sri. M. Kiran (Volume 4, Page 149 - 266) Ex P30 : Letter of Canara Bank, Marathahalli branch with enclosures regarding vehicle loan in the name of Sri.Kiran M. (Volume 4, Page 482 - 487) Ex P31 : Statement of account pertaining to SB A/c No.XXXXXX54438 held in the name of Sri.Kiran M along with 65(B) certificate.(Volume 4, Page 479- 481) Ex P32 : Letter dated 30.07.2014 of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance regarding policy details in the name of accused (Volume 4A, Page 853-854) Ex P33 : Letter of Vijaya Bank, R. C. Road Branch along with CAF and statement of account pertaining to SB Account No. XXXXX4219.
(Volume 4, Page 409-424) Ex P34 : Letter dtd 30.07.2014 of Canara Bank, Marathahalli branch enclosed with CAF and statement of account i/r/o A/c No. XXXXX4321 (Volume 4, Page 473-478) 160 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P35 : Letter dtd 30.07.2014 of KSFC with enclosures regarding Loan granted to M. Kiran (Volume 4A, Page 866-879) Ex P36 : Letter dtd 8.8.2014 of Canara Bank, Koramangala Branch along with statement of account etc. i/r/o housing loan A/c No. XXXX3761.
(Volume 4A, Page 880-890) Ex P37 : Letter dated 10.08.2014 of the Bharath Co-operative Bank, Jayanagar branch regarding shares held by wife of the accused.
(Volume 4, Page 503-504) Ex P38 : Letter dated 28.7.2014 of Vijaya Bank, HBR Layout branch, enclosed with CAF, Statement of account, ETC pertaining to A/c No. xxxxx514 in the name of Aadya Tools.
(Volume 4, Page 385-408) Ex P39 : Letter dtd 11.8.2014 of Sr. Sub Registrar, K.R. Puram regarding payment of stamp duty and registration fees with enclosures.
(Volume 4, Page 52-72) Ex P40 : Documents related to payment of recharge of BSNL Mobile No.9448069425 (Volume 4A, Page 1039-1053) Ex P41 : Letter dated 28.8.2014 of Regional Passport Office, Benglauru regarding expenses incurred in respect of Passports obtained by accused and his family 161 Spl. C.C.78/2017 members.
(Volume 4A, Page 983) Ex P42 : Latter dated 26.8.2014 of the Income tax department with copies of IT returns submitted by Smt. Jayalakshmi for the A.Y 2008-09 to 2013-14.
(Volume 4A, Page 985-1018) Ex P43 : Letter dtd 06.09.2014 of Sr. Sub Registrar, K.R. Puram enclosed with documents pertaining to Katha No.120/2 of Chelikere Village, K. R. Puram Hobli (Volume 4, Page 73-88) Ex P44 : Letter dated 12.9.2014 of the Bharath Co-operative Bank along with statement of account regarding loan obtained and cleared by Smt.Jayalakshmi.
(Volume 4, Page 903-914) Ex P45 : Letter dtd 8.9.2014 of Sub Registrar, Shivajinagara / Banasavadi enclosed with copies of sale deed and EC (Volume 4, Page 107-130) Ex P46 : Letter dtd 30.10.2014 of the BDA regarding site No. XXXXX438 in Banasavadi allotted to the accused with copies of documents. (Volume 4, Page 1-
30) Ex P47 : Letter dtd 20.12.2014 of Sub Registrar, Shivajinagara / Banasavadi enclosed with copies of sale deed and EC (Volume 4, Page 94-104) Ex P48 : Letter dtd 27.2.2015 of Sr. Sub Registrar, 162 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Bangarapet with copies of sale deed and EC pertaining to 7 acres 50 guntas of land and garden house situated at Byadabele village of Bangarpet Taluk. (Volume 4, Page 267-345) Ex.P48(A) : Letter of Tahasildar, Bangarpete enclosed with copies of RTC etc. Page 274 - 345 Ex P49 : Letter dated 13.2.2015 of the LIC with the statement of account in respect of Policy No. XXXXXX7522 in the name of accused.
(Volume 4A, Page 857-859) Ex P50 : Letter dtd 08.04.2015 of Sr. Sub Registrar, K.R.Puram enclosed with documents pertaining to Site No. xxxx438 of Chelikere Village, K. R. Puram Hobli (Volume 4A, Page 926-933) Ex P51 : Letter dtd 16.4.2015 of Directorate of Industries and Commerce regarding furnishing salary paid details (Volm 4A, 539 - 846) Ex P52 : Letter dtd 20.04.2015 of RTO, Indiranagara enclosed with documents related to fuels expeses, B Register extract etc i/r/o of 5 vehicles.
(Volm 4, Page 505 - 523) Ex.P52(a) : Reports regarding vehicle maintenance to 52(e) and fuel expenses given by PW20 Ex P53 : Letter dtd 8.4.2015 of department of posts regarding Postal life insurance in 163 Spl. C.C.78/2017 the name of the accused.
(Vlm 4A, Page 855-856) Ex P54 : Copy of the sale deed dtd.20.6.2011 executed in favour of M.Kiran (Volm 4, Pages 131-139) Ex P55 : Copy of the sale deed dtd.25.5.2011 executed in favour of M.Kiran (Volm 4, Pages 140-148) Ex P56 : Statement of account in respect of A/c.
No.-----23758 in the name of V. Mariyappa (Volm 4, Pages 424A) Ex P57 : Canara Bank letter dt.12.7.2016 with statement of account in respect of A/c.No.-----501094 held by the accused (Volm 4, Pages 424-428) Ex P58 : SBM letter dt.12.7.2016 with statement of account in respect of A/c.No.-----5859 of Smt. Jayalakshmi N. (Volm 4, Pages 429-431) Ex P59 : Statement of account in respect of A/c.No.-----19050 held in the name of Smt. Jayalakshmi N. (Volm 4, Pages 432-435) Ex P60 : Statement of account in respect of A/c.No.-----501093 held in the name of Smt. Jayalakshmi N. (Volm 4, Pages 437-454) Ex P61 : Statement of account in respect of A/c.No.-----06718 held in the name of Sri. Kiran M.(Volm 4, Pages 455-461) 164 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P62 : Statement of account in respect of A/c.No.-----501090 held in the name of Sri. Keerthi M. (Volm 4, Pages 462-472) Ex P63 : Covering letter of ICICI Bank with CAF, statement of account etc. (Volm 4, Pages 488-494) Ex P64 : Letter dt.5.11.2015 of Janatha Seva Co-
operative Bank Ltd., with copies of CAF, Statement of account etc. in the name of accused.
(Volm 4, Pages 495-500) Ex P65 : Covering letter of BWSSB dt.11.1.2016 with payment details (Volm 4, Pages 524-538) Ex P66 : Certificate issued by M/s. Perfect Tools (Volm 4A, Pages 847) Ex P67 : Letter of M/s. Royal Concorde with copies of Form 16-A (Volm 4A, Pages 848-852) Ex P68 : Karvy computer share letter dtd.16.8.2016 (Volm 4A, Pages 860) Ex P69 : SBM letter dt.11.8.2016 with statement of account in respect of A/c.No.----- 64988 (Volm 4A, Pages 863-865) Ex P70 : Canara Bank letter dt.21.7.2016 with certificate U/Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act and Statement of Account No. -----1936 (Volm 4A, Pages 891-896) 165 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P71 : Statement of account in respect of Account No.-----1694 in the name of Smt. Jayalakshmi (Volm 4A, Pages 897-902) Ex P72 : Copies of office order dt.7.11.92 with certificate (Volm 4A, Pages 914A-916) Ex P73 : Letter dt.30.7.2014 of department of I & C Employees co-operative Society (Volm 4A, Pages 917) Ex P74 : Letter dt.15.6.2016 of M. D. M/s.
Monuments Ltd with 2 letters (Volm 4A, Pages 918,920 and 922) Ex P75 : Letter dt.18.11.2015 of S.R.O., Banaswadi with copies of sale deed, & E.C. (Volm 4A, Pages 934-944) Ex P76 : Letter dt.18.11.2015 of M/s. NIACL with policy details/documents (Volm 4A, Pages 948-955) Ex P77 : Letter dt.14.7.2016 of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life insurance with premium paid details (Volm 4A, Pages 956-961) Ex P78 : Letter dt.18.12.2015 of BWSSB with water charges details (Volm 4A, Pages 1019-1032) Ex P79 : Letter dt.20.11.2015 of M/s. Pai Internationals with purchase Invoice (Volm 4A, Pages 1056-1057) 166 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P80 : Letter dt.12.7.2016 of Pw.15 to Dy.S.P., KLA, with service details of accused etc. (Volm 1A, Pages 50-58A) ExP80(a) : Signature of Pw.15 Ex P81 : Letter dt.7.4.2016 of Pw.16 with copies of assets and liabilities statement (Volm 1A, Pages 59-99) Ex P82 : Letter dt.7.9.2016 of Pw.17 along with attested copies of assets and liabilities statements (Volm 1A, Pages 100-155) ExP82(a) Letter at page-100 Ex P83 : Letter dtd: 18.11.2015 of Surya Elivators regarding payment made towards lift. (Volm 4A, Pages 1055) Ex P84 : Authorization u/s.17 of the PC Act Dtd:15.9.2015 issued in the name of G. Siddaraju-PW.18 Ex P85 : Statement of acquired properties (Volm 3, Page 358-359) Ex P86 : Statement-20 (Volm 3, Page 336) Ex P87 : Statement-15-B (Volm 3, Page 321) Ex P88 : Statement-14-C (Volm 3, Page 318) 167 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P89 : Statement-19 (Volm 3, Page 331-335) Ex P90 : Statement-14-D (Volm 3, Page 319) Ex P91 : LIC letter dtd: 31.07.2014 regarding receipt of premium of Rs. 1,38,820/- (Volm 4A Page 945) Ex P92 : Canara HSBC letter regarding policies held by the accused and his wife.
(Volm 4A Page 946-947) Ex P93 : New India Assurance Policy Certificate held in the name of Wife of the accused. (Volm 4A Page 37-39) Ex P94 : UTI Mutual fund Statement of account in the name of the accused Volm 4A Page 861-862) Ex P95 : Statement-17 (Volm 3, Page 328-329) Ex P96 : Copies of IT returns for AY- 2009-10 to 2014-15 in the name of son of the accused (Volumn 3 page 391-396) Ex P97 : Invoice dtd: 29.04.2014 of Mamatha Traders for purchase of TMT Steel etc., Vol 2(2) page 3-6 Ex P98 : Mamatha Traders Ledger Account in the 168 Spl. C.C.78/2017 name of the son of the accused.
(Vol 4A page 1054) Ex P99 : Cash receipt / Bill of M/s. Univercell dtd: 22.09.2012 for purchase of Nokia Mobile vol 2(2) page 11 Ex P100 : Titan eye + Invoice dtd:19.05.2014 for purchase of specks vol2(2) page 13-15 Ex P101 : LG Cash receipt dtd:9.9.2009 regarding service charges etc., Vol 2(2) PAGE 22 Ex P102 : Sports zone Invoice dtd: 16.07.2008 regarding purchase of Tread-Mill Vol 2(2) page 23 Ex P103 : Statement - 8 C Vol 3 page 291 Ex P104 : Statement - 8 B Vol 3 page 290 Ex P105 : Statement - 5 Vol 3 page 285 Ex P106 : Statement of account issued by The Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd., in respect of A/c No.26293 held in the name of the wife of the accused Vol 4A page 910-914 169 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex P107 : Statement - 6 Vol 3 page 385.
Ex P108 : Statement - 7 B Vol 3 page 288 Ex P109 : Ex.P90 and Ex.P109 are one and the same Ex P110 : Statement - 12 A (Vol-3 page 403) Ex P111 : Authorization under Section 17 of PC Act issued by SP, KLA, B (U) dt.20.1.2016 TO Pw.19 Ex P112 : Annexure in vol 3 Ex.P.113 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.5.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Guruvayurappan Ex.P.114 : Rental agreement dtd: 20.5.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Mr. Siju Thomas Cherian Ex.P.115 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Mr. B. Suresh Goud Ex.P.116 : Rental agreement dtd: 15.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Tony Koshy Mathew Ex.P.117 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Ms. Pavani Akklala Ex.P.118 : Rental agreement dtd: 3.4.2014 between 170 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Smt. Jayalakshmi and Pradeep Sahu Ex.P.119 : Rental agreement dtd: 24.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Vignesh D Ex.P.120 : Rental agreement dtd: 15.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Jayapaul Ex.P.121 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.5.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Samit Patra Ex.P.122 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.5.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Bhaskar Nataraj Ex.P.123 : Rental agreement dtd: 25.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Herold H. Mathew Ex.P.124 : Rental agreement dtd: 15.6.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Chandrashekar & Shruthi Ex.P.125 : Rental agreement dtd: 10.11.2013 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Sandeep Agarwal Ex.P.126 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.11.2011 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Shailendar and another Ex.P.127 : Rental agreement dtd: 5.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Suraj Nair Ex.P.128 : Rental agreement dtd: 30.12.2013 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Pukhalu Zimomi Ex.P.129 : Rental agreement dtd: 11.6.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Kavitha 171 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex.P.130 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.10.2011 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Joshua Daniel Raj Ex.P.131 : Rental agreement dtd: 25.4.2011between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Harish T. G. Ex.P.132 : Rental agreement dtd: 12.9.2011 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Kum. Vidya Devi Ex.P.133 : Rental agreement dtd: 5.4.2014 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Rajkumar Narayanan Ex.P.134 : Rental agreement dtd: 1.11.2011 between Smt. Jayalakshmi and Mr. Shylender and another List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
- Nil -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
DW 1 : V. Muniyappa DW 2 : Kiran DW 3 : Y. K. Somaheshar DW 4 : Smt. Jayalakshmi
List of document marked on behalf of defence side Ex.D1 : Copies of I.T. returns of Smt. Jayalakshmi wife of accused Ex.D2 : Letter dt.7.9.96 of Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries addressed to the accused
172 Spl. C.C.78/2017 Ex.D3 : Electricity grant letter dt.28.4.2007 of BESCOM to wife of the accused Ex.D4 : Letter dt.13.2.2024 of Managing Director, KSMC & AL regarding pay arrears details Ex.D5 : Copy of the loan sanction letter dt.7.11.92 Ex.D6 : Affidavit Dt.20.8.2014 of Mr. Kariyappa and others with 2 agreements Ex.D6 (a) : Signature of Dw.3 Ex.D7 : Affidavit Dt.2.7.2016 of Mr. Kariyappa and others with 2 agreements Ex.D7 (a) : Signature of Dw.3 Ex.D8 : Affidavit Dt.20.8.2014 of Mr. Kariyappa and others Ex.D8 (a) : Signature of Dw.3 Ex.D9 : Another Affidavit dt.20.8.2014 of Kariyappa and others Ex.D9(a) : Signature of Dw.3 Ex.D10 : Letter dt.15.6.2012 from the Manager, Royal Concorde Educational Trust to Dw.4 regarding purchase of site No.120/14.
Sd/- 28.03.2026 XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.