Bangalore District Court
Davanagere Lokayuktha P S vs A1 K M Chandrashekharaiah on 18 July, 2024
1 Spl.CC No.779/2019
KABC010219692019
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka)
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2024
Spl.CC. No. 779 / 2019
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka
by Lokayukta Police,
Davanagere
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Sri. K.M. Chandrashekaraiah
S/o K.M. Sadashivayya
Principal, Sri. Manjunatha Swamy
First Grade College, Davanagere,
R/at No.4687, 4th Cross,
Siddaveerappa Badavane,
Davanagere.
2. Smt. Latha
W/o Basavaraj C. Halageri,
R/o Vidyadhara Nilaya,
Mrutyunjaya Nagar, Haveri,
(Vice Principal, Bapuji Institute of
High Tech Education, Davanagere)
presently R/at No.208,
2 Spl.CC No.779/2019
J.H. Patel Badavane,
Shayamanuru, Davanagere.
3. Smt. Poornima
W/o Vijayakumar M.S.
R/at No.4133/8, 14th Cross,
Siddaveerappa Badavane,
Davanagere.
4. Smt.Reshma
W/o K.Satish
Aged about 37 years
R/at: No.1966/62, 9th Cross,
S.S.Badavane, 'A' Block
Davanagere
presently residing at
No.5476-23, 8th Cross,
Behind Good Home Furniture
Siddaveerappa Extn.,
Davanagere
Native of Rakshanapura,
Behind Slaters Hall
Hassan
5. Sri Sandeep B.R.
S/o Revanasiddappa,
Aged about 32 years,
native of Elebethuru,
Davanagere Tq.,
Presently R/at No.1637/8,
3rd Main, Behind Coffee Day,
Taralabalu Badavane,
Bapuji-Vidyanagar,
Davanagere.
6. Sri B.P.Kumar
S/o Papaiah
Aged about 41 years
Assistant Engineer,
Irrigation Department
Malebennur, Harihara Tq.,
Davanagere District
also R/at: No.2045, 1st Cross
3 Spl.CC No.779/2019
S.S.Badavane, 'A' Block, Davanagere
Native of Belaghatta village
Chitradurga Tq., and District
7. Sri Kotrappa (Dead)
8. Smt. C.K. Pushpa
W/o P. Kotrappa
R/at No.3099, Sneha, 9th Main,
2nd Cross, M.C.C. 'B' Block,
Davanagere.
9. Sri. S.N. Nagaraj
S/o S.C. Neelakantappa
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.2041, 18th Main Road,
Kuvempu Nagar, M.C.C. 'B' Block,
Davanagere.
Native of Malalakere village
Davanagere Tq., and District
10. Sri Basavalingappa
S/o Revanasiddappa.K
Aged about 42 years
Clerk,Channabasaveshwara Ricetek
Mill, Basapura Road, Davanagere
R/at: No.116/96/1,
'Karadagi Nilaya'
Kiravadi Layout,
K.B.Extension, Davanagere.
11. Sri. C.M. Ravi S/o Malleshappa
(DEAD)
12. Sri. E. Chandrashekarappa,
S/o N. Eeshwarappa,
Aged about 64 years,
Retired Lecturer
R/at No.143, 'B' Division,
G.Mallikarjunappa Badavane,
Holalkere Town,
Chitradurga District.
4 Spl.CC No.779/2019
13. Sri Mallesh S. Belagavi
S/o Belagavi Shankarappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.1783/A-1, 12th Cross,
'Basavachethana', Siddaveerappa
Badavane, Davanagere.
14. Sri. Amaresh M.H.
S/o Mallikarjuna,
Senior Technical Assistant,
R/at Nijalingappa Layout,
Davanagere,
Presently working as Part-time
Lecturer, Government Diploma
College, Kadur,
Presently
R/at No.387, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
S. Nijalingappa Badavane,
Davanagere.
15. Sri. H. Manjappa, S/o
A. Haleshappa,
R/o Ekkanahalli Village,
Honnali Tq.,
Davanagere District.
16. Smt. H.S.Kamala
W/o A.C.Siddaramappa
Aged about 65 years
No.3312/9, M.C.C. 'B' Block
Housing Board Colony
Davanagere.
17. Sri A.C.Siddaramappa
Retired Lecturer
No.3312/9,
M.C.C. 'B' Block
Housing Board Colony
Davanagere.
18. Sri Yeshwanth Rao Jadhav,
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged 54 years,
Ex-President, Davanagere-Harihara
5 Spl.CC No.779/2019
Urban Development Authority,
Davanagere,
R/at No.28, Devaraj Urs Badavane,
2nd Cross, 'B' Block, Davanagere.
19. G.N.Hanumanthappa (Dead)
20. Smt.G.E.Shashikala Eshwarappa
Aged about 52 years
Ex-Member, Davanagere Harihara
Urban Development Authority
r/o No.2035/35, 8th Cross,
Anjaneya Extension
Davanagere
21. K.Hanumanthappa (Dropped in
the charge sheet)
22. Dr. B.R.Sumithra Devi
w/o Dr.Omkarappa
Aged about 62 years
Retired District Health and Family
Welfare Officer, Davanagere District
and Member of Site Allotment
Committee,
Davanagere Harihara Urban
Development Authority
Davanagere
r/o Taralabalu Extension
"Dhruthi", 13th Cross,
Davanagere
23. Sri S.A.Ravindranath
Ex-District In-Charge Minister
Davanagere District
R/at: Shiramagondanahalli Grama
Davanagere Tq.
Date of offence Between 2008 and 2013
Date of report of offence 02.07.2013
Name of the complainant Sri Manikanta Sarkar
6 Spl.CC No.779/2019
Date of commencement of 15.12.2021
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 15.12.2023
Offences complained of Cr.No. Sec.198 of IPC and Sec.13(1)
106/13 (c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988
Cr.No. Sec.198 of IPC and Sec.13(1)
108/2023 (c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 18, 20, 22 and 23
are found not guilty
State represented by Sri S.S.Nagarale, Learned Special Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate for A1 to
A4, A6, A10, A13, A14 and A22.
Sri Suresh.R., Advocate for A5, A15, A18
Sri Chandan, Advocate for A8
Sri Gangadhar G.D. Adv for accused No.9
and 12
Sri yathish J.Nadiga, advocate for accused
No.16 and 17
Sri G.M.Chandrashekar, Advocate for A20
and 23
JUDGMENT
The Davanagere Lokayukta Police had filed the charge sheet against the aforesaid accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec. 198 of IPC and under Sec.8, 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The genesis of the above case is that one Sri Manikanta Sarkar had lodged private complaint against aforesaid accused persons in PCR No.90/2013, PCR No.92/2013, before the learned 7 Spl.CC No.779/2019 District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Davanagere. It has been contended in the private complaint that the aforesaid accused persons i.e., accused No.1 K.M.Chandrashekaraiah, accused No.2 M.Latha , accused No.3 Poornima, accused No.4 Reshma, accused No.5 Sandeepa B.R., accused No.6 B.P.Kumar, accused No.7 Kottrappa (deceased), accused No.8 C.K.Pushpa, accused No.9 S.N.Nagaraj, accused No.10 Basavalingapppa, accused No.11 C.M.Ravi, accused No.12 E.Chandrashekarappa, accused No.13 Mallesh S.Belagavi, accused No.14 Amaresh M.H., accused No.15 H.Manjappa, accused No.16 H.S.Kamala and accused No.17 A.C.Siddramappa, had applied for allotment sites at Sri J H Patel Extension, Davangere formed by the Davanagere Harihar Urban Development Authority ('DHUDA' for short). It is his contention that the DHUDA had called for public notice/ notification calling upon the general public to file necessary applications towards allotment of sites of various dimensions. It is contended that the sites which were to be allotted were developed by DHUDA towards the up-liftment and benefit of economically weak, socially backward and for the benefit of downtrodden class. He has narrated in his complaint that the aforesaid accused persons though were ineligible to obtain 8 Spl.CC No.779/2019 allotment of sites had filed necessary applications before the DHUDA, in connivance and with tacit support of the then Members of Sub Committee of DHUDA formed towards allotment of sites. He has contended that, accused No.18 Yashavanthrao Jadav along with other committee members i.e., accused No.20 G.E.Shashikala Eshwarappa, accused No.22 Dr.B.R.Sumitra Devi and the then District Incharge Minister accused No.23 S.A.Ravindranath had played an active role towards allotment of sites and they had participated in the meetings called by the Sub-Committee and had supported the cause of the applicants in illegal allotment of sites though there were other eligible persons for obtaining the allotment. It is stated the claim made by the eligible applicants were not considered only to make unlawful allotment to aforesaid accused No.1 to 17. It is also been narrated in the private complaint that the allotment was made by flouting all the relevant provisions of law and also the DHUDA who were required to ensure due allotment of sites, had ignored the basic provisions and rules pertaining to allotment as enumerated under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority, 1987 ('KUDA' for short). He has further stated that though he had filed complaint before the competent Lokayukta authorities, nothing 9 Spl.CC No.779/2019 much had happened and due to inaction of the authorities and left with no other alternatives, he had filed the private complaint before the Jurisdictional Special Court at Davanagere. Based on the said complaint the learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere had referred the aforesaid private complaint for investigation to the Karnataka Lokayukta, Davangere with a direction to register the case, investigate and file report acting under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. On the receipt of the said complaint, the Investigation Agency had registered various FIRs as mentioned above and had commenced the investigation. The I.O. had visited the office of DHUDA and had collected the basic application forms and other documents which were enclosed by the applicants seeking for allotment of sites by drawing various mahazars. It is relevant to note that by drawing necessary mahazars the I.O. had obtained the documents and application forms which were filed by the applicants. After collecting the same, the I.O. had also requested the Competent Authorities to furnish necessary documents with respect to owning of immovable property by the aforesaid accused persons, their family members and their kith and kin. It is submitted by the investigating 10 Spl.CC No.779/2019 officer that on perusal of the materials which indicated that sites were allotted to accused No.1 to 17 in derogation of the principles and policies of the State Government and also by not adopting a proper procedure with the connivance, aid and support of accused No.18 to
23. The Investigation Agency has thus concluded that the then District In-charge Minister accused No.23 S.A.Ravindranath, had exerted his influence towards allotment of sites and had prevailed over the Committee to allot sites to the aforesaid accused persons. It is also narrated in detail that the entire episode was unraveled by the Investigation Agency and during the course of investigation on the basis of the materials collected, clearly indicated that the applicants who were the accused persons in the instant case had intentionally filed false affidavit claiming that they were not owning any property in the State of Karnataka and the application which was filed were not in accordance with law and several false information projecting it to be a true and genuine were furnished by the applicants, which clearly attracted the provision of Sec.198 of IPC. It is also submitted that the act of accused No.18, 20 22 and 23 clearly indicated of a definite role being played under Sec.8 of P.C.Act and also conducting a dereliction of duty amounting to criminal misconduct as 11 Spl.CC No.779/2019 contemplated under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act. Hence, by pointing out the materials on record the Investigating officer had filed the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court.
4. Initially the accused persons were secured before the jurisdictional court at Davangere and subsequently on establishing of Special Court for Trial of criminal Cases against sitting and former MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka, the above case came to be transferred to this court. The accused persons were once again secured and they were admitted to bail. Accordingly, charges were framed by my Predecessor in Office on 2.3.2020 under Sec.198 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3, 8 to 12, 16 and 17 along with deceased accused No.7 and 19. That apart a second charge was framed against accused No.18, 20, 22 and 23 under Sec.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred as P C Act) and last charge was framed against accused No.18, 20, 22 and 23 under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, Trial came to be fixed wherein the prosecution had examined totally 20 witnesses as PW1 to 20 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 98 and Ex.D.1 and Ex.D2 were marked during the course of evidence. On 12 Spl.CC No.779/2019 completion of evidence necessary statement as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., came to be recorded wherein the accused persons had denied the all the incriminating materials available against them. They had preferred not to lead defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of both the parties. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Santhosh S.Nagarale had filed written Synopsis before this court and also he had taken this court through the evidences recorded. It is vehemently argued by him that the Court has to consider the case of the prosecution in a broader perspective wherein the definition of the family has been given under various statutes and provisions. He has tried to impress this court by contending that furnishing of false information by accused persons for obtaining allotment of sites would per se indicate of an offence under Sec.198 of IPC. He has also pointed out that accused No.18, 20 and 22 who were the Members of the Sub-Committee and accused No.23 Sri S.A.Ravindranath who was the then District In- charge Minister had intentionally colluded with each other and had made the allotment to ineligible persons i.e., the aforesaid accused persons and on culmination of the investigation necessary charge sheet were filed. It is his submission that the affidavit which was 13 Spl.CC No.779/2019 furnished by the applicants clearly indicates that the same were filed in a casual, mechanical manner and in some aspects accused No.4 Reshma, accused No.5 Sandeep B.R. accused No.6 B.P.Kumar were totally ineligible to obtain sites since they had obtained less points by the Sub-Committee Members. Instead of allotting the sites to eligible persons, the accused persons had tried to enrich themselves unlawfully which is impermissible under the eyes of law. Lastly it is also submitted that the act of the Members of the Sub-Committee in favouring their own persons would clearly indicate dereliction of duty which would attract the provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of P.C.Act. By pointing out the same, the learned SPP had vehemently argued that the definition of family was forthcoming in the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 ('KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991' for short). However, ignoring all the said aspects, the allotment of sites had taken place which was highly illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, he has sought for conviction of aforesaid accused persons.
6. The learned counsel for accused have argued by pointing out the entire evidence which have been recorded and they 14 Spl.CC No.779/2019 have submitted that on appreciating the materials on record it would indicate that no prima facie materials available towards commission of offence. Further, it has been submitted at Bar that the notification clearly emphasized that the sites were available for general public and it is not their case that in the proceedings they had supported and helped the ruling party. Without any iota of material to indicate of bias being played by the members of the Sub Committee appointed for allotment of site, the allegation leveled by the prosecution would fail to withstand the rigors of trial. By pointing out all the said aspects, it is finally submitted that the Notification of KUDA Act 1987 would clearly indicate that none of the parties were barred from obtaining the allotment in their name. It is submitted that though it is correct in some of the cases, certain properties were standing in their spouse name, the same cannot be termed as the one which would attract the wrath of the Urban Development Authorities Act for the reason that the allotment was to be made either by the State Government or Central Government or any Governmental Agency for the benefit of the petitioner. In the instant case allotment was admittedly made under the ruled enumerated under KUDA Rules, 1991 and hence, they have sought for interference of this Court. 15 Spl.CC No.779/2019
7. The learned SPP has put in his appearance and has stood his fort. It has been submitted at Bar by the learned Sri Santhosh S.Nagarale that the Investigation on its completion had pointed out the overt acts and accordingly he has sought for conviction of the accused persons.
8. The learned counsel for accused have relied upon several authorities which for instance were noted down as follows:-
(a) (2007) 9 SCC 67 (Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Major Gen Devinder Singh(Retd.) and another)
(b) ILR 2012 KAR 268 (Smt.K.Pankaja Prabhudev @ Pankaja Prabhudev Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority)
(c) Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.52690/2019 (LB-RES) dated
9.2.2021 in the case of Sri Shivakumaraswamy Vs. the State of Karnataka)
(d) Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.22649/2018 c/w W.P.No.31341/2018 (LB-RES) dated 19.12.2019 in the case of Sri Mallikarjunaiah B.K. Vs. The Mysuru Urban Development Authority)
(e) (2018) 17 SCC 732 (Babji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)
(f) Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.699 of 2016 dt.16.12.2016 16 Spl.CC No.779/2019 between Sri S.Jagannatha Vs. Justice Subray Rama Nayak
9. By pointing out the same, the learned counsels for accused have sought for acquittal.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the materials. The points that would arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused accused No.1 K.M.Chandrashekaraiah, accused No.2 M.Latha, accused No.3 Poornima, accused No.4 Reshma, accused No.5 Sandeepa B.R, accused No.6 B.P.Kumar, accused No.8 C.K.Pushpa, accused No.9 S.N.Nagaraj, accused No.10 Basavalingapppa, accused No.11 C.M.Ravi, accused No.12 E.Chandrashekarappa, accused No.13 Mallesh S.Belagavi, accused No.14 Amaresh M.H., accused No.15 H.Manjappa, accused No.16 H.S.Kamala and accused No.17 A.C.Siddramappa, along with deceased accused No.7 & 19, had made false declaration at the time of filing application for allotment of sites from DHUDA in a corrupt and dishonest manner so as to ensure 17 Spl.CC No.779/2019 that on the basis of the affidavit they would entitled for allotment of site and thereby accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 17 have committed an offence punishable under Section 198 of the Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 17 being applicants having filed application for allotment of sites, have induced the accused No.23 S.A.Ravindranath, the then District In-charge Minister and accused No.18 Yashwanthrao Jadav, accused No.20 G.E.Shashikala Eshwarappa and accused No.22 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi, who are public servants and members of Sub-
Committee for allotment of sites to perform improperly and allot the sites in their favour and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.8 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act and within the cognizance of this Court?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.23 being the District In-charge Minister and accused No.18 Yashwanthrao Jadav, accused No.20 Shashikala Eshwarappa and accused No.22 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi along with deceased 18 Spl.CC No.779/2019 accused No.19, being members of Sub-
Committee for allotment of sites and public servants, dishonestly misappropriated the power of allotment of sites which was under
their control and influenced the DHUDA to allot sites to the accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 17 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4) What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per the final order, for the following REAS O NS
12. Point No.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for discussion as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
13. Eliminating the extraneous details, the brief facts in narrow compass is that the DHUDA authorities had issued public notification calling for applications from the eligible applicants towards allotment of 507 sites at Sri.J.H.Patel Extension, 19 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Davanagere. The notification called upon the general public to apply for allotment of sites and amongst the stipulations imposed one of the criteria was that the applicant should not have been allotted with sites by the Statement Government or Governmental agency or Urban Development Authority. After the receipt of necessary applications, the DHUDA had segregated the same and allotted to sites to eligible candidates. The complainant had filed private complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the allotments were made in derogation of the settled principles of law and also without adhering to the basic provision of KUDA Act. It has been submitted that the accused No.1 to 6 and 8 to 17 had obtained allotment of sites from DHUDA by furnishing false information in the affidavit annexed with the application contending that they had not owned any sites and further accused No.18, 20 and 22 being the Sub-Committee Members and accused No.23 being the then District In-charge Minister had ensured allotment of sites to ineligible aforesaid accused persons and as such a complaint was filed. The then learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Davanagere had referred the complaint to Lokayukta Police, Davanagere for registration of the case and for investigation and to file report by 20 Spl.CC No.779/2019 invoking the provision of Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case came to be transferred to this court wherein evidence was conducted.
14. Before adverting to the factual aspects, the brief details of the evidence tendered by the witnesses is as follows:-
a) PW1 H.B.Hanumanthappa is the mahazar witnesses and also PW4 Achuthamurthy is the Employee at DHUDA, who had assisted the Investigating Agency with respect to drawing of mahazars as per Ex.P.1 to 15. They have specifically deposed that on 30.01.2014 the Investigating officer had requested the witnesses PW1 and CW3 Gangadhar Reddy to accompany them to DHUDA office towards collection of documents. On reaching the office they were handed over with the documents by PW4 Achutha Murthy and the documents were recovered by drawing necessary mahazars as mentioned above. Apart from denial nothing much was elicited from them during the course of cross-examination.
b) PW2 Manikanta Sarkar is the complainant who has deposed about filing of various private 21 Spl.CC No.779/2019 complaints before the jurisdictional court at Davanagere and on receipt of the same, it was referred for investigation to Karnataka Lokayukta, Davanagere, who in turn had registered the FIR and had commenced the investigation. He has also deposed that the aforesaid accused No.1 to 17 had flouted various provisions of law by suppressing the fact that they owned properties in their name and though they were in-eligible to obtain allotment had obtained the same with the connivance and support of the committee Members i.e., accused No.18, 20 and 22. He had identified the private complaint which he had filed and also deposed that the aforesaid accused persons had cheated and defrauded the general public. During the course of cross-examination several questions were put forth to him with respect to filing false complaints and also blackmailing the parties. However, he has denied all the said aspects. He has deposed of tendering statement and further statement before the I.O.
c) PW3 K.Thippeswamy is another mahazar witness. He has deposed of drawing mahazar at Ex.P.20-Ex.P.31 on 15.2.2014 and handing over 22 Spl.CC No.779/2019 documents pertaining to accused No.11 to accused No.16.
d) PW5 Vasanna is the Revenue Officer, who has deposed of providing information as per letter at Ex.P.20 and furnishing documents such as demand register extracts as per Ex.P.22 to 35.
e) PW6 Sathish, is the Sub-registrar, who has deposed of producing documents as per Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.58.
f) PW7 E.S.Rangaswamy is the then Sub-Registrar at Rani Bennur, Haveri District has deposed of producing documents as per Ex.P.59 to 64.
g) PW8 Vaishali is the Sub-Registrar, at Holalkere has deposed of producing documents pertaining to Malleshappa, Chandrashekaraiah and Lingamurthy as per Ex.P.65 and 66.
h) PW9 Basavaraj Naik, PW10 Dr.Shivayogiswamy, and PW11 L.N.Anand, Committee Members and it has been submitted by PW9 that it was discussed in the committee to allot the sites to eligible person. During the course of cross-examination he has deposed of attending 7 to 8 meetings and has also stated that he had not attended the last meeting. He has 23 Spl.CC No.779/2019 also admitted that he did not know the accused persons and the final decision towards allotment was taken by the committee. Likewise, PW10 Dr.Shivayogiswamy who is also the Member of the Site allotment committee has stated that A23 S.A.Ravindranath was heading the committee and on the basis of the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee the allotment of sites were made. During the course of cross-
examination he has admitted that site should be allotted to persons who are having capacity to construct house and he does not know personally the beneficiaries. PW11 L.N.Anand has deposed of working as member of Sub-
Committee who had attended only one meeting and nothing much has been elucidated from him.
k) PW12 Dr.N.Mahanthesh was the then Deputy Commissioner of Urban Development Authority, who has deposed of furnishing necessary details of pertaining to Mallesh S.Belagavi, Mallikarjuna Hosagoudar, Smt.Kamala, and K.S.Chennaveerappa as per EX.P.70 to 73. He was not subjected to cross- examination.
24 Spl.CC No.779/2019
l) PW13 Pampanagouda Melseeme, was the sanctioning authority who had accorded sanction to prosecute accused No.6 B.P.Kumar. Apart from denial nothing much was elicited from him.
m) Pw14 Manjunath K.Gangal, has deposed of Registering FIR in Cr.No.106/2013 and Cr.No.108/2013 as per Ex.P.86 and 91. He has also deposed of furnishing the service details of G.N.Hanumanthappa, Sumitradevi and others as per Ex.P.87 to 90. Subsequently he was recalled and he has identified the FIR in Cr.No.108/2013 as per Ex.P.91. During the cross-examination he has admitted that apart from registering FIR he had not conducted any effective investigation.
n) PW15 Gnanappa is the AEE at BESCOM who had attended the Sub-Committee meeting as Ex- Officio Member on 12.1.2010 which was chaired by A23 Ravindranath who has advised to form Sub-Committee and another meeting on 23.1.2010 wherein it was resolved to grant necessary permission to Sub-committee to identify the allottees. It is his evidence that in the meeting held on 22.10.2010 Commissioner had tabled the list of allottees which was discussed and finalised in the meeting. He has 25 Spl.CC No.779/2019 also deposed that it was resolved not to decide the allottees by picking up their name through lottery system and on 8.10.2010 the meeting was again held and the name of beneficiaries were announced. During the Course of cross- examination he has admitted of not knowing anything about the deliberations that had taken place in the meeting of the sub-committee.
o) PW16 Venkatesharappa Gaddad was also the member of the committee who was required to give technical advises as he was Assistant Director of Town Planning and has deposed that he did not had any role to play in the allotment of sites.
p) PW17 Ajith Savanth who was the nominated member of the Committee has deposed that the applications were scrutinised by the Commissioner and his staff and later on it was resolved to select the applicants on merits rather than on lottery basis. Apart from denial nothing much has been elicited from him.
q) PW18 N.Lingareddy, is the Investigating Officer.
r) PW19 Shashidhar S.Almelkar is the Investigating Officer who had filed the charge sheet.
26 Spl.CC No.779/2019
s) PW20 Rama Naik is the another Investigating Officer who has deposed of conducting part investigation.
15. When the aforesaid aspects are carefully appreciated it would be pertinent to note that the entire allegation which is leveled against the accused persons is twofold. Firstly it is contended that the accused persons had furnished false affidavits at the time of filing of application seeking for allotment of site at J.H.Patel Extension, Davanagere by suppressing the fact that they had owned site/ house property in their name in order to obtain allotment from DHUDA. The second allegation is that some of the accused persons were the members of Sub-Committee which was formed for allotment of sites. In this back ground, it is stated that the ineligible applicants were allotted with sites with the connivance of some of the Committee Members. To ascertain the said aspects, it would be appropriate to briefly state about the overt acts alleged against each of the accused along with the documents through which the prosecution is intending to prove the accusations against them. For the sake of benefit and convenience of understanding, the entire allegations and overt acts are culled out in the tabular form as follows:- 27 Spl.CC No.779/2019
Sl. Name of the Allegation in brief Exhibits No. Accused and Ranking
1. A-1 Had furnished false Ex P-01 Affidavit.
Chandrashekariah affidavits though his wife Katha Extract K.Manjula was owning Ex.P.22(a) and property in door Ex.P.23(a).
No.4687/29 and 4687/30 at Davangere.
2. A-2 M.Latha Had furnished false Ex P-2 is affidavit affidavit though was Ex.P.38 and 39 are allotted site by Karnataka KHB allotment of Housing Board as per site on 05.12.2012. Ex.P.38 and Ex.P.39, dated Ex.P.40 is the 05.12.2012. allotment made by DHUDA on 06.04.2011.
Ex.P.60, sale deed dated 18.08.2000, Ex.P.61 sale deed dated 12.06.2006, Ex.P.62 sale deed dated 24.08.2007, Ex.P.64 sale deed dated 25.08.2010 in favour of her husband are all individuals purchases.
3. A-3 Poornima Had filed false affidavit Ex P-5 Affidavit.
though was having Ex P-46 sale deed.
28 Spl.CC No.779/2019
property though the sale
deed dated 11.11.1993 in
the name of her husband
Vijaykumar.
4. A-4 Reshma Allegation of obtaining
sites illegally is levelled
against her
5. A-5 Sandeep. B.R. Allegation of obtaining sites illegally is levelled against him
6. A-6 B.P.Kumar Allegation of obtaining sites illegally is levelled against him 7 A-7 Kotrappa (abated) 8 A-8 C.K.Pushpa Had filed false affidavit Ex.P.11 Affidavit.
though was having Ex.P.83 Loan
property repayment deed
dated 07.11.2012.
Ex.P.84 is Mortgage
deed.
9. A-9 S.N.Nagaraj Had filed false affidavit Ex P-12 affidavit.
though was having Ex.P.30(a) and
property Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31(a) are katha
Ex.P.31 in the name of his extract.
wife Smt.Anasuya.
10. A-10 Basalingappa Had filed false affidavit Ex P-13 affidavit though he was having Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35 property in his name per Katha extract.
Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35 29 Spl.CC No.779/2019
11. A-11 C.M.Ravi (Abated)
12. A-12 Had filed false affidavit Ex P-22 Affidavit.
Chandrashekarappa though he was having sale Ex.P.83 and Ex.P.84 deed executed in his name are katha or on 22.07.1987. mortgage deed and Ex.P.82 is a sale deed.
13. A-13 Mallesh S. Allegation of obtaining Belagavi sites illegally is levelled against him.
14. A-14 Amaresh Allegation of obtaining sites illegally is levelled against him
15. A-15 H.Manjappa Allegation of obtaining sites illegally is levelled against him
16. A-16 H.S.Kamala Had filed false affidavit Ex.P.31 affidavit though was having house Ex.P.72 katha as per Ex.P.72. extract.
17. A-17 A.C.Siddaramappa( Abated)
18. A-18 Yeshwanth Rao Committe Member Jadav
19. A-19 Abated 30 Spl.CC No.779/2019 20 A-20 Shashikala Committee Member Eshwarappa 21 A-21 Not charge sheeted Hanumanthappa 22 A-22 Committee Member Dr.B.R.Sumithra Devi 23 A-23 District Incharge Minister S.A.Ravindranath
16. Admittedly in this case, the DHUDA called for allotment of sites at Sri. J.H.Patel Extension. It is relevant to note at this juncture that initial notification was passed by the competent authorities calling for applications from general public. However, the same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and subsequently another notification was passed on 19.09.2009. In the said notification dated 19.09.2009 indicates that totally 5 categories of sites of various dimensions were available for allotment which were totally 507 in number. At the time of calling for application from the eligible applicants, certain stipulations and conditions were enumerated in the notification. Particularly the notification itself was titled as 'Re-Notification', which means the notification was continuation of the earlier notification which was published on 24.3.2008. It is relevant to note that in the stipulation 31 Spl.CC No.779/2019 column at Sl.No.7 it has been specifically laid down that the applicant should not own any site either in his name or in the name of his spouse or any family members across the State allotted from Urban Development Authority or Karnataka Housing Board or Government or any other agency and also he should not be allottee of the then Davanagere Urban Development Authority or the present Urban Development Authority. In order to justify the same necessary notarized affidavit was required to be enclosed along with the application. The very same notification was subsequently published again on 29.12.2009 and it is relevant to note that the notification was titled as 'Publication' ('Prakatane' in vernacular language). In the said notification it has been specifically mentioned that the earlier notification came to be challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30773-774/2009 wherein Hon'ble High Court by its kind order had directed to grant one more week time for applying to allotment of sites. However, all other stipulations and conditions imposed and also availability of sites were very much similar to the earlier notification.
17. With this back ground, now the allegation which is leveled against individual accused persons is required to be 32 Spl.CC No.779/2019 appreciated. It would be appropriate to note that the allegation which is leveled against accused No.1 to 3, 8 to 12 and A16 are quite similar to each other, wherein it is narrated that they had filed a false affidavit along with application for obtaining allotment of sites at Sri. J.H.Patel Extension. In order to better appreciate the same, the documents which have been furnished by them is also carefully appreciated and in all the affidavit filed by them which is enclosed along with the application i.e., at Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.22, Ex.P.31 respectively would clearly indicate that they have sworn that they were not holding any sites allotted by any Urban Development Authority, Karnataka Housing Board, Governmental Agency and they do not own any site either in their name or in the name of their family members.
18. With respect to the allegations which is leveled against accused No.4 Reshma, accused No.5 Sandeep accused No.6 B.P.Kumar and accused No.13 Mallesh S.Belagavi, accused No.14 Amaresh, is that they had obtained a site of various dimensions in General Category wherein totally 52 sites were available for which 144 applicants had applied and in the status of the applicant. However, unfortunately the learned SPP is unable to point out for 33 Spl.CC No.779/2019 what reason the aforesaid accused persons have been arraigned as accused persons in the instant case. It is also unfortunate to note that no proper documents are produced to indicate the exact marks obtained by the allottees in their respective category. For the sake of argument, if the prosecution contends that the aforesaid accused persons though in-eligible were allotted with the site, then the prosecution should have pointed out the exact marks which were awarded to the accused persons in their respective category and also the existence of other applicants who had scored more marks than the accused persons. Unless the same is pointed out the court cannot accept the same.
19. The court has also considered the evidence of PW18 Lingareddy who had conducted major investigation, who in his chief-examination has stated only about recording their statement.
20. Apart from that it is contended that the Members of the Committee i.e., accused No.23 Sri S.A.Ravindranath who was the then District In-charge Minister along with accused No.18, Yashawanthrao Jadav, accused No.20 Shashikala Eshwarappa and 34 Spl.CC No.779/2019 accused No.22 Dr.B.R.Sumitra Devi, were also members of the Sub- Committee to allot the sites.
21. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provision of law which is applicable to the case on hand. The application of law is very much essential to ascertain whether any deviation or false declaration has been sworn in the affidavit by the applicants. When the Notification which is relied upon is appreciated it indicates that the allotments of sites are to be made in consonance with the provisions of KUDA Act 1987. The said aspect is not at all in dispute. As per the provision mentioned in Rule 12(2) of KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 ('KUDA Rules' for short), it is specifically stated about the disability of a person who can make an application for allotment of sites. For the purpose of convenience, the said provision is culled out which reads as under:-
Rule 12 - Disqualification for allotment of sites;
(1)....
(2) Any person shall be eligible for allotment of site if said person has been allotted a site or house in any part of the State by any 35 Spl.CC No.779/2019 other Urban Development Authority or KHB or any other agency of the Government"
22. Apart from that the relevant provision which would be applied for considering the application has been narrated in Rule 13 of the KUDA Rules which is extracted and reads as follows:
Rule 13 of KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991
13. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀgÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¤ÃwUÀ¼ÀÄ.
(1) ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧâCfðzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄuÁªÀUÀÄtUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ°èF ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¤ÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀȶÖAiÀÄ°èj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÉʪÁ»PÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£À JazÀgÉ CªÀ£ÀÄ «ªÁ»vÀ£É CxÀªÁ E®èªÉªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA ¢gÀĪÀ£ÉÃ, E§âgÀÄ CxÀªÁ E§âjVAvÀPÀrªÉÄ fêÀAvÀ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÁæzsÁ£ÀåvɤÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ;
2) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÀªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV CzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄ£É PànÖ¸ÀĪÀ CªÀ£À ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð:
¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, F µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ eÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ §ÄqÀPÀlÄÖUÀ½UÉ ಸೇjzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®ಃ
3) xxxxx.)
4) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ F »AzÉ JµÀÄÖ ¨Áj Cfð¹gÀĪÀ£ÉA§§UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð¤zÁÝUÀÆå CªÀ£ÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ EgÀĪÀ 36 Spl.CC No.779/2019 ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð£ÁVzÁÝ£É JA§ÄzÁV¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ;
5) ªÀiÁf ¸ÉʤPÀgÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ PÀ¼ÉzÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉêɸÀ°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ ¸ÉʤPÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ.
(2) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀV£À ««zsÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ºÀAZÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(J)»AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ 2% (ಬಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಬುಡಕಟ್ಟು ಗಳು 3% (ಸಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಜಾತಿಗಳು 15% (ಡಿ) ಮಾಜಿ ಸೈನಿಕರು ಅಥವಾ ಮೃತ ಸೈನಿಕರ
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ್ಯ ರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಶಸ್ತ್ರ ಪಡೆಯ ಸದಸ್ಯ ರು 5% (ಇ) ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನಿಗಮ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ ಉದ್ದಿಮೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು 10% (ಎಫ್) ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ ಉದ್ದಿಮೆಗಳು/ನಿಗಮ ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾಧಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು 5% (ಜಿ) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕು 48% (ಎಚ್) ಕಲೆ, ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ, ಕ್ರೀಡೆ ಅಥವಾರ ಇನ್ಯಾವುದೇ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ಲಾಘನೀಯ ಶಾದನೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಿರುವ ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿಗಳು 8% 37 Spl.CC No.779/2019 ಐ) ಅಂಗವಿಕಲರು 2% «ªÀgÀuÉ.-- ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀ°è, (J) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀgÉ DUÀ D ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ «ÄøÀ°j¹zÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (©) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (©) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ, DUÀ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV «ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J), (©) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UɸÉãjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è Cfð ¨ÁgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ DUÀ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV«ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (f) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
«ªÀgÀuÉUÉ GzÁºÀgÀuÉ.-- ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ, ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À, CAxÀzÉà UÀÄtªÀÄlÖUÀ½gÀĪÀCfðzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß aÃn JvÀÄÛªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.
23. On conjoint reading of both the provision would indicate that a person who has been allotted or granted with site by any Urban Development Authority or KHB or Government or any other agency of the Government are to be held ineligible for obtaining allotment of sites. And at the time of considering the application for allotment of site, the committee members are required to adhere to the guidelines as enumerated under Rule 13 and on that basis necessary points are required to be ordered to the applicants. 38 Spl.CC No.779/2019
24. In order to better appreciate the allegations which has been leveled against the aforesaid accused persons it would be appropriate to look in to the documents which have been collected by the investigating officer. The document with respect to accused No.1 Chandrashekaraiah is marked at Ex.P.22 and 23. The said document when conjointly looked into with documents pertaining to accused No.2 M.Latha indicates that the investigating officer had collected materials indicating that she had purchased site along with her husband from independent persons on 18.8.2000 as per Ex.P.61 and another sale deed dt.12.6.2006 as per Ex.P.62, another sale deed dated 24.8.2007 as per Ex.p.64. All the aforesaid properties were not allotted or granted. With respect to accused No.3 Poornima the document which is sale deed dated 11.11.93 towards purchasing property from private person in the name of her husband is produced. With respect to accused No.8 C.K.Pushpa loan repayment deed and mortgage deed as per Ex.P.84 is produced. Likewise, with respect to accused No.9 S.N.Nagaraj, katha extract as per Ex.P.30 and 31, whereas katha extract with respect to A.10 Basalingappa as per Ex.p.32 to 35 are produced. Further, it is alleged that A12 Chandrashekarappa is also owning property as kper the katha extract 39 Spl.CC No.779/2019 and sale deed at Ex.P.82. Further, A16 H.S.Kamala is alleged to be owning house as per Ex.P.72 katha extract. However, the documents which have been produced above indicate that it was not at all allotted by any of the Governmental Agency or KHB or by Urban Development Authority. With respect to the said aspect the I.O. who had conducted investigation i.e., PW18 Lingareddy is also thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel. During the course of cross-examination he has specifically admitted that he had verified the relevant rules and provisions and also he was aware of Rule 12(2) and also Rule 13 of the KUDA Rules. It is his specific assertion that though accused persons were not allotted with any sites, they had filed an affidavit indicating that they had not owned any property in their name or in the name of their family members. However, no such observation or materials are forthcoming in this regard either in the documents collected by him or in the documents pertaining to the Minutes of the Sub Committee. All that it has been stated by him is that they had filed a false affidavit declaring that they were not owning any immovable properties in their name. At the outset if the said aspect is appreciated though it seems to be appropriate and correct, the court will have to appreciate the aforesaid provision in 40 Spl.CC No.779/2019 the back drop of the definition which has been given to Sec.198 of the IPC. For the sake of convenience, the provision is extracted which reads as under:
"Sec.198. Using as true a certificate known to be false. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
25. The aforesaid provision of law clearly indicates that when a person uses a certificate clearly knowing that it is false or corruptly uses as true certificate, then the rigors of the aforesaid provision of law is attracted. The underlining aspect in the aforesaid aspect is knowledge on the part of the person using such certificate. The above aspect requires to be clarified at this juncture, since the Public Notification called upon by the DHUDA for allotment of site did not indicate that they should not own any immovable properties even in their individual capacity. Hence, the contention of prosecution that a false certificate/affidavit was used by the accused persons for allotment of site with clear knowledge is not proper. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the allegations leveled 41 Spl.CC No.779/2019 against accused persons and on comparing the same with the cross examination of the investigating officer it indicates that he has specifically admitted that the site owned by accused persons were purchased from private persons and there was no allotment being made by any authorities.
26. It is rather unfortunate to note at this juncture, that the Investigation Agency has conducted the investigation in a callous manner and they have only collected application Forms and check list and they are unable to point out what had transpired on each day of the meeting of Sub-Committee. When allegation of exerting political pressure is leveled against a particular accused person, it would be the bounden duty of the Investigation Agency to explain the circumstances on which they were indicating of exerting pressure on the Sub-Committee Members. In other words, the prosecution should have pointed out how the deliberations in the Sub-Committee had taken place and on what basis such an allegation is leveled against some of the Members of the Sub-Committee. Just for the reason that particular person or the accused is incidentally a Member of Political Party to which the then District In charge Minister also belonged cannot be a ground for arriving at a conclusion of the guilt 42 Spl.CC No.779/2019 of the accused. The law is well settled that when a particular assertion and allegation is made by the prosecution, it is their bounden duty to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution have to establish the fact that how many persons had applied for allotment of sites in that particular category and how much marks / score they had obtained during the scrutiny and whether there were more eligible persons than the present applicant and if the applicant is left out or if an ineligible person is allotted with the site, his points and minutes deliberated (if any in the Meeting) with respect to ignoring the claim of such a applicant. However, in the entire investigation process nothing as such has been produced before the Court nor the Minutes of the Resolution passed by the Sub-Committee.
27. With respect to other accused persons also the Court has appreciated the documents which have been furnished in order to consider the contentions urged by the prosecution. Accused No.1 to 3, 8 to 10, 12, 16 are alleged to have sworn to the affidavit which is enclosed at Ex.P.1. and contended tha though he was having property in the name of his wife Manjula at D.No.4687/29 and 4687/30 at Davanagere, he had sworn to a false affidavit. 43 Spl.CC No.779/2019
28. With respect accused No.2 M.Latha it is stated that 3 properties were standing in her name as per Ex.P.61, Ex.P.62 and Ex.P.64 along with the site standing in the name of her husband. However, all the said properties were purchased independently from individual persons.
29. With respect to accused No.3 Poornima is stated to have filed false affidavit since the properties was purchased by her husband Vijay Kumar through a sale deed dated 11.11.1993 from a private person as per Ex.P.46.
30. Accused No.8 C.K.Pushpa is said to have property in her name. However, the prosecution has produced loan repayment deed and mortgage deed.
31. Accused No.9 S.N.Nagaraj is alleged to have filed false affidavit as property was standing in the name of his wife Smt.Anasuya as per ExP.30 and Ex.P.31 katha extract.
32. Accused No.10 Basavalingappa is said to hve filed false affidavit though property was standing in his name as Ex.P.32 to 35. 44 Spl.CC No.779/2019
33. Accused No.12 Chandrashekarappa is said to have filed false affidavit though sale deed was executed in his name on 22.7.1987. Further it is stated accused No.16 Kamala has also filed false affidavit though she was having house as per Ex.P.72.
34. When the entire allegation is carefully appreciated with the cross-examination of Investigating officer, he has specifically admitted that none of the above properties were allotted either by Urban Development Authority, Government or any other Governmental Agencies. If the said aspect is to be appreciated, then the question which lingers in the mind of the court is whether owning a property independently which was not allotted by Government or any of its agency would create a bar as per stipulation No.7 in the Notification. In this regard, the judgment furnished by the learned Counsels for the accused is to be looked. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 67 (Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Major General Devender Singh (Rtd) and another) wherein it has been held:-
28. A plain reading thereof indicates that the same consists of the following ingredients:45 Spl.CC No.779/2019
(1) The Applicant should not have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India:
(2) Such acquisition must be through Government/Semi Government/ Municipal Committee / Corporation/ Improvement Trust.
(3) Such acquisition must be at a concessional rate i.e. at reserved/fixed price.
(4) Such acquisition may be in own name or in the name of any dependent members of his/her family.
29. Ms. Issar, learned counsel submits that the word `through' must be given its due meaning in construction of the eligibility conditions and in view of the fact that some allotment at concessional rate had been made by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to the Societies.
Respondents being part of the Society would come within the purview of the said restriction.
30. We are unable to accept the said submission. The word `through' in this context would imply `agency' Thus only when a person acquires some 46 Spl.CC No.779/2019 property through the `agency' specifically mentioned therein, the condition of eligibility which, it will be a repetition to state, impose a restriction on a valuable right of a citizens must be held to be applicable and not otherwise.
31. Acquisition of any property through any other source or through any other agency is not prohibited. Right to acquire property is a human right. A deed must be construed reasonably and in its entirety. If acquisition of any property through any agency other than specified therein is not prohibited, evidently, the restriction clause in the condition of eligibility will have no application. The same, in our opinion, must be construed strictly. A clause impinging the right of a citizen must, in our opinion, receive strict construction and the principle of contextual interpretation will have no application in such a case.
35. In the said authority, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that acquisition of any property through any other source or through any other agency is not prohibited and right to acquire property is human right and a deed must be construed reasonable and 47 Spl.CC No.779/2019 in its entirety. When the aforesaid ratio is applied to the case on hand, it indicates that none of the applicant/accused persons were allotted or granted with any sites or immovable property by Urban Development Authorities or any other Agencies of the State Government.
36. With respect to appreciating the stipulation, the other judgment furnished by the learned counsel for accused reported in ILR 2012 KAR 268 (K.Pankaja Prabhudev @ Pankaja Prabhudev Vs. BDA) is relied upon wherein it has been held as under:
"9. This court in similar circumstances, wherein MUDA was party in Writ Petition No.22649/2018 clubbed with writ petition No.31341/2018 disposed of on 19.12.2019 at paras 15 and 16 with regard to Rule 12(2) of the Rules has held as follows:-
"15. The judgments referred to above relied upon by the petitioners are applicable for the present case. A plain reading of Rule 12(2) of the Rules 48 Spl.CC No.779/2019 would indicate that ineligibility is only if the applicant has been an allottee of a site or house by Urban Development Authority, Karnataka Housing Board or any other agency of the Government or a site allotted by Housing Co-operative Societies.
16. Clearly, the explanation of eligibility under Rule 12(2) of the Rules as contended by Urban Development Authority to include acquisition of house er site by any other source apart from what is specified is contrary to the plain wordings of the Rule. The condition excluding persons from applying for a site is an exclusionary clause and ought to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, the endorsements at Annexure-A in both the writ petitions are rejected."
10. It is not open for the 2nd respondent-MUDA to raise technical objections such as delay and that the petitioner has accepted the refund of initial deposit. When the 2nd respondent- MUDA has failed to discharge its 49 Spl.CC No.779/2019 statutory duty under the 1991 Rules and this Court has already interpreted similar Rule in PANKAJA PRABHUDEV's case cited supra in the year 2010 itself, the respondent-MUDA could not have passed a resolution contrary to Rule 12 of the 1991 Rules to exclude a person, who owns a site or house by any other mode, other than mentioned in Rule 12 (2) of the Rules.
The other contention of the 2nd respondent-MUDA that the petitioner had filed false affidavit stating that he had no house or site even though he possessed own house would not merit any consideration, since the facts and circumstance of the case would not disentitle the petitioner for allotment of a site. The affidavit filed by the petitioner which is produced as Annexure-R3 could be construed as affidavit in terms of Rule 12(2) of 1991 Rules and not more than that.
11. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-MUDA that allotment of site in respect of R.T.Nagar, Mysore was 50 Spl.CC No.779/2019 completed in the year 2012, I deem it appropriate for the 2nd respondent-
MUDA to consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of site in any of the layouts formed by 2nd respondent-
MUDA.
12. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed in part. The endorsement Annexure-A dated 20.11.2019 bearing No.My. Na.
Pra:A.Sha: 20/2019-20 is quashed. The 2nd Respondent-MUDA is directed to consider the petitioner's application for allotment of a site and allot a site in any of the layouts of 2nd respondent-
MUDA.
37. The said judgment is quite similar to the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the aforesaid case are that BDA had allotted sites to persons who owned properties within its jurisdiction that were not allotted either by the government or any other agencies. More specifically the findings rendered by the Hon'ble High Court at para-9 of the aforesaid judgment are very much similar to the stipulation No.7 imposed in the public notification. Even in that case, the Hon'ble High Court had dwelt 51 Spl.CC No.779/2019 upon a specific question: whether the applicant, his wife, his dependent children, dependent parents, or dependent brothers and sisters own any site or house at Bengaluru Metropolitan can be considered a bar for allotment of site by BDA. Even the instant case, the stipulation imposed in the notification is quite akin to the aforesaid facts in the judgment referred. In the aforesaid referred case, the BDA authorities had contended that it was a false assertion being made by the applicants and accordingly, they had challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. After examining various aspects, the Hon'ble High Court determined that the suppression of material facts was not appropriate. They concluded that a comprehensive consideration of the relevant rule is necessary to determine if the imposed stipulations can extend to the point where individual property purchases are subject to the afore mentioned rules. The very same aspect is being agitated by the prosecution in the above case also. However, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High court the contentions urged by the prosecution does not holds water and is liable to be rejected. 52 Spl.CC No.779/2019
38. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the other authorities which have been furnished by the learned counsels for accused which are all unreported judgments. For instance, in W.P.No.52690/2019 dt.9.2.2021 the similar facts were questioned. The Hon'ble High Court by relying upon the earlier judgment of the Co-Ordinate Bench in Smt.Pankaja Prabhudev @ Pankaja Prabhudev Vs. BDA had specifically held that possessing or owning a site or house from any other source stated in the Rules cannot be construed as ineligibility for seeking allotment of sites. When the said ratio is applied to the case on hand, it would clearly indicate that even though some of the accused persons own any other properties either in their name or in the name of their family members, the same cannot be a bar for allotment of site for the reason that it is not a granted / allotted site by the Governmental Agency. In the instant case also it is specifically urged that though the properties are standing in some of the accused person's name, they were not allotted / granted by any governmental agencies or authorities.
39. With this factual aspect, now the relevant provision of Sec.198 of IPC is required to be appreciated, which is already extracted supra in this judgment. On careful examination of the 53 Spl.CC No.779/2019 same, the provision indicates that a false statement is to be made or whoever corruptly uses such certificate as true certificating knowing it to be false, in any material point is to be held of committing offence. Though in the instant case, instead of certificate an affidavit has been furnished by the accused/ applicants, even if the same is looked to ascertain whether the applicants had corruptly used or attempted to use it as true certificate. On conjoint reading of the affidavit along with the relevant provision of law would indicate that at no point of time they had intended to use it as a false certificate. Admittedly, the accused No.1 to 17 had not obtained or not grantees or allottees of any site or house property by any Governmental Agencies. All that it is to be pointed out is that they owned certain properties
40. With respect to accused No.3 Poornima it is stated that she is owning property in the name of her husband which they have purchased on 11.11.1993.
41. With respect to accused No.8 C.K.Pushpa, no document of title deed has been produced and whereas, accused No.9 S.N.Nagaraj, it is alleged that properties purchased in the name of his wife Smt.Anasuya, and whereas accused No.10 is owning property 54 Spl.CC No.779/2019 which is not allotted by any agency or Government. Very similar allegations are leveled against accused No.12 Chandrashekarappa, and accused No.16 H.S.Kamala.
42. For the sake of argument, if owning a site or property through some other means is to be considered an offence and furnishing false information, then once again the prosecution would be at a loss to explain that why the present Investigating officer P.W-14 Manjunath Gangal has not been arraigned as accused person. During the course of cross-examination PW14 Manjunath Gangal who was working as Police Inspector at Karnataka Lokayukta, Davanagere from 1.9.2012 to March 2013 and October 2013 to June 2015 is also one of the beneficiaries of the site. It is pertinent to note that during the course of his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that he was allotted with a site and he too had filed affidavit wherein he has stated that no property was owned by him. If the same yardstick is applied to all the applicants, then the Investigating officer who has filed charge sheet would have to answer that why PW14 Manjunath Gangal was not arraigned as accused person. The court is not stating that PW14 Manjunath Gangal should have been arraigned as accused or has sworn to a false affidavit, but the 55 Spl.CC No.779/2019 endeavor of the court is to indicate that the basis of investigation is not solid and as robust it should be
43. That apart the cross-examination of PW19 Shashidhar Almelkar and PW20 Ramanaik who were the main Investigation Officers is to be looked into. They have specifically admitted during the course of their cross-examination that they had verified the applications pertaining to the names mentioned in the private complaint which was lodged before the learned District and Sessions Judge Court at Davanagere by PW2 Manikanta Sarkar. For the sake of argument, if a matter was referred by the learned Court to investigate and to report, it was the bounden duty of the Investigating Agency to ascertain the total number of applications which were filed and they should have looked into the aspect that whether any illegality was committed by any of the Committee Members. Admittedly, the main allegation which has been leveled in the above case is of showing partisan attitude by some of the Sub-Committee members and also favouring their cronies.
44. It is relevant to note that as per the Resolution dated 22.9.2010 it indicated of 5 members in the Sub-Committee. For the sake of convenience their names has been culled out as follows:- 56 Spl.CC No.779/2019
(1) Sri Yashawanthrao Jadav - President -
Accused No.18 (2) Smt.Shashikala Eshwarappa - Member - Accused No.20 (3) Commissioner of DHUDA - Member ( not arraigned as accused) (4) Executive Engineer - Member (not arraigned as accused)
5) District Health and Welfare Officer, Davanagere (not arraigned as accused)
45. The investigating officer's only claim is that they did not play a part in the investigation. When an allegation is leveled against some of the Committee Members, i.e., against accused No.18 to 22 being the then President and Members of the Committee, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to pin point the role played by them and also reasons for not arraigning the Commissioner, Executive Engineer, and District Health and Welfare Officer as accused persons. If for the sake of arguments it is to be accepted that they had played only minimum role, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce all the materials that had take place prior to passing of resolution by the Sub-Committee on 22.9.2010. Admittedly, the resolution was not passed on a single day and several 57 Spl.CC No.779/2019 deliberations might have taken place before arriving at a conclusion to select the name of allottees. Further, it is relevant to note that at that point of time, accused No.23 S.A.Ravindranath was the District In-charge Minister. All that it has been stated is that he being the District In-charge Minister had meddled with the allotment of sites. If for the sake of arguments, the said contention is to be accepted, then the prosecution has to indicate the manner and role played by him and also the nature of exerting influence. Nowhere in the statement of witnesses it is forthcoming that he had exerted pressure on any of the members of the Committee and just because by virtue of his position as the then District In-charge Minister he was the Member of the Allotment Committee; he cannot be arraigned as accused person. It is also well settled principle of law that the court cannot solely depend upon the assumptions and presumptions and whenever an allegation under P.C.Act or under IPC is made, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
46. In the instant case, the prosecution has contended that accused No.18, 20,. 22 and 23 had committed an offence under Sec.8 of P.C. Act. However, in the absence of specific materials to indicate 58 Spl.CC No.779/2019 an overt act the provision of Sec.8 cannot be invoked. For better appreciating of the fact, it would be appropriate to cull out the ingredients which are required to establish the offence under section 8 of the P. C. Act. For the sake of brevity it could be as follows:
(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other person;
(iii) Any gratification whatever;
(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public servant" to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section.
47. When the ingredient is appreciated, firstly the prosecution has to establish that the accused had accepted or agreed to obtain gratification from someone either for himself or for some other person and the said gratification was the motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public servant" to do or forbear from doing any official act or render service. In the instant case, though sesquipedalian chargesheet is filed by the investigating agency nowhere it is forth coming that the members of the Sub Committee had accepted or agreed to obtain gratification and even 59 Spl.CC No.779/2019 there are no materials are present to indicate such an act being committed by the aforesaid accused persons. The duty of the investigating agency doesn't ceases on mere production of application or the materials, but it the sacrosanct duty wherein the investigating agency are required to accurately point out the incriminating materials which would point out towards the guilt of the accused persons. In the instant case, it is not forth coming whether the aforesaid accused persons who are the members of Sub Committee had played such a role. Even otherwise the allegation against Accused No.23 - Sri S A Ravindranath who was the then District in charge Minister is also not backed by any reasons. Admittedly there are no materials to indicate that he had taken active participation in the deliberation of the Sub Committee. He was the member of the Committee which was formed for allotment of sites. If for the sake of argument, it is to be held that on the basis of the recommendations made by the members of the Sub Committee, allotment of sites were made, then once again the prosecution will be at loss to explain why other members of Sub Committee are left out and in other way around if it is to be contended that the act of the Accused No.23 Sri S A Ravindranath attracts the rigors of section 8 60 Spl.CC No.779/2019 of the P. C. Act then also the investigating agency has to specifically explain how the basic ingredients of section 8 of the P C Act would be attracted. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in (2018)17 SCC 732 ( Babji V State of A.P) wherein the basic requirements to attract the provision of section 8 of P. C Act is discussed and held as follows:
5. In order to establish the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it must be proved:
(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other person;
(iii) Any gratification whatever;
(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public ser-
vant" to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section.
6. In order to constitute an offence under Section 8 of the Act, three things are essen- tial. In the first place there must have been the solicitation or receipt of the gratifica- 61 Spl.CC No.779/2019 tion. Secondly, such gratification must have been asked for or paid as a motive or re-
ward for inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favour or render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is vague for whom the appel- lant had demanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellant de-
manded and received the money is a public servant. Though the receiver of the money, like in the present case may not be a public servant, the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that the amount must have been received for inducing a public servant for doing something by that public servant in his official capacity. So far as confirmation of the seat in the Indian Air- lines, there may be persons in the middle who may be a public servant or a travel agency or others. In the absence of convinc- ing evidence to show that the appellant had received the money from PW 4, to induce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act cannot be sustained. 62 Spl.CC No.779/2019
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted
48. With respect to invocation of Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act it is alleged that the accused No.18 Yashwanthrao Jadav, accused No.20 Shashikala Eshwarappa, accused No.22 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi and Accused No.23 S.A.Ravindranath had indulged in corrupt practices amounting to criminal misconduct. What amounts to criminal misconduct has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2016) 12 SCC 273 ( A Shivaprakash V State of Kerala) wherein it is held as:
17. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act reads as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public ser- vant.--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct--
***
(d) if he--
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public ser-
vant, obtains for himself or for any other 63 Spl.CC No.779/2019 person any valuable thing or pecuniary ad- vantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public in- terest; or"
18. The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the appellant under sub-clause (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) and not under sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (iii). Insofar as sub-clause
(ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of crim-
inal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecu- niary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are:
(1) The public servant has abused his posi- tion.
(2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valu-
able thing or pecuniary advantage.
19. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that the appellant had taken that money from some person and had obtained 64 Spl.CC No.779/2019 any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii). The attempt of the prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of sub-clause (ii) alleging that he mis- used his official position in issuing the cer- tificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the charge-sheet and not even an iota of evi- dence is led as to what kind of pecuniary ad- vantage was obtained by the appellant in is- suing the said letter.
49. The aforesaid judgment clearly indicates how the provision of section 13(1)(c) is required to be appreciated to consider the allegation of criminal misconduct. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the allegation leveled against accused No.4 Reshma, accused No.5 Sandeep B.R, accused No.6 B.P.Kumar, accused No.13 Mallesh S.Belagavi, accused No.14 Amaresh. However, the prosecution or the Investigating Officer has not pointed out the allegations which are leveled against them. It seems that the prosecution in a casual and mechanical manner had dumped the documents before the court without considering its relevancy or the 65 Spl.CC No.779/2019 link which is required to be given. Even the I.O.s have not pointed out any incriminating material against the above said accused persons.
50. If the investigating officer contends that they had enquired only against the persons against whom the private complaint was lodged, then it cannot be termed as conclusive investigation. For example, the Investigation Officer should have ascertained whether any illegality or irregularity was committed towards allotment of site in that particular category. Admittedly, as per the KUDA Act and Rules certain proportionate of sites were to be ear-marked for particular category of persons. Then the Investigating Officer should have appreciated whether rejection of applications by the Scrutinizing Committee was proper and whether any irregularities were committed in rejecting the claim of the eligible applicants. After that the Investigating Officer should have necessarily collected the materials to ascertain whether awarding of points was in proper manner by the Sub-Committee and what were the criteria adapted by them towards awarding of points to the applicants. Unless said material is placed before the Court and brought out in a proper manner the court will not be in a position to 66 Spl.CC No.779/2019 ascertain whether any irregularities committed by the Sub- Committee.
51. That apart it is rather interesting to note that the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation only against the persons whose name was forthcoming in the Private complaint. The larger conspiracy or the allegation which was leveled in the complaint by the PW2 Manikanta Sarkar was that the accused persons in connivance with the members of the Sub-Committee had flouted all the Rules and Regulations and had allotted sites in derogation of the prevailing rules and laws. In that event, the Investigating Officer was duty bound to conduct a conclusive investigation. Further, the cross-examination of PW18 and PW20 itself indicates that they have admitted of conducting enquiry against applicants whose names were forthcoming in the complaint and had not proceeded to ascertain the fate of the applicants who were either rejected or not considered by the Sub-Committee. They have also admitted that the investigation conducted by them was not conclusive. In the wake of such admissions and also the manner in which the investigation is conducted, the court cannot accept the contention of the prosecution of proving the guilt beyond reasonable 67 Spl.CC No.779/2019 doubt. It is well settled principle of law that whenever two views are possible, the court will have to accept the view which favours the accused persons. In this regard, reliance in this regard is placed on the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1979)1 SCC 355 ( K Gopala Reddy V State of A.P) wherein it is held as:
9. The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that an order of acquittal could be set aside for "sub-
stantial and compelling reasons" only and Courts used to launch on a search to discover those "substantial and com- pelling reasons". However, the "formu- lae" of "substantial and compelling rea- sons", "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" and "strong reasons" and the search for them were abandoned as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Ra-
jasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715 : (1961) 3 SCR 120 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 766] . In Sanwat Singh case, this Court harked back to the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. Em-
68 Spl.CC No.779/2019peror [61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227] and reaffirmed those principles. After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan this Court has consistently recognised the right of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion bearing in mind the consid-
erations mentioned by the Privy Council in Sheo Swamp case. Occasionally phrases like "manifestly illegal", "grossly unjust", have been used to de-
scribe the orders of acquittal which war- rant interference. But, such expressions have been used more as flourishes of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal than to curtail the power of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion. In some cases (Ramab-
hupala Reddy v. The State of A.P. [(1970) 3 SCC 474 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 80 :
AIR 1971 SC 460] Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(1974) 3 SCC 762 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 238 : AIR 1974 SC 286] ), it has been said that to the principles laid down in Sanwat 69 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Singh case may be added the further principle that "if two reasonable conclu- sions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court". This, of course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the fundamen- tal principle of our criminal jurispru- dence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly bal- anced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the exis- tence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanci- ful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the ac- cused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the pre- ponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the ben- efit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essen- tial that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reason-70 Spl.CC No.779/2019
able even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. "A reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other; it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons [ Salmon, J. in his charge to the jury in R. v. Fan- tle reported in 1959 Criminal Law Re- view 584] . As observed by Lord Den- ning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [(1947) 2 All ER 372] "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence "of course it is possible but not in the least probable", the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of 71 Spl.CC No.779/2019 that will suffice." In Khem Karan v. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 603 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 689 : AIR 1974 SC 1567] this Court observed:
"Neither mere possibilities nor re- mote possibilities nor mere doubts which are not reasonable can, without danger to the administration of justice, be the foundation of the acquittal of an accused person, if there is otherwise fairly credible testimony."
52. Last but not the least; it is also pertinent to note that the court cannot proceed to award an order of conviction on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The prosecution is duty bound to prove each and every aspect of the allegation which are leveled by them beyond reasonable doubt. Proving the case beyond reasonable doubt would clearly indicate that the investigating agency are able to point out specific role which has been played by the accused persons. Certain time, the case will be based on circumstantial evidence and even at that time, the prosecution are required to establish the fact on the basis of chain of events and when the case are partly based on documentary evidence once again it is the duty of the investigating agency to co relate the documents which could be termed as 72 Spl.CC No.779/2019 incriminating against the accused persons. In the instant case, though the investigating officer has collected the application forms which were filed by the applicants, he is unable to point out which of the materials are incriminating material or which would suggest that the applicants had violated the provisions of KUDA act and Rules to obtain allotment of site and which of the document indicates specific overt act against the members of Sub Committee to arrive at a conclusion that their act attracts the rigors of section 13 of the P. C Act. Unfortunately, in the above case, the documentary evidence and also the ocular evidence are quite oxymoron to each other wherein the Investigating Officer himself is not sure whether owning the site in their personal capacity either through purchase or inheritance would act as a bar to the prevailing rules of KUDA. Unless the Investigating Officer is specifically sure of the provision of law, the filing of the final report itself indicates of conducting investigation in an inconclusive manner. The duty of the Investigating Agency is to unravel the truth and always the criminal trial indicates of journey of discovery of truth. However, in the instant case, the Investigating Agency has totally forgotten to conduct investigation in a proper manner. Due to the aforesaid 73 Spl.CC No.779/2019 aspects the benefit of doubt always has to be given to the accused persons. The role of the investigating agency has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment reported in 1992 Supp (1) 222 ( State of Bihar V P P Sharma) wherein it is held as:
47. The investigating officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. The po-
lice investigation is, therefore, the foun- dation stone on which the whole edifice of criminal trial rests -- an error in its chain of investigation may result in mis- carriage of justice and the prosecution entails (sic) with acquittal. The duty of the investigating officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts, to extract truth from half-truth or garbled version, connect- ing the chain of events. Investigation is a tardy and tedious process. Enough power, therefore, has been given to the police officer in the area of investigatory process, granting him or her great lati- tude to exercise his discretionary power to make a successful investigation. It is 74 Spl.CC No.779/2019 by his action that law becomes an actual positive force. Often crimes are commit- ted in secrecy with dexterity and at high places. The investigating officer may have to obtain information from sources disclosed or undisclosed and there is no set procedure to conduct investigation to connect every step in the chain of prose- cution case by collecting the evidence except to the extent expressly prohibited by the Code or the Evidence Act or the Constitution. In view of the arduous task involved in the investigation he has been given free liberty to collect the nec- essary evidence in any manner he feels expedient, on the facts and in given cir- cumstances. His/her primary focus is on the solution of the crime by intensive in- vestigation. It is his duty to ferret out the truth. Laborious hard work and atten-
tion to the details, ability to sort through mountainous information, recognised behaviourial patterns and above all, to co-ordinate the efforts of different peo- ple associated with various elements of the crime and the case, are essential. Di- verse methods are, therefore, involved in 75 Spl.CC No.779/2019 making a successful completion of the investigation.
48. From this perspective, the function of the judiciary in the course of investi- gation by the police should be comple-
mentary and full freedom should be ac-
corded to the investigator to collect the evidence connecting the chain of events leading to the discovery of the truth, viz., the proof of the commission of the crime. Often individual liberty of a wit- ness or an accused person are involved and inconvenience is inescapable and unavoidable. The investigating officer would conduct in-depth investigation to discover truth while keeping in view the individual liberty with due observance of law. At the same time he has a duty to enforce criminal law as an integral process. No criminal justice system de- serves respect if its wheels are turned by ignorance. It is never his business to fabricate the evidence to connect the suspect with the commission of the crime. Trustworthiness of the police is the primary insurance. Reputation for investigative competence and individual 76 Spl.CC No.779/2019 honesty of the investigator are necessary to enthuse public confidence. Total sup- port of the public also is necessary.
61. An Investigating Officer who is not sensitive to the constitutional mandates, may be prone to trample upon the per-
sonal liberty of a person when he is ac-
tuated by mala fides. But as stated, the accused at the earliest should bring to the notice of the court the personal bias and his reasonable belief that an objec- tive investigation into the crime would not be had at the hands of the investiga-
tor by pleading and proving as of fact with necessary material facts. If he stands by till the charge-sheet was filed, it must be assumed that he has waived his objection. He cannot turn down (sic round) after seeing the adverse re- port to plead the alleged mala fides.
Equally laying the information before the Station House Officer of the com-
mission of cognizable crime merely sets the machinery of the investigation in motion to act in accordance with the procedure established by law. The find- ing of the High Court, therefore, that 77 Spl.CC No.779/2019 the FIR and charge-sheet violate the constitutional mandate under Article 21 is without substance.
-:SUMMATION:-
53. PW2 Manikanta Sarkar filed a private complaint in the instant case against accused Nos. 1 to 23, arguing that DHUDA had allotted sites at Sri J.H. Patel Extension to the applicants, despite their ineligibility. The specific contention was that Accused No. 1 to 17 had conspired with Accused No. 23 S.A. Ravindranath and other members of the Sub-Committee appointed for site allocation, including Accused No. 18 Yashwanthrao Jadav, Accused No. 20 Shashikala Eshwarappa, Accused No. 22 Dr. B.R. Sumitradevi, and others, to secure the allotted sites. However, the investigating agency interpreted the site allotment provision incorrectly. Some of the accused persons, including accused No.1 K.M.Chandrashekaraiah, accused No.2 Latha, accused No.3 Poornima, accused No.8 Pushpa, accused N.9 S.N.Nagaraj, accused No.10 Basavalingappa, accused No.12 Chandrashekarappa, accused No.13 Mallesh S.Belagavi, accused No.14 Amaresh, accused No.16 H.S.Kamala allegedly provided false information in their affidavit, thereby committing an offense under Sec.198 of the IPC. However, Rule 12(2) of the KUDA 78 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Rules of 1991 clearly states that bar would be applicable only when the sites are allotted by the Urban Development Authority, the Government, the Karnataka Housing Board, or any other government agency. By interpreting the law incorrectly and gathering evidence that the applicants owned properties through inheritance or their own site purchases, they came to the conclusion that they had committed the offense of furnishing false information. Said proposition is totally incorrect and based on a wrong proposition of law, the accused cannot be held guilty. Further there are no materials to indicate that the members of the Sub Committee had committed any act which would attract the rigors of section 8 and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
54. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23 are found not guilty and hence Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., they are hereby acquitted for the charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under Sec.198 of 79 Spl.CC No.779/2019 IPC and under Sec.8, 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 18th day of July, 2024) (Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURES
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution:-
PW1 H.V.Hanumanthappa
PW2 Manikanta Sarkar
PW3 K.Thippeswamy
PW4 Achuthamurthy K.A.
PW5 Vasanna.R
PW6 Sathish.D.P.
PW7 E.S.Rangaswamy
PW8 M.Vaishali
PW9 Basavaraj Naik
PW10 Dr.Shivayogiswamy
PW11 L.N.Anand
PW12 Dr.N.Mahantesh
PW13 Pampanagouda Melseeme
PW14 Manjunath K.Gangal
80 Spl.CC No.779/2019
PW15 Gnanappa
PW16 Venkateshwarappa Gaddad
PW17 Ajith Sawanth
PW18 N.Lingareddy
PW19 Shashidhar S.Alamelkar
PW20 Rama Naik
2. Witnesses examined by the defence/accused.- Nil
3. Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 File of K.M.Chandrashekaraiah Ex.P.1(a) Office Notes Ex.P.1(b) Check list Ex.P.1(c) Application filed before Harihara Urban Development Authority Ex.P.1(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.1(e) Acknowledgment Ex.P.1(f) Original receipt of Rs.25/-
Ex.P.1(g) Residential certificate Ex.P.1(h) Residential affidavit Ex.P.1(i) Notary affidavit Ex.P.1(j) Allotment letter Ex.P.1(k) Letter dated 22.10.2009 Ex.P.1(l) Amount paid receipt 81 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.1(m) Permission Ex.P.1(n) Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.1(o) Copy of lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.1(p) Letter dated 19.5.2012 - Permission for construction Ex.P.2 File of accused No.2 M.Latha Ex.P.2(a) Office Notes Ex.P.2(b) Check list Ex.P.2(c) Application filed before Harihara Urban Development Authority Ex.P.2(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.2(e) Form Fee of Rs.25/- Ex.P.2(f) Residential Certificate Ex.P.2(g) Copy of Residential certificate Ex.P.2(h) Copy of Notary Residential affidavit Ex.P.2(i) Copy of Income Certificate Ex.P.2(j) Jurisdictional residential letter obtained from Revenue Officer Ex.P.2(k) Salary Certificate Ex.P.2(l) Allotment letter Ex.P.2(m) Payment receipts (4 copies) Ex.P.2(n) Request letter dated 24.1.2011 for registration Ex.P.2(o) Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.2(p) Permission for registration of the lease cum 82 Spl.CC No.779/2019 sale agreement Ex.P.2(q) Registration and Stamp Duty Ex.P.3 File of accused No.4 Vinod Ex.P.3(a) Office Notes Ex.P.3(b) Check list Ex.P.3(c) Application of Vinod filed before Harihara Urban Development Authority Ex.P.3(d) Acknowledgment of Rs.18,000/- Ex.P.3(e) Form No.1 Ex.P.3(f) Residential letter Ex.P.3(g) Original affidavit Ex.P.3(h) Copy of Cast Certificate Ex.P.3(i) Copy of residential & Income Certificate Ex.P.3(j) Allotment letter Ex.P.3(k) Payment receipt - 4 challans Ex.P.3(l) Request letter for registration Ex.P.3(m) Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.3(n) Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.3(o) Letter dated 13.7.2011 to Senior Sub-Registrar Ex.P.4 File of accused No.4 K.O.Suma Ex.P.4(a) Office Notes Ex.P.4(b) Check list Ex.P.4(c) Application of K.O.Suma Manjunath 83 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.4(d) Payment Receipt Ex.P.4(e) Form No.1 Ex.P.4(f) Copy of Caste certificate
Ex.P.4(g) Notary original affidavit Ex.P.4(h) Allotment letter Ex.P.4(i) Payment receipt - 4 challans Ex.P.4(j) Letter written to Commissioner regarding Agreement of Sale Ex.P.4(k) Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.4(l) Grant of permission for registering the lease cum sale agreement Ex.P.4(m) Copy of Conditional Lease cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.5 File of accused No.7 Poornima Vijaykumar Ex.P.5(a) Office Notes Ex.P.5(b) Check list Ex.P.5(c) Application of Poornima Vijaykumar Ex.P.5(d) Payment Challan Ex.P.5(e) Form No.1 Fee Ex.P.5(f) Original Affidavit Ex.P.5(g) Allotment letter Ex.P.5(h) Payment challan - 4 challans Ex.P.5(i) Request letter for registration Ex.P.5(j) Conditional Lease cum Sale Agreement 84 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.5(k) Permission for Registration Ex.P.5(l) Request letter for registration dated 6.9.2011 Ex.P.6 File pertaining to Hussain Jamal Sab Ex.P.6(a) Office Notes Ex.P.6(b) Check list Ex.P.6(c) Application of Hussain Ex.P.6(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.6(e) Form No.1 Ex.P.6(f) Affidavit Ex.P.6(g) Allotment letter Ex.P.6(h) Payment challan Ex.P.6(i) Letter to Commissioner dated 11.01.2011 Ex.P.6(j) Permission for registering Lease Cum Sale Agreement Ex.P.6(k) Copy of Conditional Lease Cum Sale Deed Ex.P.7 File pertaining to accused Reshma Ex.P.7(a) Office Notes Ex.P.7(b) Check list Ex.P.7(c) Application of Reshma Ex.P.7(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.7(e) Form No.1 Fee of Rs.25/-
Ex.P.7(f) Residential Certificate Ex.P.7(g) Caste Certificate 85 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.7(h) Affidavit Ex.P.7(i) Allotment letter Ex.P.7(j) Letter to Commissioner DHUDA Ex.P.7(k) Payment slips (four) Ex.P.7(l) Conditional sale deed Ex.P.7(m) Permission to Commissioner Ex.P.7(n) Letter to Sub-Registrar Ex.P.8 File pertaining to A5 Sandeep B.R. Ex.P.8(a) Office Notes Ex.P.8(b) Check list Ex.P.8(c) Application of Sandeep B.R. Ex.P.8(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.8(e) Form No.1 Fee of Rs.25/- Ex.P.8(f) Residential Certificate Ex.P.8(g) Income Certificate Ex.P.8(h) Affidavit Ex.P.8(i) Affidavit Ex.P.8(j) Allotment letter Ex.P.8(k) Letter to Commissioner DHUDA Ex.P.8(l) Four Payment slips (challans) Ex.P.8(m) Conditional sale deed Ex.P.8(n) Permission for Registering the Lease Cum Sale Agreement 86 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.8(o) Stamp duty Ex.P.9 File pertaining to A6 B.P.Kumar Ex.P.9(a) Office Notes Ex.P.9(b) Check list Ex.P.9(c) Application of A6 B.P.Kumar Ex.P.9(d) Residential proof letter Ex.P.9(e) Affidavit Ex.P.9(f) Caste Certificate Ex.P.9(g) Challans of Harihar Urban Development Authority Ex.P.9(h) Acknowledgement Ex.P.9(i) Form No.1 Fee Rs.25/- Ex.P.9(j) Allotment letter Ex.P.9(k) Four Payment slips (challans) Ex.P.9(l) Letter to Commissioner DHUDA for payment of difference amount Ex.P.9(m) Letter to Commissioner DHUDA for registration Ex.P.9(n) Conditional lease cum sale agreement Ex.P.9(o) Grant of permission for registration Ex.P.9(p) Letter of DHUDA to Sub-Registrar for registration Ex.P.9(q) Conditional Sale agreement Ex.P.10 File pertaining to A7 P.Kotrappa 87 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.10(a) Office Note Ex.P.10(b) Check list
Ex.P.10(c) Application of A7 P.Kotrappa Ex.P.10(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.10(e) Challan Ex.P.10(f) Form No.1 Ex.P.10(g) Affidavit Ex.P.10(h) Allotment letter Ex.P.10(i) Letter to Commissioner for Registration Ex.P.10(j) Payment Challans-Four Ex.P.10(k) Conditional Sale agreement letter Ex.P.10(l) Copy of conditional Sale deed Ex.P.11 File pertaining to A8 C.K.Pushpa Ex.P.11(a) Office Note Ex.P.11(b) Check list Ex.P.11(c) Application of A8 C.K.Pushpa Ex.P.11(d) Affidavit Ex.P.11(e) Acknowledgment Ex.P.11(f) Challan dt.29.4.2008 Ex.P.11(g) Form No.1 Fee Rs.25/-
Ex.P.11(h) Notice of Allotment Ex.P.11(i) Four payment challans Ex.P.11(j) Letter written to commissioner DHUDA 88 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.11(k) Letter written to Commissioner DHUDA regarding difference amount Ex.P.11(l) Copy of conditional Sale deed Ex.P.11(m) Letter to Senior Sub-Registrar for registration Ex.P.11(n) Conditional lease cum sale agreement Ex.P.12 File pertaining to A9 S.N.Nagaraj Ex.P.12(a) Office Note Ex.P.12(b) Check list Ex.P.12(c) Application of A9 S.N.Nagaraj Ex.P.12(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.12(e) Form No.1 Ex.P.12(f) Income certificate Ex.P.12(g) Affidavit Ex.P.12(h) Intimation letter of Allotment dt.28.10.2010 Ex.P.12(i) Letter written to commissioner DHUDA for registration of site Ex.P.12(j) Four payment challans Ex.P.12(k) Lease cum Sale Agreement in Form No.III Ex.P.12(l) Letter to Commissioner for permission to register lease cum sale deed Ex.P.12(m) Copy of Lease cum Sale Deed Ex.P.13 File pertaining to A10 Basavalingappa K Ex.P.13(a) Office Note 89 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.13(b) Check list Ex.P.13(c) Application of A10 Basavalingappa K Ex.P.13(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.13(e) Form No.1 Ex.P.13(f) Income certificate Ex.P.13(g) Affidavit Ex.P.13(h) Intimation letter of Allotment dt.28.10.2010 Ex.P.13(i) Letter written to commissioner DHUDA for registration of site Ex.P.13(j) Four payment challans Ex.P.13(k) Lease cum Sale Agreement in Form No.III Ex.P.13(l) Letter to Commissioner for permission to register lease cum sale deed Ex.P.13(m) Copy of Lease cum Sale Deed Ex.P.14 File pertaining to Satish Y.B. Ex.P.14(a) Office Note Ex.P.14(b) Check list Ex.P.14(c) Application of A20 Satish Y.B. Ex.P.14(d) Acknowledgment Ex.P.14(e) Form No.1 Ex.P.14(f) Affidavit Ex.P.14(g) Intimation letter of Allotment dt.28.10.2010 Ex.P.14(h) Letter written to commissioner DHUDA for registration of site 90 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex.P.14(i) Four payment challans Ex.P.14(j) Lease cum Sale Agreement in Form No.III Ex.P.14(k) Letter to Commissioner for permission to register lease cum sale deed Ex.P.14(l) Copy of Lease cum Sale Deed Ex P-15 Mahazar Ex P-15(a) Signature Ex P-15(b) Signature Ex P-16 Complaint in PCR No.90/13 Ex P-16(a) Signature Ex P-17 Affidavit of complainant in PCR 90/2013 Ex P-17(a) Signature Ex P-18 Complaint in PCR 92/13 Ex P-18(a) Signature of complainant Ex P-19 Affidavit of complainant in PCR 92/13 Ex P-19(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.20 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.20(a) Signature Ex.P.20(b) Signature of I.O.
Ex.P.21 File pertaining to A11 C.M.Ravi
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.22 File of A12 E.Chandrashekarappa
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.23 File of A13-Mallesh S.Belagavi
91 Spl.CC No.779/2019
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.24 File of Devendrappa
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.25 File of B.Jayanand
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.26 File of A14-Amaresh M.H.
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.27 File of A15-H.Manjappa
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.28 File of M.Lingamurthy
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.29 File of G.B.Kotragoudru
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.30 File of Vishwanath J.L.
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.31 File of A16-Smt.H.S.Kamala
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW3
Ex P-20 Letter dated 1.2.2014 by SP to Commissioner,
Mahanagara Palike, Davanagere
Ex P-21 Letter dt.11.2.2014 City Corporation, Davanagere
to Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Ex P-21(a) Signature of PW5 Ex P-22 to Ex Property demand registrar extracts P-35 92 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex P-36 Letter to from Senior Sub registrar, Davanagere to SP, Karnataka Lokayukta Davanagere dt 11/02/2014 Ex P-36(a) Signature of Senior Sub-Registrar Ex P-37 Attested copy of Deed of Cancellation of agreement of sale dt 20/6/07 Ex P-38 Attested copy of Registered Correction Deed dt 2/3/13 Ex P-39 Attested copy of the sale deed dt 5/12/12 Ex P-40 Attested copy of Lease cum sale agreement dt 6/4/2011 Ex P-41 Attested copy of Lease cum sale agreement dt 13.7.2011 Ex P-42 Attested copy of Sale deed dt. 13/10/2011 Ex P-43 Attested copy of Lease cum sale agreement dt 6/9/2011 Ex P-44 Attested copy of Lease cum sale agreement dt 7/12/2010 Ex P-45 Attested copy of Lease cum sale agreement dt 28/4/2011 Ex P-46 C/c of sale deed dt 11/11/93 Ex P-47 C/c of sale deed dt 16/11/06 Ex P-48 Letter from Senior Sub-Registrar to Superintendent of Police, DVG dt 12/3/14 Ex P-48(a) Signature of Senior Sub-Registrar, DVG Ex P-49 C/c of sale deed dt 16/6/2012 Ex P-50 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt 2/7/2011 Ex P-51 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt 17/2/2011 Ex P-52 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt 23/12/2010 93 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Ex P-53 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt 3/3/2011 Ex P-54 C/c of Registered Gift deed dt 17/2/2012 Ex P-55 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt.21/9/2011 Ex P-56 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt 15/5/2011 Ex P-57 C/c of Lease cum Sale Agreement dt 15/3/2011 Ex P-58 C/c of registered Gift Deed dt 1/4/2013 Ex P-59 Letter from Sub-Registrar, Ranebennuru to SP, Karnataka Lokayukta DVG dt 31/5/2014 Ex P-59(a) Signature of Sub-Registrar, Ranebennur Ex P-60 C/c of registered Sale deed dt 18/8/2000 Ex P-61 C/c of registered Sale deed dt 1/6/2006 Ex P-62 C/c of registered Sale deed dt 24/8/2007 Ex P-63 C/c of memorandum of deposit of title deeds dt 2/6/09 Ex P-64 C/c of registered sale deed dt 25/8/2010 Ex P-65 Letter from Sub-Registrar, Holalkere to SP, Karnataka Lokayukta Davanagere dt.14/7/2014 Ex P-65(a) Signature of Subregistrar, Holalkere Ex P-66 C/c of registered Sale deed dt 15/7/2004 Ex P-67 Letter dated 4.1.2016 from Principal, Sri Manjunathaswamy First Grade College to SP, KL, Davanagere Ex P-68 Letter dt 1/3/2014 from office of SP, Karnataka Lokayukta, DVG to the Commissioner, City Corporation, DVG Ex P-69 letter dt 21/3/2014 from Commissioner, City Corporation, DVG in favour of SP, KL, Davanagere Ex P-69(a) Signature of Commissioner, City Corporation, 94 Spl.CC No.779/2019 DVG.
Ex P-70 to Ex Demand Register extracts standing in the name of P-73 Mallesh, Shankarappa, Mallikarjuna, Kamala, Channaveerappa Ex P-74 Letter dt 22/8/14 from City Corporation, DVG to SP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Dvg.
Ex.P.74(a) Signature of the commissioner, City Corporation, DVG.
Ex P-75 demand register extract, form No.3. in the name of Priyadarshini wo/o C.M.Ravi Ex P-76 Letter dt.1.3.2014 from SP, Lokayukta,Dvg to Sub-Registrar, Holalkere Ex P- Details furnished by Sub-Registrar, Holalkere 77,78,79 Ex P-80 letter dt 22/8/2014 from Sub-Registrar, Holalkere to SP, KL, DVG Ex P-80(a) Signature of Subregistrar Ex P-81 Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property of E Chandrashekarappa Ex P-82 CC of registered sale deed dt 22/7/1987 Ex P-83 True copy of mortgage redemption deed dt 7/11/2012 Ex P-84 True copy of registered mortgage deed dt 11/2/2011 Ex P-85 Proceedings of Government of Karnataka according sanction to prosecute Sri B.P.Kumar, Asst. Engineer Ex P-85(a) Signature of Under Secretary to Government Ex P-86 Original FIR in Cr.No.106/2013 dt.10.12.2013 Ex P-86(a) Signature of IO Ex P-87 Service details of G.N.Hanumahthappa furnished by Director, Co-operative Societies Audit 95 Spl.CC No.779/2019 Department Ex.P.88 Service Details of Smt.Sumithradevi, furnished by Director, Helth and Family Welfare Directorate Ex.P.89 Service Details of Sri K.Hanumanthappa furnished by MD of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board dt.28.6.2014 Ex.P.90 Letter dt.5.7.2014 from Commissioner, DHUDA in favour of M.K.Gangal, PI, KL, Davanagere Ex P-91 FIR in Cr.No.108/2013 dt.10.12.2013 Ex P-91(a) Signature of PI, M.K.Gangal,KL, DVG Ex P-92 PF No.1/2014 dt 31/1/2014 signed by N.Lingareddy, PI, Karnataka Lokayukta, DVG Ex P-92(a) Signature of N.Lingareddy, PI Ex P-93 Original PF No.02/2014 dt.15.2.2014 in Cr.
No.108/2013 signed by N.Lingareddy, PI, Karnataka Lokayukta, DVG Ex P-93(a) Signature of N.Lingareddy, PI Ex P-94 Memorandum dt 28/10/2017 issued by SP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru to SP, KL, DVG. Ex P-95 Letter dt 10/8/2015 from SP, KL, DVG to Commissioner, DHUDA, DVG Ex P-96 Letter dt 12/8/2015 from Commissioner, DHUDA to Superintendent of Police, KL, DVG.
Ex P-97 Letter dt 14/8/2015 from Commissioner, DHUDA to SP, KL, DVG Ex P-98 Letter dt 4/1/2016 from SP, KL, DVG to the Principal of Sri Manjunathaswamy First Grade College.
Ex P-98(a) Signature
4. Documents exhibited by the Defence/Accused:- 96 Spl.CC No.779/2019
Ex.D.1 Order of ADGP dated 9.11.2010 in note sheet. Ex.D.2 Note of ARE-2 on receipt of complaint from Ramesh Gowda
5. List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- Nil Digitally signed by SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT Date: 2024.07.19 15:15:00 +0530 LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)