Bangalore District Court
D.S. Surya Narayana vs Ravi Krishna Reddy on 8 November, 2024
1 C.C.18493/2018
KABC030498642018
Presented on : 07-07-2018
Registered on : 07-07-2018
Decided on : 08-11-2024
Duration : 6 years, 4 months, 1 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 8th day of November 2024
PRESENT : SRI.SAHEEL AHMED S. KUNNIBHAVI, B.Com.,
LL.B. (Spl.)
II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl. No. of the case C.C.18493/2018
Date of commission of the
2. 10.04.2018
offence (As per F.I.R.)
Jayanagar Police Station,
3. Name of the complainant
Bengaluru City.
Ravi Krishna Reddy,
S/o Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.20, Opp to Hennagara
4. Name of the accused
Cross, Behind Vijaya Bank,
Hosur Road, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru City.
5. The offences complained Sections 123, 126 and 127(A)
of of Representation of People Act
2 C.C.18493/2018
and Sections 3 and 4 of
Karnataka Open Place
Disfigurement Act
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order The accused is acquitted
8. Date of order 08.11.2024
The Police Sub-Inspector of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City has filed Police Report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 126 and 127(A) of Representation of People Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.
2. The State Election Commission has appointed the informant as a MCC Executive Magistrate to the Assembly Election of Jayanagar 4th Block along with Sector Officer Sri.Megha Chandra, V.Kanakaraj and Photographer one Mr.Karthik. During the course of patrolling on 10.04.2018 at about 4.00 p.m. they found that near Parimala Sweet Bakery this accused without taking the permission from the concerned Department has fixed the flex as a candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election to the Ward No.168 and 3 C.C.18493/2018
169. This accused has violated the Election Code of Conduct. Immediately the informant has conducted panchanama and removed the said flex. The informant had been to the police station and lodged the information against the accused.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.152/2018 at Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City. During investigation, the accused has appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. On completion of the investigation, the Police Inspector of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 123, 126 and 127(A) of Representation of People Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to the accused. The copies of the Police Report and other Prosecution papers are furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the 4 C.C.18493/2018 offences triable by this Court, charges for the offences have been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused, the Prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW3 and the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After completion of the Prosecution evidences, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences of the Prosecution against him, examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that he has no defense evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the materials available on record.
6. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 126 and 127(A) of Representation of People Act and Sections 3 5 C.C.18493/2018 and 4 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act beyond reasonable doubts?
2. What order or sentence?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 :- It is the case of the Prosecution that this accused has violated the Election Code of Conduct by fixing a flex as a candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election to the Ward No.168 and 169.
9. To prove the guilt of the accused the Prosecution has examined CW1/PW1 wherein this witness has deposed that the State Election Commission has appointed him as a Executive Magistrate to the Assembly Election of Jayanagar 4th Block along with Sector Officer Sri.Megha Chandra, V.Kanakaraj and Photographer one Mr.Karthik. During the course of patrolling on 10.04.2018 at about 4.00 p.m. they found that near Parimala Sweet Bakery this accused without 6 C.C.18493/2018 taking the permission from the concerned Department has fixed the flex as a candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election to the Ward No.168 and 169. This accused has violated the Election Code of Conduct. Immediately he has conducted panchanama and removed the said flex. He had been to the police station and lodged the information against the accused.
10. The Prosecution has examined CW2/PW2 Megha Chandra, Assistant Engineer who has deposed that he was appointed as a Sector Officer by the State Election Commission during the time of Assembly Election. On 10 th April 2018, during the course of patrolling, they have found that this accused has fixed one flex depicting himself as a candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election to the Ward No.168 and 169. They have removed the flex and conducted the panchanama. The Prosecution has examination CW3/PW3 Kanakaraju who has also deposed in line with CW2 that he was deputed as a Assistant to CW1 and CW2. During the course of patrolling on April 10 th 2018, they have 7 C.C.18493/2018 found that this accused has fixed one flex by showing himself that he is the candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election to the Ward No.168 and 169. CW3 has taken the photographs of the said flex and CW1 has conducted the panchanama.
11. It is the case of the Prosecution that during the course of Assembly Election, this accused has fixed one flex by showing himself that he is a independent candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election to the Ward No.168 and 169. CW1 being an Executive Magistrate has lodged the information against the accused.
12. The learned Sr.APP has relied the evidence of CW1 to CW3 to prove the guilt of the accused and has categorically argued that this CW1 as per the direction of the Election Commission of India found one banner in the name of this accused who was depicting himself as a candidate to the Jayanagara Assembly Election. The learned Sr.APP has relied Ex.P3 photograph of one banner. The learned Sr.APP has also relied the order passed by the Election Commission of 8 C.C.18493/2018 Karnataka wherein they have deputed CW1 as a Executive Magistrate and CW2 and CW3 as Assistants to CW1. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are the Office Orders wherein these CW1 to CW3 were deputed to the Election. Based on these documents, the learned Sr.APP has contended that this accused has violated the Election Code of Conduct by fixing one banner showing himself as an independent candidate for Assembly Election. But, however the Prosecution has not produced any document to show that they have seized the said banner from the place of incident by conducting the panchanama. CW1 to CW3 are the official witnesses who were deposed as per their statement. But, however the learned Counsel for the accused has argued that these CW1 to CW3 are the official witnesses and they have not taken any pain to take any independent witness to show that this CW1 has really conducted the panchanama and seized the banner. He argued that CW1 has lodged the information with an influence of local politicians against the accused. This accused has not at all fixed the said banner nor it was absolutely belongs to him. He argued and brought to my notice Ex.P3 wherein one more in the 9 C.C.18493/2018 same kind of nature is found and this CW1 has not at all seized that banner. If at all CW1 had been to the place of incident, he would have also seized the one more banner showing in Ex.P3. He argued that all the witnesses examined by the Prosecution are Official Witnesses. Though there are no reasons to disbelieve the contention of the Official Witnesses, but, however the learned counsel for the accused has argued that false case was registered against the accused on the influence of local politicians. The investigation officer has not at all recovered the said banner from the accused not he has contested the said election.
13. Certainly the independent witnesses would mean that they do not have any interest in the result of the case and is not even closely related to the party in trial and he is not concerned with the failure or success of the case. When there is allegation that with the political influence CW1 has lodged the information and the banner were not seized from the possession of the accused. What is it not the duty of the prosecution to examine any independent witnesses?. Further 10 C.C.18493/2018 the Honorable Supreme Court of India in case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to held that-
"Panchnama is a document having legal bearings which records evidence and findings that an officer makes at the scene of an offence/crime. However, it is not only the recordings of the scene of crime but also of anywhere else which may be related to the crime/offence and from where incriminating evidence is likely to be collected. The document so prepared needs to be signed by the investigating officer who prepares the same and at least by two independent and impartial witnesses called 'Panchas' as also by the concerned party. The witnesses are required to be not only impartial but also 'respectable'. 'Respectable' here would mean a person who is not dis-reputed. One should also check if the witnesses are in their senses at the time of panchanama proceedings. Only majors are to be taken as witnesses 11 C.C.18493/2018 as minors witness may not withstand the legal scrutiny."
The Honorable Supreme Court has pleased even held that the panchas are must be from repudiated family and he shall not be any dis-reputed person. The prosecution has examined only three official witnesses and even have not taken any pain to examine any independent witness. Further, the matter is pending since 6 years and in spite of sufficient opportunity, the Prosecution unable to examine the Investigation Officer CW5. There is no evidence available before this Court how this CW5 has conducted the investigation. Under these circumstances this court finds that the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 126 and 127(A) of Representation of People Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
14. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the 12 C.C.18493/2018 offences punishable under Sections 123, 126 and 127(A) of Representation of People Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against him. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 126 and 127(A) of Representation of People Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.
His bail bond and surety bond executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall stand canceled.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 08.11.2024) (SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI) II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
13 C.C.18493/2018ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : D.N.Suryanarayana, PW2 : Meghachandra H.R., PW3 : Kanakaraju V.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information, Ex.P1(a) & (b) : Signatures, Ex.P2 : First Information, Ex.P2(a) : Signature, Ex.P3 : Photograph, Ex.P4 to 6 : BBMP Letters.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI) II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.