Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. N. Vijayakumar on 31 March, 2022
KABC010111362019
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
& SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act), BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.77)
Present: Sri.Gopalakrishna Rai.T, B.A.(Law), LL.B.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge &
Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru.
C/c LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru
Dated: 31st day of March, 2022
Special C.C. No.409/2019
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Lokayukta Police,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: 1. Sri. N. Vijayakumar,
S/o. Dr. N.M. Linge Gowda,
Aged about 53 years,
Superintendent Engineer,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Planning Division,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar zone, Bengaluru.
Residing at No.713, 2nd Stage, 2nd Main
Road, 11th Block, Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru.
2. Sri. Marulasiddappa,
S/o. Kariya Nayak, Aged about 46 years,
Assistant Engineer, Bruhath Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike,Yelahanka zone,
Byatarayanapura Sub-Division, Bengaluru
Residing at No.8, 2nd Cross, Kuvempunagar,
Dasarahalli, Bengaluru.
2 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
3. Sri. Vishwanatha,
S/o. Late C. Sannaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
Assistant Engineer,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar zone, Planning
Division, Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru
Residing at TF-1, Ajantha Grands, Ideal
Homes, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru.
4. Sri. V. Krishna,
S/o. Late. Varadegowda,
Aged about 57 years, Assistant Executive
Engineer,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar Planning Division,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Bengaluru
Residing at No.187/8-9, Gattigere Extention,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru
5. Sri. Vishakanta Murthy C.,
S/o. Late. Chamundaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Assistant Engineer,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar zone,
Planning Division,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru
Residing at No.116, 43rd Main, 6th Cross,
Doddakempaiah Layout, Ideal Homes,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru
6. Sri. R. Ramesh,
S/o. Late. Rangaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Assistant Engineer,
Gorguntepalya/ Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub-
division,
Bengaluru.
Residing at No.157, Nagappa Block, 4th Cross,
Sriramapura, Bengaluru
3 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
7. Sri. G.R. Nagaraju,
S/o. Late. Ramaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Junior Engineer, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub-
division, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike, Bengaluru
Residing at No.122, 1st Floor, 3rd Main Road,
Sampige Layout, Bengaluru
8. Sri. K.C. Ashwath Reddy,
S/o. Chikka Kempalappa,
Aged about 53 years, Assistant Executive
Engineer,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub-division,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar zone, Bruhath
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru
Residing at No.45, 3rd Main, Hebbal
Kempapura, Bengaluru
9. Sri. Srinivasa H.K.,
S/o. Krishna Jetti,
Aged about 51 years,
Assistant Engineer, Bruhath Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike, Rajarajeshwari Nagar
zone, Planning Division,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru
Residing at No.1, 6th Cross, 1st Block, Bharath
Nagar, Magadi Road, Bengaluru
10. Sri. Shankar Rudrawadi S.G.
S/o. Late Gurushanthappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar Civil Section, Bruhath
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru.
Residing at No.199/C, 7th 'B' Main Road, 3rd
Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru (Retired).
11. Sri. M. Manjunath,
S/o. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 36 years,
4 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
Contractor, Working on contract basis in
PWD, Kengute, Bengaluru
Residing at No.714, 1st Main, 2nd Cross, MPM
Layout, Kengute, Bengaluru - 560056
(Accused No.1 represented by M.P. Advocate,
Accused No.2 represented by P.P.K. Advocate,
Accused No.3 to 5 and 9 represented by H.V.M.
Advocate,
Accused No.6 and 7 represented by M.M.
Advocate,
Accused No.8 represented by K.H.S Advocate,
Accused No.10 represented by A.C.V. Advocate,
Accused No.11 by I.S.P.C./ J.P.N. Advocate)
Date of commission of
: During 2015
offence
Date of report of
: 02.05.2015
occurrence
Accused No.1 was arrested on
Date of arrest of accused :
05.05.2015
Date of release of accused Accused No.1 released on
:
on bail 08.05.2015
Accused No.2 to 11 have
Date of other accused
appeared after filing of the charge
obtained bail
sheet and got released on bail
Date of commencement of
: 30.09.2019
evidence
Date of closure of evidence : 15.02.2022
Sri. Ravishankar M.N - Police
Name of the complainant :
Inspector
Punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w.
Offence complained of
Sec.15 of the Prevention of
:
Corruption Act, 1988 and under
Sec.120-B of IPC
Opinion of the Judge : The accused are not guilty
5 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the Prosecution case is that the Government of Karnataka has sanctioned Rs.45 crores towards 64 various project works for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru. Accused No.1 to 10 being the officials of BBMP and accused No.11 being a Contractor, in respect of 64 works approved at the cost of Rs.45 crores, criminally, dishonestly and in a corrupt manner conspired to swindle part of it by including more than 20 works which were at the verge of completion, as if said works were new works undertaken for the development of said constituency and thereby criminally conspired and attempted to make wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Government.
2. At the first instance one Sri. Ravishankar M.N., Police Inspector of Lokayukta on receipt of credible information that the State Government has sanctioned 64 works worth Rs.45 crores to the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP Zone, but concerned Engineers, BBMP officials, MLA and Contractors are trying to swallow the amount by including 20 works which were already at the verge of completion in the list of 64 works. Hence, he lodged Ex.P.5 - complaint to S.P. Lokayukta. 6 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
3. The SP Karnataka Lokayukta directed Sri. Mohamed Mukaram, Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta to receive Ex.P.5 and register the case. This Police Inspector by placing reliance on complaint as per Ex.P.5 has registered the case in Cr.No.25/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act') and under Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and transmitted Ex.P.42 - FIR to the Court.
4. This PW34 conducted investigation, collected evidence and on his transfer, handed over the File to PW36 - Sri. Sathish B.S., Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. This Inspector conducted further investigation, obtained Prosecution Sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 9 and handed over the File to Mohamed Rafi (now dead), Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. This Officer conducted further investigation and on his transfer handed over the file to PW31 - Sri. Basavaraj G. Pulhari, Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta and in turn on completion of investigation PW31 has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC.
5. On receipt of the charge sheet cognizance of the offence was taken and in response to summons, the accused have 7 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 appeared and copy of the charge sheet and its annexures were supplied to them as provided under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The provisions of Cr.P.C 1973 provides for hearing before charge. As generally done in the cases of this nature the accused No.1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 have filed applications under section 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. It was heard and was rejected by this Court as per its Order dated 31.8.2019. Thereafter, charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the Prosecution has examined in all 36 witnesses as PW1 to PW36, besides marking 48 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.48 and closed its side.
7. In this case, after closure of evidence of Prosecution witnesses the accused have been examined by this Court as provided under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The statement of accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 11 is recorded physically in the open Court. However, in so far as accused No.4 is concerned, learned Counsel has requested the Court to record the statement through video conference as this accused is suffering from severe ill health. Accordingly, his statement was recorded through video conference as provided under Rules for Video Conferencing For Courts. The accused No.1 to 11 have denied incriminating circumstances found 8 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 against them in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses and submitted that they have no oral evidence on their behalf. However, during the course of cross examination of Prosecution witnesses, 11 documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.11 were marked by confronting the same to the Prosecution Witnesses.
8. Then, the Prosecutor as well as defence counsels were heard. I have perused oral and documentary evidence placed on record in detail in the light of decisions relied. In this background, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that it has secured valid sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 10 for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r /w.
Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 10 being public servants and accused No.11 being a Contractor, criminally, dishonestly and in a corrupt manner conspired to swindle a part of Rs.45 crores by including more than 20 works, which were already at the verge of completion in 64 proposed works, as if the said works were new works undertaken and thereby attempted to cause wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to themselves and hence, the accused have committed an offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r /w.
Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC?
3. What order ?
9 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
9. My findings to the above points are as under :
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative; Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: As per the final order below;
for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1: The fact that during 2014-15, accused No.1 - N. Vijayakumar was working as Executive Engineer, accused No.2 - Marulasiddappa was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, accused No.3 - Vishwanatha was working as Assistant Engineer, accused No.4 - V. Krishna was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, accused No.5 - Vishakanta Murthy C. was working as Assistant Engineer, accused No.6 - R. Ramesh was working as Assistant Engineer, accused No.7 - G.R. Nagaraju was working as Junior Engineer, accused No.8 - K.C. Ashwath Reddy was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, accused No.9 - Srinivasa H.K. was working as Assistant Engineer and accused No.10 - Shankar Rudrawadi S.G was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in BBMP, Bengaluru is not in dispute. Therefore, it is clear that the accused named above are Public Servants as defined under Sec.2(c) of the PC Act. 10 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Hence, it is for the Prosecution to show that it has obtained valid sanction as required under Sec.19 of the PC Act to prosecute the above named accused for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r /w. Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC.
10.2. By virtue of the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 677 in the case between Mohamed Iqbal Ahmed v/s. State of AP, it is incumbent on the Prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This process can be established by the Prosecution by producing original Sanction Order which contains the facts constituting the offence and grounds of satisfaction. Further, the process of according sanction after expressing its satisfaction, can be established by the Prosecution by adducing the evidence of the author who has issued the order of Prosecution Sanction.
10.3. This Court is aware of the concept of law that the adequacy of materials placed before the Sanctioning Authority cannot be gone into by this Court as it does not sit 11 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 in appeal over the Sanction Order. This Court is also aware of the fact that an Order of Sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the Competent Authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to becomes tools in the hands of an accused. This observation of mine is based on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2013 (8) SCC 119 in the case between State of Maharashtra through CBI v/s. Mahesh G. Jain.
10.4. Now, let me examine the evidence placed on record in the light of the decisions referred to herein above. It is the definite contention of the Prosecution that in order to prosecute accused No.1 - N. Vijayakumar it has secured sanction as per Ex.P.1 and same is a valid sanction. In order to substantiate this contention, the Prosecution has examined the author of Ex.P.1 - N. Manjunath Prasad, the then Commissioner of BBMP as PW1. It is also the contention of the Prosecution that to prosecute accused No.2 - Marulasiddappa and accused No.3 - Vishwanath, it has secured sanction from PW1 as per Ex.P.3 and P.2 12 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 respectively. Thus, it is the contention of the Prosecution that in order to prosecute accused No.1 to 3, it has secured sanction as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 from PW1 and the Sanction Orders so secured are valid and the same do comply the mandatory provisions of Sec.19 of the PC Act. 10.5. In this case, in order to establish the fact that Ex.P.1 to P.3 Sanction Order were issued by the Appointing Authority as well as the Removing Authority, the Prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW1. It is the definite evidence of PW1 - N. Manjunath Prasad, the then Commissioner of BBMP that he received copies of FIR, Final Report and investigation papers in Volume No.I and II and gone through the same and found that it was a fit case to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 3. 10.6. Sri. M.P. Advocate representing accused No.1 has argued that PW1 had no authority to accord sanction as per Ex.P.1, according to him PW1 did not produce alleged Notification under which he was authorised to issue Prosecution Sanction. Thus, it is the contention of accused No.1 that PW1 was not at all authorised to accord sanction. A perusal of evidence of PW1 would show that this accused 13 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 No.1 has categorically denied the authority of PW1 to remove him from the post of Executive Engineer. However, the evidence of PW1 would show that as per the Notification No.UDD273MNU2004 dtd:02.08.2005 as per KCS (CCA) Rule 8 (ii) to (viii) he was authorised to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.1. According to this witness, he was not asked to produce copy of said Notification dated 02.08.2005 by the concerned and hence, he has not produced the same. When the accused has specifically denied the authority of PW1 to accord sanction to prosecute, it is to the Prosecution to produce said Notification dated 02.08.2005. So far the Prosecution has not taken any pains to produce the Notification so as to establish that this PW1 was authorised to accord sanction as per Ex.P.1. 10.7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for accused No.1 that without application of mind, PW1 has mechanically issued sanction order as per Ex.P.1. In fact, PW1 in his cross examination has deposed that he has not made separate notes on going through said files, instead he had gone through note put up by his staff. His evidence would also show that in Ex.P.1 he has not cited any documents to show that what are all those 12 works which were carried out 14 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 unauthorizedly. In order to accord sanction, it is for PW1 to examine such documents which discloses 12 unauthorised constructions. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is substance in the contention of accused No.1 that without application of mind, PW1 has issued Ex.P.1. 10.8. It is the definite case of the Prosecution that without any tender, 20 works were taken up and those 20 works were included in 64 works and thereby, the accused have hatched a plan to dupe the Government. Thus, the substance of the Prosecution case is that the accused have made an attempt to include already completed 20 works in 64 proposed works for which Government has sanctioned Rs.45 crores. But, interestingly in his Ex.P.1 Sanction Order dated 15.02.2016, this PW1 has observed as follows:
"ಆಪಪದತ ಸರಪರರ ನನಕರರರ ಮಮಲಪಧರಪರಗಳಗಗ ಅಕಕಮ ಕಕಮಗಕರಗಳ ಬಗಗಗ ಯಕವವದಗದ ಮಕಹತಯನನನ ನದಡದಗ, ಗರತತಗಗದಪರರ ಜಗಜತಗ ಶಪಮಮಲಪಗ ಅನಧಕಕತವಪಗ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳನರನ ನಡಗಸ ಕಲಲ 13(1) (ಸ) ಸಹವಪಚ 15 ಲಲಚ ನರಗಜಮಧ ರಪಯಯ, 1988 ಹಪಗಜ 120 (ಬ) ಐ.ಪ.ಸ ಪಪರಪರ ಶರಪಕಹರ ಅಪರಪಧ ಎಸಗರರವವದರಲದ ಸದರಯವರನರನ ಸಪವರಜನಕ ಹತದಕಷಷಯಲದ ನಪನಯಪಲಯದಲಲ ಅಭಯಮಜನಗ ಗಗಜಳಸರವವದರ ಅತಪನವಶನಕ".
10.9. This finding given by PW1 in Ex.P.1 - Order dated 15.02.2016 is quite contrary to the materials placed by the Investigating Officer. It is not at all the case of the 15 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Prosecution that this accused along with others have carried out construction illegally with the help of Contractor and attempted to dupe the Government. On the other hand, it is the case of the Prosecution that accused No.1 along with other accused has included 20 works which were already at the verge of completion in the newly proposed 64 works and tried to dupe the Government and swallow the amount in respect of 20 works. So, according to this Court this is one of the circumstances to hold that PW1 did not apply his mind to the materials that were collected during the investigation.
10.10. In this case though Sri. PPK, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.2 during his arguments placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 at paragraph No.8 with regard to procedure for approval of works, he has not disputed the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P.3 - Order issued by PW1 to prosecute the accused No.2. However, a duty is cast upon the Court to find out genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P.3 - Order. Admittedly, at the given point of time, this accused No.2 was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. In this case, in so far as accused No.4 is concerned, it is the definite case of the Prosecution that Minister, Department of Public Works was 16 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 competent to accord sanction. Admittedly, both accused No.1 and 4 were working as Assistant Executive Engineers. Therefore, it is highly improbable to accept the contention of the Prosecution that in so far as accused No.2 is concerned PW1 was the Competent Authority to accord sanction.
10.11. In addition to the above factual matrix of the case, in order to show that Prosecution has secured valid sanction to prosecute accused No.2, it has placed reliance on Ex.P.3 - Order of PW1 dated 02.05.2017. In his concluding observations, PW1 in page No.3 paragraph No.3 has stated as follows:
"ಆಪಪದತ ಸರಪರರ ನನಕರರರ ಮಮಲಪಧರಪರಗಳಗಗ ಅಕಪಮ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳ ಬಗಗಗ ಯಪವವದಗಮ ಮಪಹತಯನರನ ನಮಡದಗ, ಗರತತಗಗದಪರರ ಜಗಜತಗ ಶಪಮಮಲಪಗ ಅನಧಕಕತವಪಗ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳನರನ ನಡಗಸ ಕಲಲ 13(1)(ಸ) ಸಹವಪಚ 15 ಲಲಚ ನರಗಜಮಧ ರಪಯಯ, 1988 ಹಪಗಜ 120 (ಬ) ಐ.ಪ.ಸ ಪಪರಪರ ಶರಪಕಹರ ಅಪರಪಧ ಎಸಗರರವವದರಲದ ಸದರಯವರನರನ ಸಪವರಜನಕ ಹತದಕಷಷಯಲದ ನಪನಯಪಲಯದಲಲ ಅಭಯಮಜನಗಗಗಜಳಸರವವದರ ಅತಪನವಶನಕ".
10.12. The above finding of PW1 is also contrary to the case of the Prosecution. This observation is made because it is not at all the case of the Prosecution that this accused along with other accused and accused No.11 have indulged in putting up illegal construction. On the other hand, it is the definite case of the Prosecution that for the development of 17 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP Zone Government has sanctioned 64 works worth Rs.45 crores, but these accused have made an attempt to swallow the amount by including 20 works which were already been started and some of them were already completed. Therefore, on the face of the materials it is clear that the findings given by PW1 in Ex.P.3 is contrary to the theory of the Prosecution. 10.13. In so far as sanction to prosecute accused No.3 is concerned, Sri. HVM, Advocate, has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of accused No.1 and 2. Further, during the trial, learned Counsel for accused No.2 has adopted cross examination directed to PW1 at the instance of accused No.1 and 2. The fact that accused No.1 has challenged the authority of PW1 to issue sanction as per Ex.P.1 is not in dispute. Therefore, for all practical purpose it has to be said that this accused No.3 has also disputed the authority of PW1 to issue Ex.P.2 - Order to prosecute him. 10.14. As has been stated herein above, the case of the Prosecution is that these accused have included 20 works which were at the verge of its completion in 64 proposed works and thereby made an attempt to swallow the amount 18 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 reserved for the work. However, in Ex.P.2 - order at page No.2, this PW1 has given finding as follows:
"ಆಪಪದತ ಸರಪರರ ನನಕರರರ ಮಮಲಪಧರಪರಗಳಗಗ ಅಕಪಮ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳ ಬಗಗಗ ಯಪವವದಗಮ ಮಪಹತಯನರನ ನಮಡದಗ, ಗರತತಗಗದಪರರ ಜಗಜತಗ ಶಪಮಮಲಪಗ ಅನಧಕಕತವಪಗ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳನರನ ನಡಗಸ ಕಲಲ 13(1)(ಸ) ಸಹವಪಚ 15 ಲಲಚ ನರಗಜಮಧ ರಪಯಯ, 1988 ಹಪಗಜ 120 (ಬ) ಐ.ಪ.ಸ ಪಪರಪರ ಶರಪಕಹರ ಅಪರಪಧ ಎಸಗರರವವದರಲದ ಸದರಯವರನರನ ಸಪವರಜನಕ ಹತದಕಷಷಯಲದ ನಪನಯಪಲಯದಲಲ ಅಭಯಮಜನಗಗಗಜಳಸರವವದರ ಅತಪನವಶನಕ".
10.15. In the present case, the Prosecution has secured sanction to prosecute accused No.4 to 9 as per Ex.P.4. As per this order, at page 7, the Sanctioning Authority has categorically has observed that:
"ಸರಪರರದಲದ ರಪಜರಪಜಗಮಶಶರ ನಗರ ರಗಕಮತಪರಗಕ 64 ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳಗಗ ಬಡರಗಡಗ ಮಪಡಲಪದ ಸರಮಪರರ ರಜ.45.00 ರಗಜಮಟ (ನಲವತಗತತದರ ರಗಜಮಟ ರಜಪಪಯಗಳರ) ಗಳನರನ ರಪಜರಪಜಗಮಶಶರನಗರದ ಬ.ಬ.ಎಲ.ಪ ಅಧರಪರಗಳರ ಮತರತ ಶಪಸಕರರ ಹಪಗಜ ಇತರರಗಜಲದಗಗ ಶಪಮಮಲಪಗ 64 ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳಲಲ ಸರಮಪರರ 20 ಕಜಕ ಹಗಚರಚ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳರ ಪಪರರಗಗಜಲಡದಯರಜ ತಮಮ ಅಧರಪರವನರನ ದರರರಪಯಮಗ ಪಡಸರಗಜಲಡರ ಬಡರಗಡಗ ಆಗರರವ ರಜ.45.00 ರಗಜಮಟಗಳಲಲ ಈಗಪಗಲಗಮ ನಮರಸರರವ ಕಟಷಡಗಳ ಮಪಹತಯನರನ ಸರಪರರರಗಕ ನಮಡದಗಮ ಹಗಜಸದಪಗ ನಮರಸರವಲತಗ ಪಪಸಪತವನಗಯ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳ ಪಟಷಯಲಲ ಸಗಮರಸ ಸದರ ಕಟಷಡಗಳನರನ ನರರರರಸಲರ ಬಡರಗಡಗಯಪಗರರವ ಮತತವನರನ ಅಕಪಮವಪಗ ಪಡಗದರರಗಜಳಳಲರ ಸಲಚರ ರಜಪಸ ತಮವಪತರವಪದ ಕಪಮನಲಲರಸಶರಜಪದ ದರನಡರತಗ ಎಸಗರರತಪತರಗ".
10.16. In addition to the above, Investigator Mr.Mohamed Mukaram being PW34 has deposed in his cross examination at paragraph No.65 as follows:
"ದನಪಲಕ 04.05.2015 ರಲದರ ನಪನರ ತನರಪಧರಪರಯಪಗ ನಗಮಮಕಗಗಜಲಡದಗಯಮನಗ. ನಪ 5 ರ ಪಪರಪರ ರಪಜನ ಸರಪರರವವ 19 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 ರಪಜರಪಜಗಮಶಶರನಗರ ರಗಕಮತಪರಗಕ ಸರಮಪರರ 45 ರಗಜಮಟ ರಜಪಪಯಗಳನರನ ಅಭವಕದದಗಗ ಬಡರಗಡಗ ಮಪಡರರತತದಗ ಎಲದರ ನಮಜದಸಲಪಗದಗ ಎನರನವವದರ ನಜ. ನನನ ತನಖಪ ರಪಲದಲಲ 45 ರಗಜಮಟ ಅನರದಪನ ರಗಜಟಷರರವ ಕರರತರ ಕಲಡರಬಲದದಗ ಆದರಗ ಅನರದಪನ ಬಡರಗಡಗಯಪಗರರವ ಕರರತರ ಕಲಡರಬಲದಲಲ".
10.17. Further, PW36 - Sathish B.S., the Investigator who has prepared Final Report has deposed in paragraph No.6 of his chief examination as follows:
"ಅಲತಮ ವರದಯ ಪಪರಪರ ಆರಲ.ಆರಲ.ನಗರ ರಧಪನಸಭಪ ರಗಕಮತಪದ ಸರಮಪರರ 64 ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳ ಪಪಸಪತವನಗಯಲಲ 12 ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳರ ನಡಗದದಯವವ. ಈಗಪಗಲಗಮ ನಮರಸರರವ ಕಟಷಡಗಳ ಮಪಹತಯನರನ ಸಲಬಲಧಪಟಷ ಇಲಪಖಗಯವರಗಗ ನಮಡದಗಮ ಮರಗಮಪಚ ಹಗಜಸದಪಗ ನಮರಸರವಲತಗ ಪಪಸಪತವನಗಯ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳ ಪಟಷಯಲಲ ಸಗಮರಸ ಸರಪರರದ ಹರವನರನ ಅಕಪಮವಪಗ ಪಡಗದರರಗಜಳಳಲರ ಸಲಚರ ರಜಪಸರರವವದರ ತನಖಗಯಲದ ಕಲಡರ ಬಲದದಗಗ. ಸದರ 12 ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳಗಗ ಸಲಬಲಧಪಟಷಲತಗ ಕಡತಗಳನರನ ಸರಯಪಗ ನವರಹಸದಗಮ ನಲರಕಕಕತನ ಹಪಗಜ ಬಗಮಜವಪಬಪಯರತನ ತಗಜಮರಸರರವವದರ ಕಲಡರ ಬಲದದಗ".
10.18. Thus, the evidence of PW34, PW36, contents of Ex.P.4 - Prosecution Sanction Order and charges so framed would show that the allegations were made against these accused stating that they have included 20 works which were already taken up in the newly proposed 64 works and thereby attempted to dupe the Government and swindle money in respect of 20 works. Whereas, the finding of PW1 as narrated herein above is totally contrary to the theory of the Prosecution. If really PW1 had applied his mind to the materials produced by the Prosecution, he ought to have 20 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 opined in consonance with the theory of Prosecution. But, his findings in Ex.P.1 to P.3 - Order is totally contrary to the theory of the Prosecution. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that this PW1 has not at all applied his mind to the materials that were produced by the Investigating Agency. In view of the same, the contention of the accused that PW1 has mechanically issued Ex.P.1 to P.3 - Orders is to be accepted.
10.19. In addition to the above, in so far as competency of PW1 to issue Ex.P.2 is concerned, the Prosecution did not produce the Notification referred by PW1 during the course of his evidence. In the present case, in so far as other accused who were working as Assistant Engineers are concerned, the Prosecution has said that Minister attached to Public Works Department was the Competent Authority to issue Prosecution Sanction. Strangely, while referring the case of accused No.1 to 3 the Prosecution has contended that PW1 being the Commissioner was the Appointing and Removing Authority. This submission is not probable to accept, this is because admittedly accused No.1 was holding post as an Executive Engineer in Group-A. As per Rule 23 of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 21 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 1977, any proposal for removal of Group-A Officer, the file shall have to be placed before the Cabinet. Therefore, it is just and necessary to refer First Schedule of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977. As per Rule No.23 of First Schedule, proposal for dismissing, removing or compulsory retiring under Article 311, any Officers holding posts in Group-A xxxxxxxxxx the file shall have to be placed before the Cabinet for its approval. But in the present case without following such established procedure, the Commissioner of BBMP, being an IAS Officer, issued Prosecution Sanction. So, this Court is of the opinion that PW1 is not at all an Appointing or Removing Authority of accused No.1 or accused No.2 and 3. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination the contention of the Prosecution that PW1 was authorised to issue Prosecution Sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 3 cannot be accepted.
10.20. In the present case, repeating the contention of accused No.1 to 3, learned Prosecutor has argued that non production of Notification is not at all fatal to the case of the Prosecution. Learned Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1948 SC 82 and argued that merely because order is not happily worded it cannot be said 22 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 that without application of mind the order was issued. He has also argued that there is legal presumption in respect of Orders at Ex.P.1 to P.3. He has also placed reliance on the decision between Mohamad Maqbool vs. State of JK and argued that in so far as Ex.P.1 to P.3 Orders are concerned there is presumption and hence, requested to draw presumption. But, in the opinion of this Court the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor is of no avail because the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.3 and the evidence of PW1 on oath clearly indicate that PW1 has not at all applied his mind. In addition to it, to show his competency to accord sanction, he has not produced Notification available with him. The withholding of best piece of evidence is one of the strong circumstances to hold that there is no Notification authorising PW1 to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 3.
10.21. In so far as accused No.4 to 9 are concerned, the Prosecution has placed reliance on Ex.P.4 - Order issued by PW2 - C.H. Hanumanthaiah, the then Under Secretary to PWD of State of Karnataka. It is the evidence of PW2 that accused No.4 to 9 were belonged to Public Works Department. His evidence would indicate that ADGP 23 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Lokayukta has sent a letter with copies of the FIR, Statement of Witnesses, Documents and Charge Sheet and after securing approval from the Minister, he has prepared Sanction Order as per Ex.P.4. It emanates from the evidence of PW2 that as provided under Rule 18 of Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, he has issued Ex.P.4 Order in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2 it is very clear that only after securing approval from the Minister, he has signed on Ex.P.4. The evidence of PW2 that by virtue of Rule No.18 of Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, he has been authorised to issue Order as per Ex.P.4 is not at all challenged by the accused.
10.22. In the present case, the Prosecution has not only placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW2, but also contents of Ex.P.4 - Order issued by him. The suggestion directed to this PW2 that without conducting proper enquiry and verifying the materials, he has mechanically issued Ex.P.4 and that he was not competent to pass the Order is denied. In the present case, except bare suggestions, which have been denied by PW2, nothing worth is elicited to dislodge his testimony.
24 Spl. C.C. No.409/201910.23. In so far as accused No.8 is concerned, it is elicited from the mouth of PW2 that initially this accused No.8 was an employee of PWD and he was on deputation to BBMP. Therefore, from the above elicited facts it is clear that Minister attached to PWD was authorised to issue Ex.P.4 through PW2. The suggestion that without applying mind and verifying documents completely based on the Report of ADGP, PW2 has issued Ex.P.4 is denied. On the contrary, the ocular evidence of PW2 and the contents of Ex.P.4 clearly indicate that this PW2 has applied his mind to the materials placed by the investigating agency.
10.24. In so far as accused No.7 is concerned, it is his definite contention that he belonged to the Department of Irrigation and therefore, Department of Public Works was not all authorised to issue Ex.P.4, because it is the Minister attached to Department of Irrigation alone authorised to remove him from the post of Junior Engineer. In fact, PW2 in his cross examination at paragraph 11 has deposed that he was not aware of the fact that accused No.7 - Nagaraju was appointed to the Department of Irrigation. At the time of cross examination of PW2, learned counsel for accused No.7 25 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 has confronted Order of Lien as per Ex.D.5. By placing reliance on Ex.D.5 it was argued that accused No.7 - Nagaraju was appointed to the Department of Irrigation. At the later part of his evidence at paragraph 13 PW2 has categorically admitted that as per Ex.D.5, accused No.7 - Nagaraju was permanently appointed to the Department of Irrigation. Further, in the same para this PW2 has deposed that "it is true to suggest that since A7 belonged to Irrigation Department, I had no authority to remove him from his post". This evidence of PW2 further indicate that he (PW2) or the Department of Public Works, was not the authority to remove accused No.7 from the post of Junior Engineer. On the contrary, it was Department of Irrigation authorised to remove accused No.7 from the post of Junior Engineer. 10.25. The counsel for accused No.7 has also invited the attention of this Court with regard to the facts elicited from the mouth of PW2 as per paragraph No.14 of his deposition. It is the definite evidence of PW2 that in respect of PWD and Irrigation Department there are separate Ministers and in this case file was submitted to the Minister of PWD and not to the Minister of Irrigation Department. That apart Ex.D.5 would also clearly indicate that this accused No.7 belonged 26 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 to Department of Irrigation. Therefore, it is very clear that in so far as accused No.7 is concerned it is the Irrigation Department authorised to accord sanction to prosecute him. Hence, the contention of accused No.7 that PW2 has issued Ex.P.4 without any authority is deserves to be accepted in view of the contents of Ex.D.5 and also in view of evidence of PW2 at paragraph No.13.
10.26. In this case, it is the contention of the Prosecution that accused No.10 - Shankar Rudrawadi was retired from service and hence, Prosecution Sanction is not required. It is very relevant to note that this Court has took cognizance of the offence in the year 2019. In fact, amendment was introduced to Sec.19 of the PC Act with effect from 26.07.2018. Therefore, as on the date of taking cognizance of the offence, amended provisions of Sec.19 was in force. Sec.19(1)(b) of the PC Act would show that in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, sanction is required to prosecute him under the penal provisions of the PC Act. In the instant case, admittedly Prosecution did not secure Sanction from the competent authority to prosecute accused No.10. Thus, it is apparently 27 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 very clear that without obtaining sanction, this accused No.10 is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r /w. Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC.
10.27. It is settled proposition of law that grant of sanction is a sacrosanct act and it is intended to provide safe guard to a Public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the Sanctioning Authority is required to prima-facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence. The satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction. But, in the present case as has been observed above PW1 not at all applied his mind to the materials produced by the Prosecution. According to him he do not know the allegations made against the Commissioner BBMP in the complaint lodged by Ravishankar. Had this PW1 gone through the materials, he ought to have admitted the suggestion that at the beginning Commissioner of BBMP was also shown as one of the accused. Therefore, it is highly improbable to accept the contention of the Prosecution that PW1 has applied his mind to the investigation materials. 28 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 10.28. In 2014 (14) SCC 295 in the case between CBI vs. Ashok Aggarwal, the Apex Court had laid down 5 guidelines. The same reads as follows:
"(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/ materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law".
10.29. But, in the present case as has been discussed herein above the findings given by PW1 in Ex.P.1 to P.3 is contrary to the theory of the Prosecution. The author of 29 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Ex.P.4 Sanction Order i.e., PW2 - C.H.Hanumanthaiah has admitted that accused No.7 was appointed by Irrigation Department. In his cross examination he has admitted the contents of Ex.D.5 - Appointment Order of Chief Engineer Hemavathi Canal Zone, Tumkur. A meaningful reading of Ex.D.5 clearly establish the fact that the service of accused No.7 was taken by Irrigation Department and Chief Engineer attached to the said Department has issued Ex.D.5 - Order. Therefore, PW4 is not at all competent to issue Sanction Order to prosecute accused No.7. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that in so far as accused No.1 to 3 and 7 are concerned, PW1 and PW2 have not subjected the materials to conscious scrutiny.
10.30. In the result, for the reasons assigned herein above, it is held that the Prosecution has secured valid sanction to prosecute accused No.4 to 6, 8 and 9 for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r /w. Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC. Similarly, it is held that the Prosecution has failed to secure valid sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 3 and 7. It is further held that sanction has not been secured to prosecute accused No.10 as provided under Sec.19 of amended provisions of the PC Act. In view of 30 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 the above observations, point No.1 which has arisen for the due consideration of this Court is answered partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2: It is the contention of the Prosecution that based on Ex.P.5 - Complaint dated 02.05.2015 of PW3 - Ravishankar M.N., PW34 - Mohamed Mukaram has registered the case against (1) Munirathna, MLA of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Legislative Constituency, (2) Executive Engineer (Project Division) Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru and others and transmitted Ex.P.42 - FIR to the Court. At the outset itself it is relevant to note that though the complaint is dated 02.05.2015, the case was registered on 04.05.2015 at 11.15 a.m. and FIR as per Ex.P.42 was submitted to the learned Special Judge on 05.05.2015 at 11.55 a.m. So, from the perusal of Ex.P.5 and P.42 it is crystal clear that there is two days delay in registering the case and one day delay in transmitting FIR to the Court. This delay though not properly explained by the Prosecution, the accused have not urged the above fact as one of the grounds for their acquittal. It is not the contention of the accused that only to falsely implicate them, Ex.P.5 and P.42 were concocted by PW3 and PW34.
31 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
11.2. It is the definite contention of the accused that before the registration of the case itself, Lokayukta Police have conducted investigation & collected evidence and therefore, the very investigation undertaken by PW34 - Mohamed Mukaram shall vitiate by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Lalitha Kumari v/s. Government of UP and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1.
11.3. It is the evidence of PW3 - Ravishankar that in the last week of April 2015, some informants came to him and reported that for Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, the State Government has sanctioned 64 works worth Rs.45 crores, but concerned Engineers, BBMP officials, the MLA and the Contractors were trying to swallow the amount by including 20 works, which are already started. This evidence of PW3 would show that the informants have approached him and appraised him with regard to commission of cognizable offence by the Engineers, BBMP officials, the MLA and the Contractors. It is also the evidence of PW3 that when he enquired said informants, they have shown him a copy of the letter of the Commissioner BBMP requesting the Government to release Rs.250 crores to take up 32 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 development works in 9 MLA constituencies. Thus, this portion of evidence of PW3 would show that, so called informants were very much available at his disposal for the purpose of registration of the case. However, for the best reasons known to him, PW3 did not register the case against the Engineers, BBMP officials, the MLA and the Contractors. No explanation is forthcoming from the side of PW3 as to what prevented him from registering the case against the Engineers, BBMP officials, the MLA and the Contractors when credible information and order of the Government was very much made available to him.
11.4. It is also the evidence of PW3 that he along with said informants have visited 11 places on 29.04.2015 and 30.04.2015, where works were in progress. It emanates from the evidence of PW3 that during the visit to 11 places, he came to know that local MLA - Munirathna Naidu, BBMP officials, Engineers and Standing Committee Members have tried to deceive the State by including the said works as if said works have been carried out on the basis of Rs.45 crores about to be released. Thus, this portion of evidence of PW3 makes it further clear that he got confirmed the illegal acts of local MLA - Munirathna Naidu, BBMP officials, 33 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Engineers and Standing Committee Members to dupe the Government. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 would show that after the receipt of credible information of cognizable offence, he conducted spot inspection and got confirmed commission of cognizable offence. However, even after collecting sufficient information, PW3 did not register the case as provided under Sec.154 of Cr.P.C.
11.5. It is the evidence of PW34 - Mohamad Mukaram that based on Ex.P.5 -complaint, he registered the case and transmitted FIR as per Ex.P.42 to the jurisdictional court. The evidence of this witness would show that when he visited the spot he found progress of the construction work as found in Ex.P.21 to P.31 - photographs. However, there is no explanation from the side of PW34 as to how Ex.P.21 to P.31 photographs were came into his possession. 11.6. The evidence of PW34 in chief examination would show that on 04.05.2015, SP Lokayukta has sent Ex.P.5 - Complaint to him and based on which he has registered the case. Therefore, it is very clear from the evidence of this witness that he became the investigator into the present crime only after 04.05.2015. In fact, this witness has 34 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 categorically deposed that on 04.05.2015 he started his investigation. This fact is evident from his deposition at paragraph No.69. So, it is for this witness to show that he has conducted investigation only after 04.05.2015 and not prior to it.
11.7. It is the definite evidence of PW34 that he started investigation only after 04.05.2015. However, during the course of his cross examination at paragraph No.70 and 71, this witness has deposed as follows:
"70. ನಪ 9 ರ ಪವಟ ಸಲಖಗನ 67 ರಲಲರರವ ದನಪಲಕ 16.04.2015 ರ ಪತಪವನರನ ನಪನರ ರಪಯರಪಪಲಕ ಅಭಯಲತರರಗಗ ಬರಗದರರತಗತಮನಗ. ನಪ 9 ರ ಪವಟ ಸಲಖಗನ 66 ರ ಪಪರಪರ ದನಪಲಕ 16.04.2015 ರಲದರ ರಪಯರಪಪಲಕ ಅಭಯಲತರರರ ನನಗಗ ಉತತರದ ರಮತಯಲಲ ಪತಪವನರನ ಬರಗದರರತಪತರಗ. ಸದರ ಪವಟ ಸಲಖಗನ 66 ಮತರತ 67 ನರನ ನಡ 9 ಮತರತ 10 ಎಲದರ ಗರರರತಸಲಪಯತರ. ನಡ 10 ರಲಲರರವ ಸಪಕಕಯ ರರಜರವನರನ ನಡ 10 (ಎ) ಎಲದರ ಗರರರತಸಲಪಯತರ.
71. ದನಪಲಕ 16.04.2015 ರಲದರ ನಪನರ ಪಪಕರರದ ತನಖಪಧರಪರಯಪಗ ಇರಲಲಲ ಎನರನವವದರ ನಜ. ಸಪಕಕಯರ ಸಶತತ ಅರರ ರಚಪರಣಗಯ ಸಲದರರದಲಲ ಸದರ ಪತಪವನರನ ಬರಗದರರತಗತಮನಗ ಎಲದರ ತಳಸರರತಪತರಗ. ಯಪವ ಅರರ ಎಲಬ ಮಪಹತಯನರನ ಈ ಸಲದರರದಲಲ ರಗಜಡಲರ ಸಪಧನರರರವವದಲಲ".
From this evidence of PW34, it is clear that much prior to the registration of the case, more precisely on 16.04.2015 itself he has written a letter to the Executive Engineer (accused No.1) and sought information. So, the above act of PW34 in collecting information is contrary to Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. This observation is made because PW3 - Ravishankar M.N. 35 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 before lodging Ex.P.5 - written Complaint, he too conducted spot inspection, cross verified the information and found that construction works were in progress. Further, even before receipt of Ex.P.5, PW34 has written letter to Executive Engineer on 16.04.2015 and collected information and documents.
11.8. Further, in paragraph No.74, this witness has deposed as follows:
"74. ನಪನರ ನಡ 10 ರಲತಗ ಬರಗದರರವ ಪತಪ ನಡ 11 ರ ರಮತಯ ದಜರರ ಮತರತ ನಪ 8 (ಜಗ) ರಮತಯ ಆದಗಮಶ ಆದ ನಲತರದಲಲ ಬರಗದರರವ ಪತಪ ಎನರನವವದರ ಸರ. ನಪನರ ಟ.ರ.ಸ.ಸ.ಯಲದ ಪಡಗದರರಗಜಲಡ ಪತಪಗಳಲಲ ನಡ 11 ರ ರಮತಯ ದಜರರ ಮತರತ ನಪ 8 (ಜಗ) ರ ರಮತಯ ಆದಗಮಶ ಕಜಡಪ ಇದಯವವ ಎನರನವವದರ ಸರ. ಅಲದರಗ ಶವರಣರವರರ ಆಯರಕತರಗಗ ದಜರರ ರಗಜಟಷರರವ ರಚಪರ ನನನ ಗಮನದಲಲತರತ ಎನರನವವದರ ನಜ. ನಪನರ ಸದರ ಶವರಣರವರನರನ ನನನ ತನಖಪ ರಪಲದಲಲ ರಚಪರಣಗ ಮಪಡಲಲ ಎನರನವವದರ ನಜ".
From the above evidence of PW34, it is also clear that before the registration of the case, he has sought information with regard to photographs annexed to letter as per Ex.D.10. It is very pertinent to note that xerox copies of photographs annexed to Ex.D.10 and photographs marked by the Prosecution during trial as per Ex.P.21 to P.31 are one and the same. This PW34 in paragraph No.105 of his evidence has deposed as follows:
"105. ನಡ 10 ರ ಪತಪದಲಲ ಉಲಗಲಮಖಸರರವ ಪಮಟಗಜಮಗಳಗಮ ನಪ 21 ರಲದ 31 ರ ರಮತಯ ಪಮಟಗಜಮಗಳರ ಆಗರರತತವಗ. ನಪನರ 36 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 ತನಖಪಧರಪರಯಪಗ ನಗಮಮಕಗಗಜಳರಳವ ಪಪವರದಲಲಯಮ ನಪ 21 ರಲದ 31 ರವರಗಗನ ಪಮಟಗಜಮಗಳರ ನನನ ಸರಪದರಯಲಲದಯವವ ಎನರನವವದರ ಸರ".
Therefore, from the evidence of PW34 also, it is very clear that prior to he assuming the charge of Investigator, Ex.P.21 to P.31 were in his custody. However, interestingly in paragraph No.112 of his deposition this witness has deposed that he do not know as to when Ex.P.21 to P.31 photographs were taken. If really this PW34 is honest in his statement, he ought to have stated as to when Ex.P.21 to P.31 photographs were taken. But, he did not exhibit such an attitude. Therefore, from the above evidence of PW34, it is very clear that before registration of the case itself, he has conducted investigation and sought the information as per Ex.D.10.
11.9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to make a mention with regard to provisions of Sec.154 enumerated under chapter XII of Cr.P.C. As per this provision of law every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of the Police Station, shall be reduced in to writing. Admittedly, PW3 and PW34 are the Officers working in Lokayukta Police Station. The evidence of PW3 would show that he received credible information, visited the spot along with informants and 37 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 collected further information. However, he did not register the case. The evidence of PW34 would show that before registration of the case Ex.P.21 to P.31 were in his possession and on the basis of the same he written a letter as per Ex.D.10 to the Executive Engineer and in turn received information as per Ex.D.9. As per Ex.D.9 Files pertaining to alleged constructions were also sent to PW34. However, for the reasons best known to PW34 he did not produce the Files annexed to Ex.D.9 to the scrutiny of this Court. In addition to the above, the evidence of PW34 would further show that he was aware of Ex.D.11 - Complaint lodged by one L.Shivanna. But, by placing reliance on Ex.D.11, PW34 did not register any case. Thus, it is clear that without registering the case, PW3 has conducted enquiry, whereas PW34 has conducted investigation and received the Files annexed to letter as per Ex.D.9.
11.10. As per the evidence of PW3 he received credible information and informants were very much available at his disposal. But received information not recorded by PW3 in Station House Diary. Further, though PW34 through Ex.D.9 collected evidence, he did not register the case. In view of the above circumstances, it is just and necessary to place 38 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari's case referred to herein above.
11.11. A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has held that registration of First Information Report is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the following guidelines regarding the registration of FIR.
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 39 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.40 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
11.12. The definite evidence of PW3 would show that he received credible information that concerned Engineers, BBMP officials, the MLA and Contractors are trying to swallow the Government amount. Further, this PW3 visited 11 places of construction and conducted enquiry. The evidence of PW34 would show that he collected photographs as per Ex.P.21 to P.31, written letter to Executive Engineer as per Ex.D.10 along with photographs, received information as per Ex.D.9 along with Files relating to constructions that are found in Ex.P.21 to P.31. But, for the reasons best known to PW34 so far he did not produce those Files before the Court. The evidence of PW34 in chief examination would show as if only on 04.05.2015 he came to know about the alleged illegal act of the accused. But, the fact is not so. So, according to this Court, even after securing sufficient materials this PW34 did not register the case. However, in the present case the fact remains that the Prosecution has not relied on the letter as per Ex.D.10, reply as per Ex.D.9 and the Files annexed to it. Therefore, it is for this 41 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Court to appreciate as to what sanctity needs to be attached to the testimony of PW34 and the documents collected by him prior to registration of the case.
11.13. From the discussions made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the act done by PW3 - Ravishankar M.N. in conducting preliminary enquiry by way of spot inspection is in accordance with the ratio of the decision in Lalitha Kumari's case. The evidence of PW34, contents of Ex.D.9 & D.10 and photographs at Ex.P.21 to P.31 would clearly establish that before registration of the case itself, PW34 has collected the evidence. In 2012 (5) KLJ 545 in the case between L.Shankaramurthy and others vs. State by Lokayukta Police, by placing reliance on Bhajan Lal's case and also case in Ramesh Kumari vs. State reported in 2006 (2) SCC 677, it was held that the provision of Sec.154 is mandatory and the Police Officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on receiving the information disclosing cognizable offence. Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. casts a statutory duty upon the Police Officer to register a case as disclosed in the complaint and 42 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 then to proceed with investigation. But in the present case there has been no compliance of the mandatory provisions of law as contemplated in Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. In fact, the learned counsel for accused No.1 has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2015 (5) KLJ 663 in the case between Ashru alias Ashraf and others and argued that registration of the FIR is mandatory under Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such situation. In the present case also the evidence of PW34 and the documents marked through his evidence clearly indicate that he has collected materials much prior to the date of registration of the case. So, the conclusion of this Court would be that, the collection of evidence by PW34 before registration of case is not recognized under law. However, the Prosecution has not placed reliance on Ex.D.9 and D.10. On the contrary, it has relied on photographs at Ex.P.21 to P.31 to show that illegal constructions were going on at the spot. Therefore, it is for this Court to appreciate as to what weightage can be given to those photographs. 11.14. The substance of complaint dated 02.05.2015 in a nutshell is that the Government of Karnataka has released 43 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Rs.45 crores for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar constituency. The officials of BBMP coming under said ward, the member of Legislative Assembly of the said constituency and others connived together and included more than 20 projects in 64 projects for proposal. The chunk of the offence according to the complainant is that the 20 items included by the said persons concerning to the projects which were already completed by withholding the information with the Government and presented that the said projects are to be started a fresh and included the same. Their scheme was to knock off the proportionate expenditure amount of the said projects which were already completed. Further, as per Ex.P.5, on 10.11.2014, the Commissioner BBMP through his letter No.6586/14-15 addressed to the Government stated that 3 constituencies including KR Puram, Yeshwanthapura and Rajarajeshwari Nagar require amount of Rs.45 crores each for its development. It is in this connection, the project of Rajarajeshwari Nagar constituency came to light by virtue of Ex.P.5 - Complaint dated 02.05.2015.
11.15. The 11 projects narrated in Ex.P.5 - complaint dated 02.05.2015 are as under:
44 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
1. Ward No.17, J.P.Park, Garden Gate No.2, construction of new filter water building. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
2. Ward No.17, J.P.Park, construction of new filter water building at Muthyalamma Temple Compound, 7th Main Road, M.E.S Road. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
3. Ward No.17, J.P.Park, construction of new filter water building at Bandappa Garden, Muthyalanagar, J.P.Park Back Gate. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
4. Ward No.17, J.P.Park, construction of new filter water building at Bandappa Garden, Muthyalanagar, J.P.Park Back Gate, next to railway gate. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
5. Ward No.17, J.P.Park, construction of new building at Bandappa Garden, Muthyalanagar, J.P.Park Back Gate, by demolition of old building for Patch work. (Estimated value Rs.75 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
6. Ward No.38, HMT Layout, construction of Hallow Bricks temporary shed at Pre-University College Road via Gokul Bakery Agency. (Estimated value Rs.200 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
7. Ward No.38, HMT Layout, construction of water filter building at Pre-University College Road, via Gokul Bakery Agency. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
8. Ward No.129, Jnanabharathi Ward, construction of water filter at Magadi Main Road, Hanumantharayanapalya next to Sunkadakatte Lakshminarasimha Temple. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
9. Ward No.129, Jnanabharathi Ward, construction of water filter at 'D' Group Layout, 2nd Main Road, Back side of Eranapalya Vidyavahini School. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
10. Ward No.129, Jnanabharathi Ward, construction of water filter next to Kengunte Playground, Opposite to Ambedkar College. (Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).45 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
11. Ward No.129, Jnanabharathi Ward, construction of water filter at 1st Cross, next to park, Ullal Road, Opposite to University Road, Government Press Layout.
(Estimated value Rs.20 lakhs as stated in the Proposal list).
11.16. In view of the above factual aspect, it is just and necessary to appreciate the evidence both oral and documentary placed on record. Learned Prosecutor has argued that without any tender and without following required procedure, 20 works were taken up with a view to dupe the Government. However, learned Counsels appearing for accused have vehemently contended that there is no link between charge framed and evidence produced by the Prosecution. It was also argued that if really the accused have tried to include 20 works which were already been taken up, it is for the Prosecution to produce material particulars with regard to nature of work, when tender was called, who was the Contractor, what was the amount sanctioned, what was the scheme under which project was approved and when bill was encashed and what was the amount released etc., but the Prosecution did not produce any such particulars. It was also argued that without such particulars based only on the say of Prosecution witnesses it cannot be said that 20 works which were already taken up 46 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 were included in 64 works only to dupe the Government and to knock off the proportionate expenditure amount of the said 20 projects. Further, Sri. M.M. Advocate for accused No.6 and 7 has argued that as required under Sec.13(1)(c) of the PC Act, property was not entrusted to the accused, they have no control over the property and to show that construction work was carried out in the land belonging to BBMP, documents are not produced. Therefore, according to him there is no evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged. In view of the above rival arguments, it is just and necessary to appreciate the evidence placed on record.
11.17. It is the evidence of PW34 - Mohamed Mukaram that on registration of the case, he secured the presence of two panchas by name V. Sendil Kumar and J. Sathish Chandra and also search warrant as per Ex.P.7 so as to search the office of accused No.1. His evidence further reveal the fact that he visited the office of BBMP Project Division and appraised one Manjunathswamy, Junior Engineer about the registration of case in Cr.No.25/2015. The evidence of PW34 would further indicate that he secured documents from TVCC which was consisting of four 47 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Files i.e., 4 note sheets and 13 proceeding sheets running from page No.21 to 48, File No.341/2014-15, File No. 342/2014-15 and File No.343/2014-15 and seized the same in the presence of panchas under Ex.P.6 panchanama. The Files so seized by PW34 are marked as per Ex.P.8, P.9, P.10 and P.11.
11.18. The prosecution has examined one Sathish Chandra as PW4. The evidence of this witness would show that he participated in the search and on the basis of Ex.P.7 Search Warrant, PW34 has seized four Files under Ex.P.6 panchanama. The evidence of this PW4 would show that four Files that were seized by PW34 are available before the Court as per Ex.P.8 to P.11 respectively.
11.19. The evidence of PW4 and PW34 is in tune with the contents of Mahazar dated 04.05.2015 as per Ex.P.6. It is pertinent to note that with regard to supply of copy of Mahazar to accused No.1 is concerned, the Investigator obtained his signature as per Ex.P.6(c). Though PW4 and PW34 have deposed in tune with the contents of Ex.P.6 Mahazar, nothing is suggested to them that the documents as per Ex.P.8 to P.11 were not at all seized in the office of 48 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 accused No.1 after getting the same from TVCC, BBMP, Bengaluru. The unchallenged testimony of PW4 and PW34 is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that Ex.P.8 to P.11 Files were seized by PW34 by following the procedure established by law. However, fact remains that mere seizure of the documents does not lead to the presumption that whatever documents collected by the Investigating Officer are relevant to establish the guilt of the accused. 11.20. It is the evidence of PW34 that on 07.05.2015 he secured the presence of pancha witnesses by name Sendil Kumar and Sathish Chandra and conducted spot inspection. According to PW34, Work Inspector - Nagaraju and AEE - Rudrawadi (accused No.10), have taken the team to the spot. This evidence of PW34 is in accordance with the evidence of PW4 - Sathish Chandra.
11.21. According to PW34 he along with panchas visited to Ward No.17 - JP Park and found construction of i) new Water Filter near East gate, ii) new Water Filter near West gate, iii) new Water Filter near South gate, iv) new Water Filter near Muthyalamma Temple, v) new Gym building near HMT playground and vi) new Water Storage Tank near West 49 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 gate. According to PW34 these 6 constructions were carried out without any work order, tender or other proceedings. This witness has deposed that while inspecting the above said constructions, he has video graphed and prepared CD as per Article No.1 and drawn Ex.P.12 - Mahazar in BBMP office. The above evidence of PW34 is in accordance with Ex.P.12.
11.22. In so far as spot inspection and drawing of Ex.P.12
- Mahazar is concerned, the Prosecution has also placed reliance on the evidence of PW4 - Sathish Chandra. It is his definite evidence that panchas along with Investigating Officer have visited Ward No.17 of JP park and found that in four places Water Filter plants were erected, in one place gym was under construction and in another place ground level Water Tank was under construction. This evidence of PW4 is in tune with the contents of Ex.P.12 - Mahazar and in consonance with the testimony of PW34.
11.23. From the scrutiny of evidence of PW4, PW34 and the contents of Ex.P.12, it emanates that constructions were going on in six places of Ward No.17 of JP Nagar, BBMP Ward. According to PW34, accused No.10 - Rudrawadi who 50 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 was present at the spot stated that he is not aware as to who is carrying out the construction work. So, it is for PW34 to show as to what investigation he has carried out to find out as to whether these works were carried out without any tender or other procedure which are required to be followed to put up construction within BBMP jurisdiction. It is also for PW34 to demonstrate that though above six works were at the verge of completion, these accused have included the same in the proposed 64 works so as to swallow proportionate portion of money allotted.
11.24. According to PW34, on 07.05.2015 itself along with panchas he visited Ward No.38, HMT Ward, Ward No.42 Lakshmidevi Nagar Ward and Ward No.129 Jnanabharathi Ward. As per the say of PW34, one Ashwath Reddy (accused No.8) was also present at the spot and he was asked to show 17 places where construction works were in progress. In this case, the Prosecution has examined one of the panchas to the spot Mahazar by name J. Sathish Chandra as PW4. His evidence is in tune with the evidence of PW34. 11.25. In order to prove the Mahazars as per Ex.P.12, P.13 and P.14, the Prosecution has also placed reliance on 51 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 the evidence of PW24 - Chandrashekar T.D. According to him on 07.05.2015, he along with Lokayukta Police and AEE Rudrawadi visited to JP Park of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Assembly Constituency and found 6 construction works and accordingly a Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.12. The evidence of this witness would show that when enquired AEE Rudrawadi has stated that there are no information or documents with regard to putting up of 6 construction works. The evidence of this PW24 is in accordance with the theory of the Prosecution. Further, PW24 has also deposed that they have visited HMT Layout and examined 103 houses built under Ashraya Scheme and they were at the verge of completion. According to PW24, AEE Ashwath Reddy was also present at the time of inspection. This witness has also deposed that they have inspected Mineral Water buildings and building meant for Nada Kacheri which were under construction at D Group Employees Layout, Press Club Layout and Pantharapalya. According to PW24 a Panchanama was drawn as per Ex.P.13.
11.26. It is also the evidence of PW24 that on 11.05.2015, they have visited Lakshmidevi Ward along with AEE Ramesh and found one Water Storage building but said 52 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 AEE has stated that there are no documents with regard to putting up of construction found therein. According to PW24, a panchanama was drawn as per Ex.P.14. The above portion of evidence of PW24 in respect of Ex.P.12, P.13 and P.14 and in corroboration with the theory of the Prosecution. 11.27. It is the definite evidence of PW34 that construction of 54 Ashraya Houses was in progress in Ward No.38 of HMT Ward. According to him construction of 103 houses were already completed, but, houses were not allotted to the beneficiaries. This PW34 has also deposed that in Ward No.42 of Lakshmidevi Nagar, construction of Nada Kacheri Building was in progress. It emanates from the evidence of PW34 that in Ward No.129 of Jnanabharathi Ward at Hanumantharayanapalya, one Mineral Water Filter building, one Mineral Water Filter building at 4th Main Road and one Mineral Water Filter building near Press Layout were under construction. The evidence of PW4 also disclose the same fact. However, it is the evidence of PW34 that in respect of the said construction, Ashwath Reddy did not furnish any information.
53 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.28. The evidence of PW4, PW24 and PW34 would show that in respect of constructions that were going on at Ward No.38, 42 and 129, a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.13 and proceedings were video graphed and CD was prepared as per Article No.2. This process of drawing Mahazar is not at all denied by the accused. However, it is the contention of the accused that it is for the prosecution to show that the constructions that are narrated in Ex.P.12 and P.13 were carried out in the land belonging to BBMP. 11.29. It is the evidence of PW4, PW24 and PW34 that they have also visited Ward No.160 Pantharapalya of Bangarappa Nagar and found one Water Filter building which was under construction. According to these witnesses, the place was shown by one Ramesh (accused No.6), Assistant Engineer, BBMP. According to the Prosecution a Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.14 and proceedings were video graphed and CD was prepared as per Article No.3. Thus, the above discussed evidence clearly establish the fact that PW34 has drawn Ex.P.12 to P.14 Mahazars in the presence of witnesses and videographed the proceedings.
54 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.30. In this case, CD's so prepared by this PW34 as per Article No.1 to 3 were marked as Ex.P.16, P.17 and P.18 during the course of examination of PW4 - G. Sathish Chandra . A perusal of deposition of PW4 in paragraph No.8, 9 and 10 would clearly show that these 3 CD's were marked subject to objection by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 Crl. LJ. 1254 in the case between Bipin Shanthilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarath. In the present case, the evidence of PW4 is in tune with the evidence of PW34 that while conducting spot inspection, he has video graphed the proceedings and prepared CD's as per Ex.P.16, P.17 and P.18. 11.31. Here in this case, in so far as compliance of Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, PW34 has produced Certificate as per Ex.P.46. The essential elements of electronic evidence as per the provisions of Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act are that such produced information of electronic records should be produced by the person having legally authorised to have control over that electronic device. In the present case, a perusal of contents of Ex.P.46 would show that the process of spot inspection was video graphed by Sony Handycam and visuals were burnt into 55 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 CD's through HP Laptop. The evidence of PW34 would show that said Sony Handycam and HP Laptop were used at the time of investigation. The meaning of evidence of PW34 and the contents of Ex.P.46 is that the electronic device i.e., Sony Handycam was in the control of this PW34 and he was legally authorised. Further, a perusal of Ex.P.46 would also show that electronic devices i.e., Sony Handycam and HP Laptop were in a functioning state. In addition to the above the accused have not taken any contention that those electronic devices were not free from any kind of distortion or manual edit or manipulation. In so far as contents of Ex.P.46 is concerned there is no effective cross examination. 11.32. In the present case, though PW34 has deposed in tune with the contents of Ex.P.46 and in accordance with the theory of the Prosecution, nothing was suggested to him that visuals that are found in Ex.P.16, P.17 and P.18 were tampered or morphed. So, to disbelieve or to discard the evidence of PW34 and the contents of Ex.P.46, absolutely there are no reasons much less good reasons. No doubt the testimony of PW34 is interested one. However, in so far as the testimony of PW4 is concerned, no fault can be attached to it. This is because PW4 being a independent person has 56 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 deposed as to what was transpired on the relevant date of spot inspection. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the Prosecution has proved Ex.P.16, P.17 and P.18 as provided under Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
11.33. It is the evidence of PW34 that during the course of his investigation, on 18.05.2015, he secured information from the Joint Commissioner, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone as per Ex.P.20, P.39, P.40 and P.41. The author of the above documents by name B.Veerabhadrappa is examined as PW8. According to him as requested by the Investigating Officer i.e., PW34 he has furnished information as per Ex.P.20. 11.34. It is the evidence of PW36 - B.S. Sathish that based on the documents collected by PW34 he has prepared Final Report and placed the same before his Senior Officer to secure Sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 9. In addition to the evidence of PW36, PW31 - Basavaraju Pulhari has deposed with regard to filing of Charge Sheet. Hence, it is for this Court to examine the evidence of Prosecution witnesses individually and to find out whether the evidence produced by the Prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused or not.
57 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.35. In the Charge Sheet at column No.7 it is specifically alleged that the Government of Karnataka has released Rs.45 crores to carry out 64 development works in Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone of BBMP, however, the MLA, BBMP Officers and other persons have connived together and included more than 20 constructions which were already completed in 64 proposed constructions and by withholding the information to the Government and projected as if those projects are to be started a fresh and their intention was to knock off the proportionate expenditure amount of the 20 constructions which were already completed. However, contrary to the above allegations, at the time of trial it was projected by the Prosecution as if 20 works were carried out without following tender procedure and hence, the same are illegal constructions.
11.36. It is the evidence of PW3 Ravishankar M.N. who has set criminal law in motion by lodging Ex.P.5 - Complaint that the Engineers, BBMP Officials, the MLA and the Contractors are trying to swallow the amount against 20 works which were already started. It is not the evidence of PW3 that 20 works were illegally carried out. Further, it is 58 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 also his evidence that he came to know that local MLA Munirathna Naidu, BBMP Officials and Standing Committee Members tried to deceive the State by including the said works as if the said works have been carried out on the basis of Rs.45 crores about to be released. Therefore, this portion of evidence of PW3 would indicate that 20 works were already completed, but, the accused have included those works in proposed 64 works and made an attempt to swindle proportionate cost of construction. Hence, from the evidence of this witness it cannot be said that 20 works were carried out illegally or that the same are carried out without following tender procedure.
11.37. PW5 - Nanjappa V. the then Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, deposed that during the investigation of the case, he came to know that 6 projects were in progress and Rs.45 crores was released by the Government under MLA Fund for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Ward. The above evidence of PW5 is in no way help the Prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
59 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.38. At this juncture, it is appropriate to place reliance on evidence of PW1 who was working as Commissioner BBMP during 2016. In so far as present case is concerned, he has deposed that the State of Karnataka approved 64 works on 20.01.2015 and on 17.03.2015, then Commissioner put up a note to place the agenda for said works before the Standing Committee and on 27.03.2015, Standing Committee approved the said work. According to this witness after approval by the Standing Committee concerned File shall move to the Executive Engineer (Project) of that division. During the course of evidence of this witness relevant page is marked Ex.D.2. Thus, from the evidence of this witness it is very clear that only after the approval order of Standing Committee dated 27.03.2015, the Files were placed before accused No.1 for further action in the matter.
11.39. It is also the evidence of PW1 that in the present case on 31.03.2015 the said Executive Engineer (Project) (accused No.1) directed the Assistant Executive Engineer and his subordinates of Project Division to conduct spot inspection and also to prepare estimates of the said works. The letter of accused No.1 dated 31.03.2015, admitted by 60 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 PW1 is marked as Ex.D.3. A perusal of Ex.D.3 would clearly indicate that after the approval of the Standing Committee dated 27.03.2015, accused No.1 directed his subordinates to conduct spot inspection and prepare estimates of said works. So, the admitted document would show that the role of accused No.1 in respect of proposed 64 works came into play only after 27.03.2015.
11.40. Further, PW1 has deposed that until order as per Ex.D.3 was passed by the Executive Engineer (Project), there was no occasion for the AEE, JE or AE of the Project Division to make spot inspection or do any other work with reference to the said 64 works. This portion of evidence of PW1 is in the lines of defence taken by the accused.
11.41. The Commissioner of BBMP at the relevant point of time by name M. Lakshminarayana is examined as PW28. It is his definite evidence that he has written a letter to the Government to sanction a sum of Rs.45 crores for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone. According to him, Government has instructed him to send the proposal after approval from Ward Standing Committee. It is also his 61 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 evidence that the Government has accorded sanction to carry out the projects as per rules.
11.42. The letter of this PW28 is marked as per Ex.D.8 by confronting the same to him. As per Ex.D.8 on 20.01.2015, PW28 has written a letter to the Government for the release of Rs.45 crores to carry out development works in Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Assembly Constituency. This Ex.D.8 is annexed with list of 64 works proposed for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Assembly Constituency. In response to the request so made by PW28 under the letter dated 20.01.2015 as per Ex.D.8, on 29.01.2015, the Government has passed order as per Ex.D.1(a). A list of proposed work as per Ex.D.1 is annexed to the order of the Government as per Ex.D.1(a).
11.43. A perusal of Ex.D.1(a) clearly indicate that the Government has issued the order subject to five conditions. As per this order after approval of the project, BBMP has to prepare estimates and obtain technical and administrative approval from the Competitive Authority, tender should be called for as provided under the Provisions of KTPP Act and Rules, project should not be repeated, there shall be no 62 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 change in the approved project and as per the action plan project should be commenced and after completion of the project, proposal shall be sent to the Government for the release of the amount in the coming financial year. 11.44. Therefore, from the study of Ex.D.1 and D.1(a), Ex.D.8 and D.8(a), it is very clear that the Commissioner BBMP have sought for the approval of 64 works for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Assembly Constituency at the cost of Rs.45 crores and the Government has accorded approval, however, subject to conditions. Thus, it is also clear that the request of PW28 was considered by the Government on 29.01.2015. 11.45. According to PW28, he has placed the order of the Government in approving 64 works at the cost of Rs.45 crores before the Joint Commissioner and Chief Engineer of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone. His evidence would also show that during 2015 approval was secured from the Ward Standing Committee and there afterwards the File was sent to the Joint Commissioner and to the Engineering Division. From the above evidence of PW28 it is clear that he has 63 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 deposed with regard to the procedure to be followed to carry out any project within the limits of BBMP.
11.46. It is the evidence of PW28 that as per Ex.P.21 to P.31, the construction works were started much prior to granting of approval. This witness further clarifies that without the approval of the Government, of the Standing Committee and without any work order, the construction works were commenced. The meaning of the evidence of this witness is that the constructions that are found in Ex.P.21 to P.31 photographs were carried out much earlier to Ex.D.8 dated 20.01.2015 and Ex.D.1(a) dated 29.01.2015. However, the Investigation Agency has contended that in order to swindle part of cost of constructions, the accused have included works which were already at the verge of the completion. Therefore, the evidence of PW28 that works were commenced much earlier to 20.01.2015 without following the procedure is of no avail to the Prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
11.47. The Prosecution has examined Ravishankar, the then Special Commissioner (project) as PW29. According to him he received Action Plan for proposed 64 works at the 64 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 cost of Rs.45 crores. This witness has deposed that after receipt of the File he has placed the same before the Commissioner. However, he has deposed that he do not know whether Standing Committee has approved the work or not. His evidence would also show that since works were carried out without any approval, said works are to be treated as illegal. Thus, from the evidence of PW28 and PW29, it is clear that by virtue of the order of the Government, it is for the project division to carry out the construction in accordance with procedure established, however, 11 works were commenced without following the procedure. This evidence of PW28 and PW29 is contrary to the charges leveled against the accused.
11.48. It is the contention of the Prosecution that the Standing Committee of BBMP, in pursuance with the orders of PW28 Lakshminarayana dated 13.03.2015, as available in sketch ink page No.84 to 86 of File No.II, the Standing Committee has passed Resolution as per proceedings No.341/2014-15 dated 27.03.2015 as per page No.80 to 83 and thereby given approval for 49 works. In the present case, the Prosecution has placed reliance on xerox copy of Resolution dated 27.03.2015 available in page No.32 to 35. 65 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 There is no explanation from the side of the Prosecution as to why it has placed reliance on xerox copy of the Resolution when original Resolution itself is available. Similarly, based on the orders of the Commissioner BBMP, the Standing Committee of Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP Ward has passed Resolution in 342/2014-15 dated 27.03.2015 as available in sketch ink page No.171 of File No.II. Under this Resolution, 6 works were approved by the Standing Committee. Similarly, in tune with the orders of Commissioner dated 17.03.2015, the Standing Committee has accorded approval for 9 constructions as per Resolution No.343/2014-15. This order is available in Sketch Ink page No.302 and signatures of the Standing Committee are available in page No.303 and the same is marked as Ex.P.32.
11.49. Therefore, the reading of above referred documents would clearly indicate that the Standing Committee has given approval for 49 works in Resolution No.341/2014-15, 6 works in Resolution No.342/2014-15 and 9 works in Resolution No.343/2014-15. So, in total as per the Resolution dated 27.03.2015, the Standing Committee has approved total 64 works. It is very relevant to note that at the first instance itself by lodging Ex.P.5 complaint, PW3 - 66 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 M.N. Ravishankar has categorically stated that though 11 constructions were in progress, those constructions are included in the newly proposed 64 works.
11.50. In this case, President of the Standing Committee by name Smt. Suguna Balakrishna is examined as PW21. It is her definite evidence that she being the President of Standing Committee along with 9 members has approved for 64 works at the estimated cost of Rs.45 crores. One of the member of the Standing Committee i.e., Smt. Queen Elizabeth is examined as PW14. According to her the Standing Committee has passed Resolution for carrying out 41 + 6 + 9 works under 3 Resolutions and Resolutions bears her signature as per Ex.P.8(d), Ex.P.10(i) and Ex.P.32(b) respectively. However, it is her definite evidence that she did not visit the spot before putting her signature on the Resolutions. According to her though constructions were not carried out, amount was drawn. This evidence of PW14 is contrary to the theory of the Prosecution. One more member of the Committee by name Smt. Puttamma is examined as PW15. According to her at the instance of Chairman of the Committee by name Smt. Suguna Balakrishna she has signed to the Resolutions. In addition to the above, 67 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Smt.Kriya Shylaja being PW16 has deposed that on 27.03.2015 they have passed Resolutions in order to carry out 49 + 6 + 9 works within the limits of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone of BBMP. This witness has deposed that the Resolutions bear her signature as per Ex.P.8(f), Ex.P.10(j) and Ex.P.32(d) respectively. Her evidence would also indicate that at the instance of Smt. Suguna Balakrishna she has signed the same without conducting Spot inspection. 11.51. In so far as the Resolutions dated 27.03.2015 are concerned the Prosecution has also examined one of the Member of the Standing Committee by name Gopi as PW17. It is his specific evidence that without conducting spot inspection, they have passed the Resolutions to carry out 64 works, As per the say of this witness the Resolutions do contain his signatures. However, it is his definite evidence that at the instance of Smt. Suguna Balakrishna he has signed on the Resolutions. Further, one Smt.Munirathnamma being one of the Member of the Standing Committee being PW13 has deposed that at the instance of Smt. Suguna Balakrishna she has signed on the Resolutions. One more member by name Smt. Yashodamma K.R. being PW25 has also deposed that without conducting spot inspection she 68 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 has signed on the Resolutions at the instance of Smt.Suguna Balakrishna. Further, Smt. Geetha Srinivasa Reddy being PW33 has deposed that they have passed 3 Resolutions on 27.03.2015 to carry out 64 constructions. Her evidence is in accordance with the contents of the Resolutions referred to herein above. Further the Prosecution has examined Smt.Nirmala one of the Standing Committee Member as PW35 and she has deposed with regard to Resolution dated 27.03.2015. Thus, the evidence of above witnesses clearly indicate that they being responsible members of BBMP have passed Resolutions without conducting spot inspection. 11.52. As has been stated herein above, the President of Standing Committee Smt. Suguna Balakrishna being PW21, has deposed that as the Commissioner has sent 3 tippannis (orders), they have passed 3 Resolutions so as to carry out 64 works. However, her evidence would also show that subject to final approval they have passed 3 Preliminary Resolutions. A meaningful reading of evidence of this witness would show that all these 3 Resolutions were passed in respect of 64 works. It is her evidence that since her term would be completing on 15.04.2015 she has passed the Resolutions on 27.03.2015 without conducting spot 69 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 inspection. Therefore, from the evidence of President and Members of the Committee, this Court is of the opinion that the Standing Committee has also failed in discharging its duties.
11.53. The Member of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Legislative Assembly constituency at the given point of time by name Munirathna is examined as PW32. According to him Government has sanctioned money for 64 works. However, it is his evidence that he did not make any recommendations to the Government for the approval of 64 works. This evidence of PW32 is contrary to the undisputed document i.e., Note Sheet available in Ex.P.8, P.10 and P.11. As per the note of the Executive Engineer available in Blue Ink Page No.1 to 3 of Ex.P.8, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, after consulting Member of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Legislative Assembly, a proposal was submitted to the Government for the release of Rs.45 crores to carry out 64 works. However, PW32 being a responsible citizen has deposed that he do not know as to on what basis, the Executive Engineer has referred his Designation in the Note Sheet available in Ex.P.8, P.10 and P.11.
70 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.54. A Perusal of Note Sheet would clearly indicate that the Executive Engineer has not only referred the letter addressed by the Commissioner BBMP to the Government but also the order passed by the Government on 29.01.2015 as per Ex.D.1(a). Therefore, only inference that can be drawn is that the Commissioner BBMP has written letter to the Government on 20.01.2015 for the release of Rs.45 crores in order to carry out development works in Rajarajeshwari Nagar Constituency, after consulting PW32. Therefore, to disbelieve or discard the contents of the Note sheets absolutely there are no reasons. Hence, in view of the same the only inference that can be drawn is that PW26 has come to the Court with a determination to not to depose truth.
11.55. This PW32 has testified in his evidence that he do not know the place of proposed 64 works and public at large have not given any request to him to carry out development works. However, he has admitted that Ex.P.21 to P.31 are the photographs in respect of works that were carried on in his constituency. It was the allegation in Ex.P.5 complaint that this PW32 in collusion with BBMP officials, tried to swindle proportionate cost of construction of 20 works which were at 71 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 the verge of completion. Further, while filing the charge sheet also the Investigation Officer has also opined in charge sheet column No.7 that those 20 works were included in the newly proposed 64 works at the instigation of this PW32 who was the Member of Legislative Assembly. So, the opinion expressed by the Investigator is in tune with the Note Sheets of Ex.P.8, P.10 and P.11 as has been discussed herein above. 11.56. In this case, a perusal of the document at Ex.D.11 would show that one L. Shivanna, has lodged complaint to the Commissioner BBMP on 06.04.2015. A reading of complaint as per Ex.D.11 would indicate that there is reference of the orders of the Government dated 19.01.2015 and 29.01.2015. In the complaint it is specifically averred as follows:
"ಅನರಮದನಗ ಪಡಗದರ ತಗರಗದ ಟಗಲಡರಲ ನಡಗಸದಗ ತಮಮ ಅನರಕಜಲರಪಕಗ ಅಧರಪರಗಳರ ರಗ ಆರಲ ಐ ಡ ಎಲಲರಮಜಲಕ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳನರನ ನವರಹಸಲರ ಅನರಮತ ಪಡಗದರರತಪತರಗ. ಇದನರನ ತಮಮ ಅನರಕಜಲರಗಕ ತಕಕಲತಗ ಹಳಗ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳನರನ ಈಗಪಗಲಗಮ ರಗಲಸಗಳರ ಮರಗದರರವ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳಗಗ ನಕಲ ಬಲಲರಮಪಡ ಹರ ಲಪಟಪಯಸಲರ ಸಲಚರ ನಡಗಸರರತಪತರಗ".
From the above averments made in the complaint as per Ex.D.11, it is clear that the allegations were leveled against the officials of BBMP alleging that they have indulged in including the works which were already carried out and some of the works which were at the verge of 72 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 completion as if the said works were new works and attempted to swindle part of Rs.45 crores.
11.57. In the similar line the complaint as per Ex.P.5 lodged by PW3 at the earliest point of time would reveal that BBMP officials, their MLA and others have colluded together and included already completed 20 works as if those works were new works and attempted to swindle a part of Rs.45 crores. The allegations that were made in Ex.D.11 by L. Shivanna and the allegations that were made in Ex.P.5 by the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta are one and the same.
11.58. In the present case PW32 being the MLA of the Constituency has expressed his inability to say about the works that were already carried out. It is his evidence that he has no role to play in respect of constructions that are found in photographs as per Ex.P.21 to P.31. According to him, after approval of the Commissioner the officials have every power to commence the work for the public purpose. However, he has failed to say that the officials have to perform their part of duties in accordance with procedure. The evidence of PW32 would show that he being the 73 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 responsible MLA of the Constituency has given evidence as if he has no role to play in commencement of developments works in his constituency. This evidence of PW32 is contrary to prevailing practices. This is because no development work of the Government shall be carried out in the constituency without the approval of the Sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly. Further, though this PW32 is treated as hostile witness, his statement recorded by the Investigation Officer at the earliest point of time has not been marked by the Prosecution.
11.59. Added to the above evidence, it is the definite evidence of PW3 that he received credible information that concerned Engineers, BBMP Officials, the MLA and Contractors are trying to swallow a sum of Rs.45 crores against the 20 works which were already started. The meaning of the evidence of PW3 is that the accused named above in collusion with MLA/ PW32 have included 20 works which were already commenced in proposed 64 works to make wrongful gain. The above portion of evidence of PW3 is also in tune with the contents of Ex.P.5 and Ex.D.11. 74 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
11.60. This PW3 has further deposed in his evidence that he came to know that local MLA Munirathna Naidu, BBMP Officials, Engineers and Standing Committee Members have tried to deceive the State by including said works as if the said works have been carried out on the basis of Rs.45 crores about to be released. Though PW3 has given evidence in a mathematical precision in tune with Ex.P.5 complaint lodged at the earliest point of time, the Investigator has not taken little pains to record further statement of this witness.
11.61. In this case though the Investigator has collected the complaint of L. Shivanna as per Ex.D.11 at the earliest point of time, he has not chosen to summon said L. Shivanna and record his statement. Therefore, there is something fishy in the investigation carried out by PW34. In his evidence this PW34 in paragraph No.76 has categorically stated that during the course of investigation he was aware of complaint lodged by L. Shivanna but he did not examine him. Further, this PW34 has also deposed that at the time of registration of the case he has arrayed said Munirathna as accused No.1. When a specific suggestion was directed to the effect that since this PW34 colluded with said Munirathna, he did not examine L.Shivanna, he denied the 75 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 suggestion. However, in the circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court that the above suggestion directed to this PW34 appears to be genuine because he has not made any attempt to examine L. Shivanna who was the Vice President of Bengaluru Urban District Congress Committee. Further, a perusal of Ex.D.11 would also show that the mobile number and land line numbers of L. Shivanna is also available. In spite of securing such information, PW34 has not chosen to examine L. Shivanna. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that this PW34 has made attempt to secure the presence of L. Shivanna so as to record his statement.
11.62. In this case in addition to the Mahazars referred to herein above, the Prosecution has also placed reliance on the evidence of PW9 Gangadharaswamy. The evidence of this witness would show that from September 2013 for about one and half years, he was working as Horticulture Superintendent of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone BBMP and he found that construction of Water Tank was going on near East and West Gate of JP Park, Ward No.17. The evidence of this witness is in tune with the Mahazar averments referred to herein above.
76 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.63. In the instant case, the Prosecution has also placed reliance on the evidence of PW10 - A. Venkatarakesh, Assistant Executive Engineer of KPTCL Supply line, Peenya. According to him by looking into photographs he came to know that below the high tension wire drawn in HMT Ward No.38, he found construction of temporary houses. His evidence would also show that he has visited the spot on 21.10.2014 and found the construction of temporary houses, however, the same was done without following prescribed norms. According to this witness, the land was belonged to BBMP and to put up construction below High Tension Wire, permission has not been secured from their department. The evidence of this witness would also show that the construction was in progress. Thus, from the evidence of this PW10 it is clear that the process of putting up of construction of houses was in progress in HMT Ward No.38. 11.64. It is relevant to note that though the Prosecution witnesses were subjected to the process of cross examination, in so far as PW4, PW24 and PW34 who are the witnesses to the Mahazar as per Ex.P.12, P.13 and P.14, nothing was suggested to them to the effect that there were 77 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 no constructions as has been narrated in the Mahazars. In this case, the evidence of material witnesses would show that Ex.P.21 to P.31 photographs are in respect of 11 constructions which were going on within Rajarajeshwari Nagar BBMP Zone. However, mere proving of the Mahazar or the fact that constructions were going on is not sufficient and on the contrary it is for the Prosecution to establish that those 11 constructions were already carried out and they were not fresh constructions approved by the Government under the order dated 29.01.2015 as per Ex.D.1(a). 11.65. In this case, during the course of investigation PW34 Mohamed Mukaram has seized Ex.P.8, P.9, P.10 and P.15. The genuineness of these official documents is not disputed. Ex.P.8 is the File maintained by BBMP with regard to complaint received by the Commissioner of BBMP. A perusal of this document at page No.1 clearly indicate that one L. Shivanna has lodged complaint and accordingly accused No.1 being Executive Engineer has prepared Note Sheet so as to enable him to send the File to TVCC. This note of accused No.1 was approved by Chief Engineer, Joint Commissioner and Chief Engineer (vigilance) BBMP, Bengaluru on 23.04.2015 and 25.04.2015. Therefore, from 78 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 the above document it is clear that as L. Shivanna has lodged complaint, Files pertaining to Rs.45 crores project were submitted to TVCC for further action in the matter. It is very appropriate to note that the action taken by TVCC is not at all made available to the scrutiny of this Court. 11.66. It is appropriate to note here that the internal office note of PW28 Lakshminarayana Commissioner of BBMP is available as per Ex.P.8(j). In fact PW28 himself has deposed that after receipt of complaint of L. Shivanna, he has prepared Ex.P.8(j) internal Office Note dated 08.04.2015 and called upon Chief Engineer, Rajarajeshwara Nagar Zone to send Files in Resolution No.341/2014-15, 342/2014-15 and 343/2014-15 in respect of Ward No.16, 17, 37 and 38. In this case, PW28 has also called upon to submit original records, BR Register, Estimates, Measurement Books and other records to TVCC within 7 days. However, the Investigation Officer i.e., PW34 did not secure above mentioned documents during the course of his Investigation. 11.67. As has been stated above, a copy of complaint of L.Shivanna as per Ex.D.11 is available in Ex.P.8. In addition to it, the orders of the Government, a copy of proceedings in 79 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 341/2014-15 dated 27.03.2015, a copy of Note dated 13.03.2015 of PW28, the proceedings in 342/2014-15 and 343/2014-15 and the Note of PW28 are also available in the File. From the perusal of the above documents it is very clear that at the first instance after consulting PW32 - Munirathna, PW28 has submitted a request to the Government to sanction a sum of Rs.45 crores for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru. 11.68. As narrated herein above, Ex.P.9 would indicate that after consulting MLA, PW28 has requested the Government to grant a sum of Rs.45 crores for 64 projects shown in the action plan. Further, perusal of Note Sheets would show that in an hierarchical manner, File was submitted and ultimately obtained approval from the Government. Therefore, a meaningful reading of Note Sheets of Ex.P.9 would clearly indicate that from the Rank of Commissioner, below the line all the Officers are aware that Government has sanctioned Rs.45 crores so as to carry out estimated 64 works.
11.69. This Ex.P.9 File is consists of the letter of PW34 dated 16.04.2015 as per Ex.D.10 and reply given by accused 80 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 No.1 as per Ex.D.9. Therefore, from the reading of above documents, it is very very clear that much prior to the registration of the case on 02.05.2015, the photographs were in the custody of PW34. In response to the letter of PW34 as per Ex.D.10 dated 16.04.2015, accused No.1 has replied as per Ex.D.9 on 16.04.2015. As per Ex.D.9, accused No.1 has enclosed Files regarding constructions. In Ex.D.9, accused No.1 has stated ಅಡಕಗಳನಳ 1. ಕಕಮಗಕರ ಕಡತದ ಪಕತಗಳನ. Therefore, it is also clear that along with Ex.D.9, accused No.1 has sent copies of Files pertaining to constructions. There is no explanation from the side of PW34 as to what has happened to those documents annexed to Ex.D.9. Further, the evidence placed on record would show that PW34 has not seized originals of the document referred in Ex.D.9. Had this PW34 seized the documents annexed to Ex.D.9, it could have thrown much light to the allegations made against the accused and the MLA as well. So, non production of the documents annexed to Ex.D.9 is one of the stumbling block which has come in the way of the Prosecution.
11.70. In Ex.P.9, there is a letter of accused No.1 dated 31.03.2015, where under this accused No.1 called upon the 81 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Executive Engineer, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, Executive Engineer (Roads and basic amenities) to furnish information with regard to submission of certificate stating that the constructions were not repeated. Further, as per the letter dated 31.03.2015, this accused No.1 has called upon Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of Project Division to submit a Report after visiting the places of constructions and to submit the estimate. In addition to it, there is resolution passed by the Ward Standing Committee along with Job Certificates. Thus, it is clear that after the receipt of Ex.D.1(a) order based on the Note of the Commissioner, the proceedings were commenced in order to carry out 64 works at the cost of Rs.45 crores.
11.71. A perusal of Ex.P.10 File pertaining to the proceedings No.342/2014-15 would also show the same fact. As per this document resolutions were passed to carry out 6 works in Ward No.17 and 37. Similarly, the documents in Ex.P.11 would clearly indicate that at the instance of the Commissioner, Ward Standing Committee has passed resolutions to carry out 9 works in Ward No.17, 38, 73 and 129 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar BBMP Zone. This File also 82 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 consists of Job Number Certificate and the orders of Government dated 29.01.2015.
11.72. The Prosecution has produced Ex.P.15 document prepared in response to the Note of accused No.1. From the perusal of these documents it is clear that proceedings were commenced after securing Government order as per Ex.D.1(a). It is definite case of the Prosecution that these accused have tried to include 20 works which were at the verge of completion in newly proposed 64 works. 11.73. In this case, the complaint of PW3 as per Ex.P.5 and complaint of L. Shivanna as per Ex.D.11 would show that these accused in collusion with local MLA have included 20 works which were at the verge of completion in 64 proposed works meant for Rajarajeshwari Nagar Legislative Assembly. As has been discussed herein above, in response to the letter of PW34 as per Ex.D.10 dated 16.04.2015, this accused No.1 on 16.04.2015 replied as per Ex.D.9. In Ex.D.9 itself accused No.1 has stated that the constructions that are found in the photographs were not carried out by the Project Division of BBMP. However, a careful scrutiny of Ex.D.9 would show that this accused NO.1 has furnished copies of 83 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 File relating to the constructions. This document refers to the constructions that were already commenced. However, PW34 did not produce the same along with the charge sheet.
11.74. The evidence placed on record and subjected to discussion herein above would show that only after consulting local MLA proposal was submitted to grant Rs.45 crores for the development of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Legislative Constituency. Further, the evidence of Suguna Balakrishna and other Members of BBMP would show that they have passed Resolutions as found in Ex.P.8, P.10 and P.11 on 27.03.2015 without conducting spot inspection. It is the contention of the MLA and Members of BBMP that they were not aware of the said constructions. This type of contention is not probable to accept because without the approval of local MLA and Members of BBMP it will be not possible for the Officers attached to BBMP to carry out any constructions within its limits. So, according to this Court it is highly improbable to hold that these accused have included 11 - 12 works which were already at the verge of completion in the newly proposed 64 works so as to make wrongful gain to them and loss to the Government.
84 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.75. It is appropriate to make a mention here that witness Govindaraju as per his statement at Ex.P.33 has categorically stated that "ಈ ರಪಮಗಪರಗಳರ ಹಳಗಯದಪಗದರಯ ಇವವಗಳಗಗ ಬ.ಬ.ಎಲ.ಪ. ಅಧರಪರಗಳಲದ ಹಗಜಸ ಬಲಲ ಮಪಡಸ ಸದಳಯ ಶಪಸಕರರ ತಮಮ ಹಲಬಪಲಕರ ಮರಖಪಲತರ ಮಪಡಸರತತರರತಪತರಗ". However, interestingly both the Investigating Officers have lost sight of this statement of said Govindaraju. No doubt, the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation is not substantive piece of evidence. Further, as per the statement of Nanjundappa, G.H.Ramachandra as per Ex.P.37 and Thimmaraju also those works were carried out under MLA's Fund. Therefore, it cannot be said that PW32 Munirathna was not aware of the constructions that were going on. 11.76. From the study of evidence placed on record, it is clear that the role of accused No.1 has came in to play only after the Resolutions that were passed by the Ward Standing Committee as per Ex.P.8, P.10 and P.11. So, it is not possible to believe that at the instance of this accused No.1 already completed 20 works were included in the proposed 64 new works.
85 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.77. As has been discussed herein above, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that without following the procedure, the accused have carried out construction work. Even if it is said that the constructions were carried out without following the procedure, then it may amount to dereliction of duty on the part of the accused. However, in order to show that these accused have dishonestly and fraudulently made an attempt to swindle proportionate cost of 20 constructions, there is no evidence on record. 11.78. The evidence of PW34 in paragraph No.99 of Cross examination would show that as per the Circular dated 12.01.2012, in order to proceed further, approval is required from Ward Standing Committee. It is definite evidence that based on the Circular itself, in respect of 64 constructions, Ward Standing Committee as per its Resolution No.341/2014-15, 342/2014-15 and 343/2014-15 accord approval as per the procedure. It is also his definite evidence that in the same paragraph that in securing approval, there is no lapses on the part of the accused.
11.79. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2005 (12) SCC 631 in the case between K.R. Purushothaman and State of 86 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Kerala and argued that essential ingredients of Sec.120-B of IPC has not been proved. It is not in dispute that normally conspiracy always take place in secrecy. Therefore, the Court or the Investigating Agency cannot expect direct evidence with regard to criminal conspiracy. However, it is for the Court to draw inference with regard to criminal conspiracy from the proved circumstances. Here in this case, as has been observed herein above, PW34 did not produce the documents i.e., Files pertaining to the constructions received by him at the earlier point of time more precisely on 16.04.2015 along with Ex.D.9. So, according to this Court the non production of those documents is one of the strong circumstances to disbelieve the theory of the Prosecution. 11.80. The evidence of PW21 Suguna Balakrishna would show that as her term would be completing very shortly, they have passed Resolution on 27.03.2015 as per Ex.P.8, P.10 and P.11 without spot inspection. Even if it is said that without tender and other procedure, construction works were commenced at the instance of accused No.1, then also it cannot be said that the accused have attempted to swindle proportionate cost of 20 works as contended by the Prosecution.
87 Spl. C.C. No.409/201911.81. In this case, the above named accused have been charged for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c), Sec.15 of the PC Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC. It is necessary to make a mention here that when FIR was registered it was Unamended Act which was in force. In fact, amendment was introduced to provisions of the PC Act on 26.07.2018. Hence, it is relevant to narrate above penal provisions of law not only as on 04.05.2015, but also as on 26.07.2018. Sec.13(1)(c) of the PC Act as on 04.05.2015 reads as under:
"It is necessary to mention when FIR was registered it was pre Amended Act which was in force. Section 13(1)
(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act as on 04.05.2015 is as under:
"13(1)(c) - if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do."
Said offence was punishable under Section 13(2). Further, as on 26.07.2018 Section 13(1)(a) of the amended Prevention of Corruption Act is as under:
"13(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do;
It is punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act. 88 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Further, Section 15 of the Act provides for punishment for attempt which is as under:
"15. Punishment for attempt - Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred to in [clause (a)] of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term [which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years] and with fine."
11.82. So, it is for the Prosecution to show that 64 construction works were entrusted to accused No.1 and 2 to 10 and they having control over the same, have fraudulently attempted to misappropriate proportionate cost of 20 works by including those works in proposed 64 works. Further, it is for the Prosecution to show that there was an agreement between the accused to carry out an unlawful common purpose. It is contended by the counsels for the accused that there is no evidence on record to show that there was an agreement by and between the accused to carry out unlawful work. But, it is appropriate to state that, in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. 11.83. Therefore, conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. In 1996 (4) SCC 659 in the case between State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "in order to 89 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 establish the charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made use of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself".
11.84. Further, in 1969 (3) SCC 429 in the case between Mohan Hussain Umar Kochra vs. K.S. Dalipsinghji, the Apex Court has held that the conspiracy may be initiated by few, some may join at a later stage, while some may drop out later on but the conspiracy continues unless it is broken up it may develop in successive stages.
11.85. In this case, as has been referred herein above, in addition to other offences, the accused have been charged for the offence punishable under Sec.15 of the PC Act also. In 1980 (3) SCC 57 in the case between State of Maharashtra vs. Mohamed Yakub and others, the Apex Court of this Nation has held that in order to constitute an attempt, first, there must be an intention to commit a particular offence, second, some act must have done which would necessarily have to be done towards the commission 90 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 of the offence and, third, such act must be proximate to the intended result. The measure of the proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention. In other words, the act must reveal, with reasonable certainty, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances and not necessarily in isolation, an intention, as distinguished from a mere desire or object, to commit the particular offence, though the act by itself may be merely suggestive or indicative of such intention, but there must be, i.e., it must be indicative or suggestive of intention. So, in view of the above discussions it is for the Prosecution to prove the fact that the accused have made an attempt to commit an offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) of the PC Act. 11.86. As has been discussed herein above, the evidence of PW3 and PW36 is that the accused have hatched a plan to swindle proportionate cost of 12 works which were at the verge of completion in the proposed 64 works to be carried out in Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone. Whereas, the documentary evidence produced and subjected to discussion herein above would disclose that without following procedure and calling for tender, 12 works were commenced in violation of Rules enumerated for 91 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 carrying out development works within the Jurisdiction of BBMP. So, as has been contended by the accused, there is nexus between the evidence of PW3 and PW36 and the documentary evidence produced by the Prosecution. 11.87. At the cost of repetition it is apposite to make a mention here itself that though along with Ex.D.9, PW34 received Files relating to the constructions, he did not produce the same before the Court. It is very important to note that the process was commenced at the instance of PW32 and PW28 Lakshminarayana, the then Commissioner of BBMP. In fact, in response to his Note, the Standing Committee has passed the Resolution.
11.88. In this case, the evidence placed on record would establish that though Government has sanctioned Rs.45 crores, it did not release the amount. It was argued by the Prosecution that without following procedure these accused No.1 to 10 have commenced 12 works and thereby they have attempted to swindle the amount. This submission of the Prosecution is cannot be accepted because without the involvement of local MLA and Members of BBMP, it is humanly impossible for the Officers of BBMP to commence 92 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 the work. Further, if at all these accused have commenced the work without following the procedures, then question of they swindling the amount does not arise. On the contrary, at the most it may amount to not following the procedure. 11.89. Learned Counsel for accused No.2 has contended that this accused No.2 was transferred to Byatarayanapura Sub Division on 17.03.2015 itself and therefore, he has no role to play in the alleged commencement of construction work as contended by the Prosecution. In fact, at the time of cross examination of PW1 itself, Office order of commissioner BBMP dated 17.03.2015 is marked at Ex.D.4. From the perusal of above document it is clear that as on the date of alleged Resolution dated 27.03.2015, this accused No.2 was not discharging his duties in Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone of BBMP.
11.90. The arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor that these accused have commenced 12 works without following procedure and therefore, the same are illegal constructions is of no consequences because, even if it is said that 12 works were commenced without following the tender procedure, then also one has to pay money to the 93 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Contractor to carry out the construction work, the Contractor has to secure men and material for the construction. So, question of making wrongful gain out of property entrusted to the accused does not arise. In this case, the Prosecution has failed to show as to what was the special interest of the accused in carrying out 12 works in anticipating release of money by the Government. In the opinion of this Court, in a democratic pattern of system of administration, it is elected representatives of the people who encash the development work during the time of next election. So, at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that these accused have attempted to take advantage by commencing 12 works. 11.91. In this case, it is proved that PW34 registered the case in the month of May 2015, however, in the month of April 2015 itself, the photographs as per Ex.P.21 to P.31 were in his custody. Further, as per the discussions made herein above, mahazars as per Ex.P.12 to P.14 and the evidence of the witnesses clearly establishes that 12 works were in progress. It is very relevant to note that based on Ex.P.21 to P.31, PW34 did not register the case and on the contrary, on the basis of Ex.P.5 complaint, he registered the case and conducted spot inspection. So, according to this Court 94 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 collection of photographs as per Ex.P.21 to P.31 prior to the date of registration of the case is not at all fatal to the case of the Prosecution.
11.92. As has been observed by this Court, it is the elected representatives take advantage of development works which were carried out in their respective constituencies. This Court has already held that these accused had no special interest to carry out the work without following tender procedure etc., Hence, in the circumstances, at the most it can be said that local MLA and members of Ward Standing Committee were interested in carrying out the work without awaiting for the approval from the Government. In this case, local MLA and Members of Ward Standing Committee were left out from the process of interrogation. In addition to it PW34 did not produce Files received by him along with Ex.D.9 and he did not offer any plausible explanation.
11.93. So, from the discussion made herein above, it is crystal clear that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused as alleged. Learned Public Prosecutor has requested the Court to consider the evidence 95 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 and convict the accused by invoking Sec.222 of Cr.P.C. As discussed herein above, even if it is said that 12 construction works were commenced without tender procedure then also it will not benefit the accused to make wrongful gain as contended. So, the submission of learned Public Prosecutor cannot be considered.
11.94. In this case, in so far as sanction is concerned, it is proved that PW1 was not Appointing or Removing Authority of accused No.1 to 3. So, in order to prosecute accused No.1 to 3, the Prosecution did not secure valid sanction. Similarly, it is proved that accused No.7 was appointed by the Chief Engineer of Irrigation Department, the same is evident from Ex.D.5 - Order. Hence, Minister attached to the Department of Public Works was not authorised to issue Ex.P.4. So, in respect of this accused No.7 also there is no valid sanction. Further, by virtue of amended provisions of the PC Act, sanction is required to prosecute present accused No.10. But, Prosecution did not secure sanction.
11.95. In this case, it is proved that the Prosecution did not secure valid sanction to prosecute accused No.1 to 3 and 96 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
7. Similarly, sanction to prosecute accused No.10 is not secured. It is settled proposition of law that accused cannot be acquitted on the ground that sanction is not valid or that sanction is not secured. It is for the Court to return the charge sheet to the Investigating Agency with a liberty to secure valid sanction and then to prosecute the accused. But in the instant case the evidence produced by the Prosecution both oral and documentary is contrary to the charges levelled against the accused. In addition to it, there is direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to dispose of the matter on merits within time stipulated. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that return of charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3, 7 and 10 for securing fresh sanction would serve no purpose.
11.96. From the discussions made herein above, it is evident that the Prosecution has failed to establish that these accused have attempted to include 20 works which were at the verge of completion in 64 proposed works at the cost of Rs.45 crores and thereby, they have dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing their power have made an attempt to swindle proportionate cost of 20 works. Per contra, by way of oral and documentary evidence it is establish that 12 97 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 works were in progress. Even if it is said that without tender procedure these accused have illegally put up 12 works, then also it will not benefit the accused in any manner. Therefore, criminal liability cannot be attached to these accused.
11.97. In this case, over all careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence make me to feel that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sec.120-B of IPC. Therefore, this Court shall have to record an order of acquittal as provided under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. In the result, point No.2 which has arisen for the due consideration of this Court is answered in the Negative.
12. Point No.3: In view of my findings on the point No.1 and 2 as given supra, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused No.1 to 11 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sec.120-B of IPC.
Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 98 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 11 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sec.120-B of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused and their respective sureties is hereby stands canceled. The accused are set at liberty.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 31st day of March, 2022).
Sd/- 31.03.2022 (GOPALAKRISHNA RAI.T) LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru (CCH-79), C/c LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru (CCH 77).
A N N EXU RE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
No. Name
PW1 Sri. N. Manjunath Prasad
PW2 Sri. C.H. Hanumanthaiah
PW3 Sri. Ravishankar M.N.
PW4 Sri. J. Sathish Chand
PW5 Sri. Nanjappa V.
PW6 Smt. Asha Suresh
PW7 Sri. B.R. Nanjundappa
PW8 Sri. B. Veerabhadrappa
PW9 Sri. Gangadhara Swamy
PW10 Sri. A. Venkatarakesh
PW11 Sri. M. Rangaraj
99 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
PW12 Sri. Thimmaraju
PW13 Smt. Munirathnamma
PW14 Smt. Queen Elizabeth
PW15 Smt. Puttamma
PW16 Smt. Kriya Shailaja
PW17 Sri. Gopi
PW18 Sri. Govindaraj
PW19 Sri. K.P. Umesh
PW20 Sri. Raveendran
PW21 Smt. Suguna Balakrishna
PW22 Sri. Omkarappa
PW23 Sri. D.R. Ramachandraiah
PW24 Sri. Chandrashekara T.D.
PW25 Smt. Yashodamma K.R.
PW26 Sri. Ramachandra
PW27 Sri. K. Siddegowda
PW28 Sri. M. Lakshmi Narayana
PW29 Sri. Ravishankar
PW30 Sri. Ravi Kamalapur Kar
PW31 Sri. Basavaraju Pulahari
PW32 Sri. Munirathna
PW33 Smt. Geetha Srinivasa Reddy
PW34 Sri. Mohamed Mukaram
PW35 Smt. Nirmala
PW36 Sri. Sathish B.S.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FO PROSECUTION:
Date of the No. Description of the document document Ex.P.1 Sanction Order of accused No.1 15.12.2016 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 100 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Ex.P.2 Sanction Orders of accused No.3 15.12.2016 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.3 Sanction Orders of accused No.2 02.05.2017 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.4 Sanction Orders 17.01.2017 Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.5 Complaint 02.05.2015 Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.6 Mahazar 04.05.2015 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.6(c) Signature of Vijay Kumar Ex.P.6(d) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.7 Search Warrant 04.05.2015 Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.8 Document File (Volume I) 22.04.2015 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of Colleague Ex.P.8(c) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.8(d) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.8(e) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.8(f) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.8(g) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.8(h) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.8(i) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.8(j) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.8(k) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.8(l) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.8(m) Signature of PW28 101 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Ex.P.8(n) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.8(o) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.8(p) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.9 Documents File (Volume II) 04.05.2015 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.9(c) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.9(d), Signature of PW11
(e), (f), (g) Ex.P.9(h), (i) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.9(j), (k) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.10 Documents File (Volume III) 04.02.2015 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.10(c) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.10(d), Signature of PW11
(e), (f), (g) Ex.P.10(h) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.10(i) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.10(j) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.10(k) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.10(l) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.10(m) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.10(n) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.10(o) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.10(p) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.10(q) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.10(r) Signature of PW35 Ex.P.11 Documents File (Volume IV) 04.02.2015 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.11(b) Signature of CW2 Colleague Ex.P.11(c) Signature of PW8 102 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Ex.P.11(d), Signature of PW11
(e) Ex.P.11(f), Signature of PW27
(g) Ex.P.11(h), Signature of PW28
(i) Ex.P.11(j),
(k), (l), (m), Signature of PW29
(n), (o), (p),
(q), (r) Ex.P.12 Mahazar 07.05.2015 Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.12(c) Signature of Rudrawadi Ex.P.12(d), Signature of PW11
(e) Ex.P.12(f) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.12(g) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.13 Mahazar 07.05.2015 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.13(c) Signature of Ashwath Reddy Ex.P.13(d) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.13(e) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.14 Mahazar 11.05.2015 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.14(c) Signature of Ramesh Ex.P.14(d) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.14(e) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.15 Documents File (Volume V) 04.02.2015 Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.15(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.15(c), Signature of PW11 103 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
(d), (e) Ex.P.15(f) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.15(g), Signature of PW29
(h), (i) Ex.P.15(j) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.16 CD article No.1 Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.17 CD article No.2 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.17(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.18 CD article No.3 Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.18(b) Signature of CW2 Ex.P.19 Statement of CW8/ PW6 27.06.2015 Ex.P.20 Covering letter 18.05.2015 Ex.P.20(a) Annexures Ex.P.20(b) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.21 to Photos P.31 Ex.P.32 Resolution No. 342/2014-15 27.03.2015 Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.32(b) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.32(c) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.32(d) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.32(e) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.32(f) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.32(g) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.32(h) Signature of PW33 Ex.P.32(i) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.33 Statement of PW18 24.06.2015 Ex.P.34 Statement of PW19 29.05.2015 104 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019 Ex.P.35 Statement of PW20 09.07.2015 Ex.P.36 Statement of PW25 07.07.2015 Ex.P.37 Statement of PW26 04.07.2015 Ex.P.38 Statement of PW27 14.08.2015 Ex.P.39 Proposed 49 works from BBMP 13.03.2015 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW28 Letter from BBMP regarding grant Ex.P.40 27.03.2015 for Kriya plan Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.41 Proposed 9 works from BBMP 13.03.2015 Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.42 FIR 04.05.2015 Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW34 List of property form sent to Ex.P.43 04.05.2015 Magistrate in PF No.45/15 Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW34 List of property form sent to Ex.P.44 07.05.2015 Magistrate in PF No.53/15 Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW34 List of property form sent to Ex.P.45 11.05.2015 Magistrate in P.F. No.55/15 Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.46 Indian Evidence Act - 65(B) 11.05.2015 Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.47 Letter of acknowledgement 11.05.2015 Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW34 Ex.P.48 Statement of PW35 07.07.2015 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
--Nil--
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
No. Description of the document Date of the
105 Spl. C.C. No.409/2019
document
Letter with list of 64 proposed
Ex.D.1
works 29.01.2015
Ex.D.2 Relevant note sheet 11.03.2015
Ex.D.2(a) Relevant order 18.03.2015
Ex.D.3 Letter from BBMP 31.03.2015
Transfer order of K.
Ex.D.4
Marulasiddappa 17.03.2015
Ex.D.5 Order of department of Irrigation 02.06.1999
Ex.D.6 Copy of orders on accused No.10 07.02.2015
Ex.D.7 Copy of orders on accused No.10 31.05.2016
Ex.D.8 Letter from BBMP 20.01.2015
Proposed 64 works in
Ex.D.8(a)
Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone
Ex.D.9 Letter from BBMP 16.04.2015
Ex.D.9(a) Signature of PW34
Ex.D.10 Letter from Mohamed Mukaram 16.04.2015
Ex.D.10(a) Signature of PW34
Letter from Bangalore Urban
Ex.D.11 District Congress Committee to
06.04.2015
BBMP
Sd/- 31.03.2022
(GOPALAKRISHNA RAI.T)
LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru (CCH-79). C/c LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru (CCH 77).