Bangalore District Court
B.R Narayana Swamy vs K.B Baladharani And Others on 3 February, 2026
1
C.C.No.8738/2008
KABC030105302008
Presented on : 22-04-2008
Registered on : 22-04-2008
Decided on : 03-02-2026
Duration : 17 years, 9 months, 11 days
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT.
SRI. SIDDARAMA.S. M.A, LL.M.
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.8738/2008
State by Karnataka Ulsoorgate Police Station
(Represented by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused Persons 1. Sri.K.B.Baladharani
S/o Late.V.R.Kempaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.35, Chikkabommanasandra,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru City.
2. Smt.Jayamma
@ Jayalakshmi (quashed )
2
C.C.No.8738/2008
W/o Subbaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.278,
Atturu Layout,
Yelahanka Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru City.
3. Sri.Munisubbanna
@ Subbaiah (quashed)
S/o Munidasappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.68,
Church Street,
Hosathippasandra,
HAL 14th Street,
Bengaluru -560 075.
4. Sri.Y.N.Ashwath (Councilor)
S/o Late.Y.V.Narayana Swamappa,
Deshapete Road,
Red Building,
Yelahanka-64.
5. Sri.S.Muniraju (Abated)
S/o Shankarappa,
Shakthi Vinayaka Lorry Owner,
Chikkabommasandra,
G.K.V.K.Road,
Bengaluru-65.
(Reptd., by Sri.G.M., Advocate)
Name of the Sri.B.R.Narayanaswamy
Complainant : S/o Late B.M.Ramashetty,
Aged about 16 years,
3
C.C.No.8738/2008
No.86, 4th Main, 13th Cross,
Kaveri Layout,
G.M.Palya, Newthippasandra,
Bengaluru.
Date of offence 06.08.2007 to 19.08.2007
Date of offence reported 25.09.2007
Date of Commence of 08.01.2018
Evidence
Date of Closure of 12.06.2025
Evidence
Offence Committed Under Section 406, 468, 471, 420,
120(B) read with section 34 of IPC.
Opinion of Judge Found not guilty.
Complainant by Learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor.
Accused by By Sri.G.M., Advocate
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Ulsoorgate Police Station submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable 4 C.C.No.8738/2008 under sections 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that the BDO office, Bengaluru North Taluk was granted the land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet to the complainant and got signed the said documents by Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayath Officer. The complainant was obtained permission from the revenue department and constructed the three square RCC Building measuring 1200 sq. feet and paid tax from the year 2001 to 2006. It is alleged that the accused persons were doing the building construction work at Yelahanka and kept their construction materials in the complainant property. The accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the said land from the complainant and created the fraudulent documents and forged the signature of the same and shows the said documents were genuine documents to the concerned department even they knows the said documents were not genuine and paid the tax and 5 C.C.No.8738/2008 executed a rectification deed of the same at Sub-Registrar office in the presence of CW-5 and CW-6 in favour of accused No.2 and thereby the accused persons have committed the criminal breach of trust and committed the above offences. After completion of the investigation the PSI of Ulsoorgate Gate Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC.
3. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged the complaint in Ulsoorgate Police station. In turn they have registered the case under Crime No.0330/2007. Thereafter, police visited the spot, drew the mahazar, secured in the presence of the accused persons subsequently were enlarged on bail. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences. After filing the charge sheet, Court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused persons and issued summons to them.
4. The accused persons have appeared before the court through their counsel. Copy of the prosecution papers were 6 C.C.No.8738/2008 furnished under Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure. Thereafter, heard both side. The matter against accused No.2 and 3 quashed and accused No.5 died. The charges framed against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC. Read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 4 were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined the five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked 23 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-25. The accused persons did not choose to lead defense evidence. The statement of the accused No.1 and 4 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded.
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the deposition and documents.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the following points arose for my consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the BDO 7 C.C.No.8738/2008 office, Bengaluru North Taluk was granted the land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet to the complainant and got signed the said documents by Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayath Officer. The complainant was obtained permission from the revenue department and constructed the three square RCC Building measuring 1200 sq. feet and paid tax from the year 2001 to 2006. It is alleged that the accused persons were doing the building construction work at Yelahanka and kept their construction materials in the complainant property. The accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the said land from the complainant and created the 8 C.C.No.8738/2008 fraudulent documents and forged the signature of the same and shows the said documents were genuine documents to the concerned department even they knows the said documents were not genuine and paid the tax and executed a rectification deed of the same at Sub-Registrar office in the presence of CW-5 and CW-6 in favour of accused No.2 and thereby the accused persons have committed the criminal breach of trust for the offence punishable under section 406 read with section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time that the accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the 9 C.C.No.8738/2008 land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet from the complainant and created the fraudulent documents and forged the signature of the Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayath Officer on the created documents and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 468 read with section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time that the accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet from the complainant and created the fraudulent documents and forged the 10 C.C.No.8738/2008 signature of the Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayath Officer on the created documents and shows the said documents were genuine documents to the concerned department even they knows the said documents were not genuine and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 471 read with section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time the BDO office, Bengaluru North Taluk was granted the land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet to the complainant and got signed the said documents by Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayat Officer. The complainant was obtained permission 11 C.C.No.8738/2008 from the revenue department and constructed the three square RCC Building measuring 1200 sq. feet and paid tax from the year 2001 to 2006. It is alleged that the accused persons were doing the building construction work at Yelahanka and kept their construction materials in the complainant property. The accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the said land from the complainant and created the fraudulent documents and forged the signature of the same and shows the said documents were genuine documents to the concerned department even they knows the said documents were not genuine and paid the tax and executed a rectification deed of the same at Sub-Registrar office 12 C.C.No.8738/2008 in the presence of CW-5 and CW-6 in favour of accused No.2 and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time that the BDO office, Bengaluru North Taluk was granted the land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet to the complainant and got signed the said documents by Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayath Officer. The complainant was obtained permission from the revenue department and constructed the three square RCC Building measuring 1200 sq. feet and paid tax from the year 2001 to 2006. It is 13 C.C.No.8738/2008 alleged that the accused persons were doing the building construction work at Yelahanka and kept their construction materials in the complainant property. The accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the said land from the complainant and created the fraudulent documents and forged the signature of the same and shows the said documents were genuine documents to the concerned department even they knows the said documents were not genuine and paid the tax and executed a rectification deed of the same at Sub-Registrar office in the presence of CW-5 and CW-6 in favour of accused No.2 and thereby the accused persons have committed the 14 C.C.No.8738/2008 offence punishable under section 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC?
6. What order?
8. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials available on records.
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.2 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.3 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.4 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.5 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.6 : As per final order, for the
following:-
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 5 :- These above points are inter- linked with each others and required similar type of appreciation of evidence, Hence, they are taken together for common discussion.
15
C.C.No.8738/2008
11. In support of its case, the prosecution out of the 22 witnesses in the charge sheet examined five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5. i.e., PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the retired SDA, PW-3 is the businessman, PW-4 is the private bank employee and PW-5 is the retired Tahasildar and got marked the documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-25 i.e.,Ex.P-1 is the Private complaint, Ex.P-2 is the Hakku Patra, Ex.P-3 is the Form No.3, Ex.P-4 is the Certified copy of Taluk Panchayath, Ex.P-5 to 8 are the Self Assessment Tax Receipt, Ex.P-9 and 10 is the Self Declaration Property Tax details for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08, Ex.P-11 and 12 are the Certified copies, Ex.P-13 to 16 are the Tax receipts, Ex.P-17 is the Endorsement, Ex.P-18 is the Fraudulent created sale deed, Ex.P-19 is the Certified copy of the rectification deed, Ex.P-20 is the Report, Ex.P-21 is the Sites allotted list, Ex.P-22 is the Udrutha Patti, Ex.P-23 is the Statement of PW-3, Ex.P-24 is the Statement of PW-4 and Ex.P-25 is the Submission Report.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the BDO office, Bengaluru North Taluk was granted the land bearing Sy.No.33, 34, and 35, site No.278, measuring 30X40 sq. feet to the 16 C.C.No.8738/2008 complainant and got signed the said documents by Tahasildar and as well as Taluk Panchayath Officer. The complainant was obtained permission from the revenue department and constructed the three square RCC Building measuring 1200 sq. feet and paid tax from the year 2001 to 2006. It is alleged that the accused persons were doing the building construction work at Yelahanka and kept their construction materials in the complainant property. The accused No.1 to 5 colluding with each other made criminal conspiracy illegally received the original documents of the said land from the complainant and created the fraudulent documents and forged the signature of the same and shows the said documents were genuine documents to the concerned department even they knows the said documents were not genuine and paid the tax and executed a rectification deed of the same at Sub-Registrar office in the presence of CW-5 and CW-6 in favour of accused No.2 and thereby the accused persons have committed the criminal breach of trust and committed the above offences. After completion of the investigation the PSI of Ulsoorgate Gate Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons 17 C.C.No.8738/2008 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC.
13. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 406 of IPC.
Sec. 406 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 406 : Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with both. Essential ingredients:- an offence under this section has following essential ingredients;
1. Accused was entrusted with some property.
2. Accused had dominion over certain property.
3. Accused (i) misappropriated, (ii) converted to his own use, (iii) used or disposed off that property or wilfully suffered any person to dispose off that property.18
C.C.No.8738/2008
4. Accused did in violation of (i) any direction of law, (ii) any legal contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust.
5. He did so dishonestly.
14. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 468 of IPC.
Sec. 468 of I P C Reads as follows:
Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Essential ingredients are as follows;
(i) Document in question is forged
(ii) Accused forged it.
(iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for cheating.19
C.C.No.8738/2008
15. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 471 of IPC.
Sec. 471 of I P C Reads as follows:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
16. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 420 of IPC.
Sec. 420 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 420 : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole 20 C.C.No.8738/2008 or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
1. Essential ingredients are as follows;
1. Accused cheated the complainant.
2. Accused did so dishonestly.
3. Thereby induced the complainant:
(i) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person.
(ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed, sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security.
2. One of the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is existence of an intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract. S.V.L. Murthy v/s. 21
C.C.No.8738/2008 State Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad, 2009 (4) Supreme 399 : 2009 (7) JT 385 : (2009) 6 SCC 77 : (2009) 2 SCC (Crl) 941 : AIR 2009 SC 2717.
3. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly include the person deceived (I) to delivery any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being coverted into a valuable security). Md. Ibrahim v/s. State of Bihar, 2009 (6) Supreme 470 : 2009 (11) JT 533 : 2009 (4) Crimes 13 : (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 929.
17. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 120(B) of IPC.
Sec.120(B) of I P C Reads as follows:
Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence 22 C.C.No.8738/2008 punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
18. The matter was posted for further chief examination of PW-1 on 22.01.2018. Thereafter, the PW-1 was absent. On 01.06.2018 PW-1 reported as died on 06.05.2018. Hence this Hon'ble Court further evidence of PW-1 is taken as nil. 23
C.C.No.8738/2008
19. The PW-2 is the Retired SDA who has deposed in his chief examination that he had been working as a Second Division Clerk from 2006 to 2018 as a case worker. He worked as an Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath, Bengaluru North Taluk and also Yelahanka. The witness identified the document which is marked as Ex.P-12. He further deposed that the deceased complainant of the present case i.e., CW-1 filed the requisition on dated 14.07.2007. According to the application he prays to certified copies of the Site No.278 which was allotted free of cost, Bengaluru North Taluk, Yelahanka Hobli, Attur Village, No.33, 34 and 35. He further deposed that they verified the office records they found that the site No.278 Hakku Patra granted in favour of the B.R.Narayan Swamy S/o M.Ramashetty. The said certified copy issued by the the then Executive Office he put the signature to the certificate. He identified the Ex.P-17 according to Ex.P-17 K.Baladharani S/o V.R.Kempaiah filed an application for the purpose of obtain the certificate with respect to site No.278 situated at Bengaluru North Taluk, Yelahanka Hobli, Attur Village Sy.No.33, 34, 35. He further deposed that he verified the case records the said site No.278 not granted in favour of K.Baladharini S/o 24 C.C.No.8738/2008 V.R.Kempaiah the then Executive Officer Bengaluru issued an endorsement to K.Baladharini (accused No.1). The witness identified his signature in the Ex.P-17 his signature marked as Ex.P-17(a). The Police Inspector of Ulsoorgate Police station filed requisition for give the information regarding site No.278 situated at Bengaluru North Taluk, Yelahanka Hobli, Attur Village bearing Sy.No.33. Accordingly, that on 11.10.2007 given the information to the Police Inspection. Further deposed that the site No.278 granted in favour of the B.R.Narayana Swamy S/o M.Ramashetty according to the office documents. He further deposed that as the site No.278 was not granted in favour of K.Baladharini.
20 At the time of cross examination the learned advocate for accused prayed time for cross examination of PW-
2. The matter is in the year from 2008. Hence, rejected the prayer of the learned counsel for accused and cross examination of PW-2 is taken as nil.
21. The PW-3 is the witness who has deposed in his chief examination that he don't know who is Narayanaswamy he has not seen his site. He further deposed that he has not given 25 C.C.No.8738/2008 any statement and he don't know anything about this case. He further deposed that he acquainted with the accused No.1 and 4 but he don't know what transaction took place between the accused persons and CW-1. He further deposed that he identified his signature in the Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19. He further deposed that he put the signature for the accused No.2 and 3 purchased the property from another person for that reason he put the signature.
22. During the course of cross examination by the Learned Sr.APP, he deposed that he don't know in the year 1989 the Government gave the flat No.278 to the CW-1 free of cost in Sy.No.33 of Singapura Village to the CW-1, he don't know in the year 2002 the CW-1 received the letter from the department. He don't know from 2002 to 2006. He had paid the revenue tax. He further deposed that the accused No.3 namely Sri.Munisubbanna was working with the CW-1 at that time the accused No.1 to 3 trusted CW-1 and obtained his original documents. He denied the suggestion that at the time he put the signature. He denied the suggestion that he knew all the facts but deposed false evidence. Further he denied that 26 C.C.No.8738/2008 he deposed false evidence even though given the statement before the Ex.P23(a) to the help of the accused persons.
23. PW-5 is the Retired Tahasildar who has deposed in his chief examination that he has been working since May 2006 to 11.11.2008 at Bengaluru North as an Additional Yelahanka Tahasildar. At that time with respect to this case the Ulsoorate Police filed the requisition for give the details of documents with respect to Attur Village, Sy.No.33, Site No.278. He further deposed that with respect to that requisition letter he verified all the office documents but no documents were found in the office. Further he deposed that if you required the said documents you may be obtain at Taluk Panchayath. The witness identified the said requisition letter dated 27.11.2007. The said letter is marked as Ex.P-25 and his signature is marked as Ex.P25(a).
24. In the instant case out of the 9 witnesses in the charge sheet, the prosecution has examined five witnesses and other witnesses were dropped. On 01.06.2018 PW-1 reported as died on 06.05.2018. Hence this Hon'ble Court further evidence of PW-1 is taken as nil. PW-3 is the partly hostile to 27 C.C.No.8738/2008 the case of the prosecution and PW-4 fully hostile to the case of the prosecution. During the course of cross examination of learned Sr.APP nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW- 3 and PW-4.
25. In this case, the prosecution has failed to elicit anything favorable to it to prove the allegations against the accused No.1 and 4 under section 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC. When these being the facts, I am of the opinion that in total the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the same, this court hold Point Nos.1 to 5 in the Negative.
26. Point No.6: For the reasons stated and finding given to point No.1to 5 the following is made.
ORDER The accused No.1 and 4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC.
Acting under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 and 4 are 28 C.C.No.8738/2008 hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 406, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by them stand canceled.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer on computer, typed by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3 rd day of February, 2026).
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Sri.B.R.Narayanaswamy S/o M.Ramashetty; PW-2 : Sri.H.Venkatachalaiah S/o Hanumaiah; PW-3 : Sri.M.Sundaranna S/o Muttupilya; PW-4 : Sri.M.Balasubramanya S/o T.Muniswamy; PW-5 : Sri.Ranganathaiah .K S/o Late Sri.C.Kemparangaiah;
2. List of witnesses examined for the defense:
- NIL -
3. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Private complaint;
29
C.C.No.8738/2008
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-2 : Hakku Patra;
Ex.P-3: Form No.3;
Ex.P-4 : Certified copy of Taluk Panchayath;
Ex.P-5 to 8:Self Assessment Tax Receipt; Ex.P-9 and 10: Self Declaration Property Tax details for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08;
Ex.P-11 and 12: Certified copies;
Ex.P-13 to 16: Tax receipts;
Ex.P-17: Certified copy of Endorsement; Ex.P-17(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-18: Certified copy of Fraudulent created sale deed; Ex.P-18(a): Signature of PW-3;
Ex.P-18(b):Signature of PW-4;
Ex.P-19: Certified copy of the rectification deed; Ex.P-19(a):Signature of PW-3;
Ex.P-20: Report;
Ex.P-20(a) : Original Signature;
Ex.P-20(b) : Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-21: Certified copy of Sites allotted list; Ex.P-21(a): Part of the property;
Ex.P-22: Udrutha Patti;
Ex.P-22(a): Original Udrutha Patti; Ex.P-22(b): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-23: Statement of PW-3;
Ex.P-23(a):Part of statement of PW-3;
Ex.P-24: Statement of PW-4;
30
C.C.No.8738/2008
Ex.P-24(a):Part of statement of PW-4; Ex.P-25: Submission Report;
Ex.P-25(a):Signature of PW-5.
4. List of documents exhibited for the defense:
- NIL -
5. List of Materials objects exhibited for the prosecution:
- NIL -
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.