Bangalore District Court
State By Kodigehalli vs Mohan.N. S/O Narayanaswamy on 9 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Smt. Vineetha P.Shetty B.Sc., M.A., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 9th day of November 2015
C.C. NO.20503/2010
Complainant : State by Kodigehalli
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : 1. Mohan.N. s/o Narayanaswamy,
22 yrs, R/at Behind Sampigehalli
Police Station, Venkateshapura
Kallipalya, Sampigehalli Kere Kodi
Street, Jakkur, Bengaluru-64.
2. Purushothama s/o Rajashetty,
30 yrs, Agrahara Doddmagge Hobli,
Arakalgud Taluk, Hassan District.
3. Mohammed Suhail s/o Mohammed
Anwar, 28 yrs, New No.8, 9th Main,
17th Cross, Padarayanapura,
Bengaluru-26.
2 CC No.20503/2010
4. Apsar Pasha s/o Mohammed Anwar,
27 yrs, New No.8, 9th Main, 17th Cross,
Padarayanapura, Bengaluru-26.
Date of offence : In between 25-10-2009 and
29-10-2009
Offence : U/S 380, 381 IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused No-1 to 4 pleaded not
guilty
Final order : Accused No-1 to 4 Acquitted
Date of Order : 09-11-2015
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
Accused No-1 to 4 are charged for the offences
punishable under Section 380 and 381 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that, accused No-1
Mohan, accused No-2 Purushotham being the contract
workers in the L & T Komatsu Limited Factory, situated at
3 CC No.20503/2010
Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road, Bengaluru, colluded with
accused No-3 Mohammed Suhail and accused No-4 Apsar
Pasha, and committed theft of 20 valves and one control
valve, worth Rs.11,75,000/-, from the factory during the
period from 25-10-2009 to 29-10-2009. Thus, according to
the prosecution, accused No-1 to 4 have committed the
offences punishable under Section 380 and 381 of IPC.
3. The accused No-1 to 4 appeared before the court.
They are on bail and they engaged advocate for the defence.
The copies of the charge sheet were furnished to accused No-
1 to 4. After hearing both sides, charge for the above offences
was framed, read over and explained by my learned
predecessor in office, for which, accused No-1 to 4 pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution,
P.W.1 to P.W.11 are examined. Ex.P.1 to P.17 and M.O.1 are
marked. Thereafter, accused No-1 to 4 are examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating
4 CC No.20503/2010
evidence which appeared against them. Heard the arguments
addressed by the learned Sr. APP and the learned counsel for
accused.
4. The following points arise for determination-
1) Whether the prosecution proves
that, accused No-1 and 2 in
collusion with accused No-3 and 4,
committed theft of Twenty Valves
and One Control Valve owned and
possessed by L & T Komatsu
Limited Factory, situated at
Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road,
Bengaluru?
2) What order?
5. My findings on the above points are as under-
Point No-1: In the Negative
Point No-2: As per final order for
the following reasons
5 CC No.20503/2010
REASONS
Point No-1:
6. P.W.1 Ravindra is the mahazar witness. P.W.2
R.M.Bhat and P.W.5 M.N.Gopinath are the officials of L &
T Factory. P.W.3 B.Ramakrishnaiah is the complainant.
P.W.4 Madhu Govindaraj Mokashi is the mahazar witness.
P.W.8 C.Ranaganswamy and P.W.6 Venkateshmurthy are the
police personnel who apprehended accused No-1 & 3
respectively. P.W.7 Sadiq Pasha is the seizure mahazar
witness. P.W.9 Mohiddin Pasha is the owner of vehicle
allegedly used for the offence. P.W.10 Shivaram and P.W.11
Anjanappa are the Investigation Officers.
7. PW11 Anjanappa - the SHO at the relevant time has
stated in his evidence that he received credible information
on 03-11-2009 about theft and hence he went to Sangam
Circle to stop the vehicle, which was allegedly transporting
6 CC No.20503/2010
the theft articles. Who gave the information of theft is not
found in his evidence.
8. PW6 Venkateshmurthy is the police staff who
accompanied PW11 on that day. Both PW6 and PW11
stopped the vehicle CKJ 9197 belonging to PW9 and seized
11 spare parts of JCB under Ex.P.8, seizure mahazar in the
presence of CW7 and CW8. Inspite of repeated warrants
being given CW7 has not been secured by prosecution.
9. CW8/PW7 Sadiq Pasha, the other witness to Ex.P8
seizure mahazar deposed that on 03-11-2009 police seized
MO1 and the valves seen in photos at Ex.P2, 5 and 9 and he
signed the same as per Ex.P8(b). However, during cross-
examination on behalf of accused, PW7 admitted that 3
signatures were affixed by him at the police station. The
relevant portion in his evidence reads "D¢ªÀ¸À £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ
7 CC No.20503/2010
¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇà oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ". Hence seizure under Ex.P8 is
not free from doubt.
10. It is in the evidence of PW6 and PW11 that they
secured the driver of offending vehicle i.e., Suhail/accused
No-3 to police station and registered the FIR as per Ex.P13.
PW3 B.Ramakrishnaiah is the Security Officer of the L&T
Company. He deposed that on 29-10-2009 at about 11.30
p.m., he was informed by the security guard that five valves
belonging to the factory were lying within the compound and
five valves outside. PW3 therefore, went to the spot and after
inspection, he lodged Ex.P7 complaint on 30-10-2009.
Thereafter spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 was conducted by the
police, and ten valves were seized from the spot on 31-10-
2009. P.W.1 the spot mahazar witness deposed about seizure
of valves under Ex.P.1 mahazar and referred the photos of 10
valves as per Ex.P2 and identified one valve as per MO1.
8 CC No.20503/2010
11. According to PW11, accused No-3 the driver of the
seized vehicle gave voluntary statement and based on his
statement, they went to the spot from where the valves were
being transported in the vehicle. P.W.2 - the official of the
factory as a seizure mahazar witness deposed that mahazar
was drawn by the police at the south west portion of the
factory, and according to him, the place was shown to them
by accused No-1. According to PW2, he gave a report as per
Ex.P4 on the date of mahazar on 02-11-2009 listing the items
which were found missing.
12. It is in the evidence of PW2 that on 04-11-2009,
accused No-1 was brought by the police to the warehouse at
about 11.30 to 12 noon and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P6.
But, on careful perusal of Ex.P6, the seizure is seen
conducted on the voluntary statement given by accused No-3.
It is also come out in the evidence of PW2 that accused No-3
is not the employee of their factory. This discrepancy in the
9 CC No.20503/2010
evidence of PW2 and the other witnesses examined by the
prosecution leads to severe doubt. PW5 Gopinath is the
employee of L&T working as quality assistant. He deposed
that he has identified the valves seized by police. PW4
Madhu Govindaraj Mokashi is the seizure mahazar witness
who signed Ex.P6 mahazar as per Ex.P6(b). During cross-
examination on behalf of the accused, PW4 deposed that he
has only signed the document and pleaded inability to throw
light with regard to Ex.P6 mahazar.
13. PW6 Venkateshmurthy is the Police Constable. He
accompanied SHO on 03-01-2009 to Sangam Circle and they
found 11 spare parts in Vehicle CKG 9197 and the police
learnt that the spare parts were theft articles and therefore
seized the same under Ex.P8 seizure mahazar. He identified
photos of seized valves at Ex.P2 and Ex.P5 photos and the
photo of the vehicle at Ex.P9. PW8 C.Rangaswamy - the
head constable deposed that he arrested accused No-1 near
10 CC No.20503/2010
the L&T factory. PW9 Mohiddin Pasha is the owner of
vehicle CKJ 9197 who deposed that he purchased the vehicle
on 15-12-2009 from Munavar Pasha and on 19-12-2009
police seized the vehicle stating that it was a theft vehicle. As
he has not supported the case, he was treated hostile. During
cross-examination, he denied of giving statement before the
police as per Ex.P10.
14. PW10 Shivaram is the IO, who registered Ex.P11
FIR as per the complaint at Ex.P7, conducted spot mahazar
as per Ex.P3 and seized 10 valves and MO1 is one such valve
seized by him. He recorded the statement of witnesses,
voluntary statement of accused, and also conducted a
mahazar at L&T factory, and handing over further
investigation to CW21. The IO who conducted further
investigation has not been brought inspite of repeated
warrants.
11 CC No.20503/2010
15. The fact that PW3 - the complainant failed to
reduce the particulars of missing articles in his complaint
Ex.P7 cannot be lost sight of. He gave the report of missing
articles only on the date of spot mahazar conducted by the
police i.e., on 02-11-2009. This non-mentioning of items in
the complaint throws enough suspicion in the circumstances
of the case put forth by the prosecution.
16. It is relevant to mention that, according to PW1,
twenty-one valves were stolen. He was informed by the
police that theft was committed by accused No-1. However,
according to PW11 stolen articles were seized from the
possession of accused No-3 and it is accused No-3 who
showed them the place i.e., the L&T Company from where
the valves were stolen. The relation between accused No-1
and accused No-3 and the alleged collusion or involvement
by the two has not been satisfactorily brought out in the
evidence lead by the prosecution.
12 CC No.20503/2010
17. PW2 admitted that refused valves would be sent
back by the factory. It was suggested on behalf of the
accused that by using the refused valves, a false case was
foisted against the accused for statistical purpose. Though it
was denied by PW2, no registers reflecting the particulars of
the items refused by their company have been either seized or
produced before the court.
18. According to PW3, the valves were kept in the store
room. Who was the storekeeper/security at the relevant time
and as to why he is not brought before the court is also
remained unexplained. It is also strange to note that there is
neither movement register nor any check-in arrangements in
the factory, to avoid the malpractice within and there is no
satisfactory evidence touching these aspects.
19. All these latches and infirmities lean in favour of
the accused. In the presence of these serious infirmities in the
13 CC No.20503/2010
case of prosecution coupled with the fact that the seizure
mahazars are not proved, throw serious doubt about the
involvement of the accused as projected in the charge sheet.
The benefit of these doubts will have to be extended to the
accused. As already stated, the seizure of material objects at
the instance of accused is not free from doubt. Thus, on a
careful appreciation of evidence on record, I am not
convinced to hold that the prosecution has been able to
establish the guilt of accused No-1 to 4 beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I answer Point No-1 in the Negative.
Point No-2:
20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No-1 to 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 380 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
14 CC No.20503/2010M.O.1 Valve is ordered to be handed over to P.W.3 - the complainant. The order regarding disposal of MO1 shall be given effect, after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me on 09-11-2015) (Vineetha P.Shetty), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : Ravindra
PW2 : R.M.Bhat
PW3 : B.Ramakrishnaiah
PW4 : Madhu Govindaraj
Mokashi
PW5 : M.N.Gopinath
PW6 : Venkateshmurthy
PW7 : Sadiq Pasha
PW8 : C.Rangaswamy
PW9 : Mohiddin Pasha
PW10 : Shivaram
PW11 : Anjanappa
15 CC No.20503/2010
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Mahazar
Ex.P2 : Photo
Ex.P3 : Mahazar
Ex.P4 : Report dated 02-11-2009
Ex.P5 : Photo
Ex.P6 : Mahazar
Ex.P7 : Complaint
Ex.P8 : Recovery Mahazar
Ex.P9 : Photo
Ex.P10 : Statement of PW9
Ex.P11 : FIR
Ex.P12 : Voluntary Statement of
accused No-1
Ex.P13 : Report of PW11
Ex.P14 : Voluntary Statement of
accused No-3
Ex.P15, 16: Letters
Ex.P17 : Covering Letter
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Valve List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.16 CC No.20503/2010
09-11-2015 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER Under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No-1 to 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 380 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. M.O.1 Valve is ordered to be handed over to P.W.3 - the complainant. The order regarding disposal of MO1 shall be given effect, after the appeal period is over.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.