Bangalore District Court
State Karnataka Represented By vs Smt. G.R.Harishilpa on 4 January, 2020
1
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-24)
Dated this the 04th day of JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
SMT.MANJULA ITTY, B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT, BENGALURU
Special C.C.No.268/2017
Complainant: State Karnataka represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. D. Ramesh Babu, Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused : Smt. G.R.Harishilpa, W/o
Vivekananda, 38 years, Additional
Land Acquisition Officer, B.D.A.
Head Office, Bengaluru. Residing
at House No.159/2, 4th Cross,
Doresany Palya, IAMB Post,
Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.A.Nanjareddy, Advocate for
accused )
2
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
Date of offence 21.06.2014
Date of report of
21.06.2014
offence
Date of arrest of
21.06.2014
the accused
Date of release on
25.06.2014
bail
Total period of
Four days
custody
Name of the
Sri.Mohammed Mukharam
complainant
Date of
commencement of 24.07.2018
recording evidence
Date of closing of
07.09.2019
evidence
13(1)(e) and 13 (1)(d) read with
Offences
section 13(2) of Prevention of
complained of
Corruption Act
Opinion of the
Accused is found not guilty
Judge
State represented Sri.D.Ramesh Babu Public
by Prosecutor
Accused defended Sri.B.A.Nanjareddy, Advocate for
by accused
3
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru has submitted the charge sheet against 7 accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the Lokayuktha police, Bengaluru received several com- plaints from the public alleging that the public cannot not get any of their works done from the officials/staff directly at the Head Office of Bangalore Development Authority as the officials and the staff of Head Office of BDA would discharge their official duty only when they are bribed through agents and mediators. Almost all the officials working in the Head office of BDA are in- dulged in receiving illegal gratification for discharging their official duties through agents and the officials and 4 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 staff are dispersing government property to undeserv- ing persons by receiving illegal gratifications from me- diators depriving the rights of the deserving persons and thereby causing loss of crores of rupees to the State Exchequer. Hence, a case came to be registered in crime No. 26/2014 and after obtaining search war- rant, simultaneous search was conducted on 20-06- 2014 at several offices and the car parking area of the BDA Head Office premises by the Investigating Officer and his team. During search, an amount of Rs. 1,69,000/- was seized from the hand bag possessed by A1 from her office which she could not properly ac- count for and she had not maintained a cash declara- tion register in her office nor she had declared the pos- session of such a huge amount in any of the registers maintained in her office. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from A2 from his office table rack and he made a bare denial of that he had no knowledge 5 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 about such an amount being kept in his office table. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from the posses- sion of A3 while he was sitting in his car at the parking area of the BDA with A4 and A7 along with some docu- ments. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and several files connecting the office of the BDA was recovered from the possession of A5 from his car from the parking area of the BDA and an amount of Rs. 54,000/- was recov- ered from the side box of the motorcycle belonging to A8. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused per- sons and produced them before the home office of my predecessor on 21.06.2014 and they were released on bail on 25.06.2014. After investigation, the Investigat- ing Officer filed Charge Sheet against the above men- tioned accused for alleged commission of above said offences. During search the Investigating Officer had seized and recovered an amount of Rs. 1,33,000/- from possession of one Srinivas, who is arrayed as A6 in this 6 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 case, from his car and during investigation he provided sufficient explanation and clarification for the posses- sion of the said amount and hence his name was deleted from the Final Report and the investigating offi- cer has laid charge sheet appending 200 documents with it in 7 volumes which altogether runs to more than 1600 pages citing 77 witnesses to prove the prosecu- tion case.
3. Accused were secured through summons and all the accused had filed applications u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming discharge from the offence alleged against them and this court after hearing all the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor vide order dated 22.05.2018 found that even though, there is prima facie materials found in the charge sheet to frame charges against all the 7 accused and to proceed further against them, there is no proximity between each of the accused in any way. 7
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 The offences alleged to be committed by each one of them stand on their own footing except that of the offences alleged to be committed by accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7 and hence, The Court ordered for bifurcating the Charge sheet filed in this case and removed the accused No. 2 to 5, 7 and 8 from the said charge sheet and the present case is tried against the accused No.1 alone. Further, this Court directed the office to register three separate cases as i. Special CC No.364/2018 against the accused No.2 of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections, 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, ii. Special CC No.363/2018 against the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7 of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections, 7, 12, 8 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, iii. Special CC No.362/2018 against the accused No.5 of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 9 and against accused No.8 for the offence punishable under sections 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
This Court further directed the Investigating officer to produce sufficient copies of the charge sheet to be appended with the newly registered Special Criminal Cases.
4. On 21.06.2018 charges were framed against Accused No.1, who is the sole accused in this case for the offence punishable under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read over and explained to her to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
5. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined in all thirteen witnesses as PWs 1 to 13 and got marked documents at Ex. P1 to P45 and MO. 1 was identified. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution evidence and she did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on her behalf.
6. Now, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being public servant holding the office of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, at the B.D.A. Head Office, Bengaluru on 20.06.2014, when the Lokayuktha Police raided her office, she was found in possession of Rs. 1,69,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty-nine thousand) in her hand bag 10 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 for which she could not satisfactorily account and she had not maintained a cash declaration register in her office nor she had declared the possession of such a huge amount in any of the registers maintained in her office and thereby, she has committed the offence defined under section 13(1)(e) and which is punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused, on 20.06.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. being public servant while working as Additional Land Acquisition Officer, B.D.A. Head Office, Bengaluru in her office, abused her position as public servant and obtained by corrupt or illegal means Rs. 1,69,000/-
which was found in her hand bag for which she could not properly accounted and had not declared in any of the registers maintained in her office and she has not maintained a cash declaration 11 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 register in her office and thereby she has committed criminal misconduct within the ambit of section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. What order?
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and taking into consideration of evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order, for the following REASONS
8. Points No. 1 to 2: Since these two points are interlinked to each other and to avoid repetition I have taken them for discussion together.
12
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
9. It is not in dispute that the accused is a public servant holding the post of Additional Land Acquisition Officer at the B.D.A. Head Office, Bengaluru. Hence, to prosecute accused prosecution sanction order from the competent authority of the accused under section 19 of the PC Act is essential, since, grant of proper sanction by the competent authority is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. Two components have to be established before accepting a sanction order. First one is competency of the sanctioning authority and the other one is the application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Ex. P8 is the sanction order issued by the Deputy Secretary (Services), D.P.A.R., Bengaluru. Here in this case, PW4, Sri. Abhiram G. Shankar, I.A.S., is examined to prove the prosecution sanction order issued by him to prosecute accused. PW4 has deposed before this court that, on 07.09.2016, the Additional Director General of Police, 13 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru had made a requisition to his office to accord prosecution sanction to prosecute accused with copies of the complaint, FIR, mahazars, statements of the witnesses and explanation given by the accused. The concerned case worker placed the file records to the Section officer, then to Under Secretary-2 and from him with detail notes the said file submitted before him. After perusal of the notes and all the documents, he further submitted the file to the Hon'ble Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. After approval of the same by the Chief Minister, he issued the Ex.P8, sanction order for prosecuting the accused. He further deposes that he issued the Ex. P8 prosecution sanction order in the name of Governor of Karnataka under the Transaction of Business Rules. From the cross examination of PW4 it can be seen that the accused has not disputed the competency of PW4 14 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 in issuing the sanction order but questions to the point that PW4 has not considered the explanations given by the accused and the statements given by the witnesses and contends PW4 had not properly perused the facts of the case and without applying his mind, PW4 has issued the Ex.P8 prosecution sanction order. During the final hearing of this case the learned counsel for the accused has not raised any serious objection with respect to the prosecution sanction order produced by the prosecution to prosecute the accused.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the accused person will not sustain as the sanction order is valid and the Ex.P8 order itself speaks about the application of mind by the competent authority and after approval of the Chief Minister who is the competent authority to 15 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 remove an officer of the cadre of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer from her post and hence, PW4, after obtaining the approval from the Government has issued the sanction order.
11. Before going to the validity of the Ex. P8 sanction order I am persuaded to look into some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard relied by the learned Public Prosecutor. He drew my attention to the following case laws:
i. Hon'ble Supreme Court in C S Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2005)4 SCC 81 has held that "the sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself 16 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order".
ii. In State of Maharashtra through C.B.I V/s Mahesh G.Jain reported in (2013) 8 S.C.C. Page 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Grant of sanction is irrefragably a sacrosanct act and is entitled to provide safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction". The Hon'ble Court has culled out certain principles with respect to the sanction order which are as under:
a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. 17
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the materials placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances has granted sanction for prosecution;
c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the materials were placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the materials placed before it.
iii. In Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015)2 SCC 33 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "a fine balance has to be maintained between need to protect a public servant against mala fide prosecutions on the one hand and the object of upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists on the other hand."
18
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 iv. In P V Narasimha Rao Vs. State (CBI/SPE) 12 reported in (1998) 4 SCC 626 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "requirement of sanction u/s 19 (1) of PC Act is a matter relating to procedure and the absence of sanction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court"
12. Here, in this case, the prosecution has produced and marked the Ex. P8 sanction order which clearly shows that all the materials were placed before the Government and after scrutiny of those materials and after approval of the Chief Minister, the sanction order has been issued. From the light of the above discussed decisions and the from the prosecution evidence adduced in this case, it can be safely concluded that there was sufficient material before the sanctioning authority and the Ex. P8 prosecution sanction order is issued by the Competent Authority of the accused after applying his mind and hence it is not 19 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 possible to agree that the Ex. P8 prosecution sanctioning order is in any way vitiated.
13. Now coming to the facts and circumstances of this case, the specific case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2014, when PW11 conducted search of the office of accused as per the authorization given to him by the Investigating Officer PW8, accused was found in possession of Rs. 1,69,000/- kept in her hand bag and he obtained explanations from her with respect to money and since, the explanation given by her was found not satisfactory he seized the currency notes from her bag and produced the same with the accused before PW8, the Investigating Officer of this case. He also drew Ex.P5 mahazar with respect to the seizure of notes from the possession of accused. The Investigating Officer verified the explanation given by the accused which said that she was given 20 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Rs.1,50,000/- by PW7, the Manager of her husband which was to be paid to her sister-in-law as they owed her money which were spent for hospital and funeral expenses of her mother-in-law who expired on 21.05.2014. The said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was the rental amount collected by PW7 from the tenants of husband of the accused. The prosecution case is that out of Rs.1,69,000/- seized from accused, Rs.50,000/- was a bundle of Rs.500/- denomination 100 currency notes, which had band and seal of Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore and neither accused nor her husband had maintained account in the said bank and also the Investigating Officer during investigation collected the bank statements of accused from 30.01.2014 to 20.06.2014 and found that she had not withdrawn any amount from her account and also the Investigating Officer obtained bank statements of her husband Sri.Vivekananda Reddy dated 19.06.2014 21 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 and 20.06.2014 which also revealed that he had not withdrawn any amount either. On investigation, the Investigating Officer had found that on 20.06.2014 the accused had received Rs.75,000/- bribe from PW6 through an agent and hence, the whole Rs.1,69,000/- was ill-gotten money of the accused and hence, accused has committed the above charged offences.
14. To prove the seizure of currency notes from accused, prosecution examined PW 1 and PW 2 who are mahazar witnesses and PW11 the searching officer, to prove the receipt of Rs.75,000/- bribe amount by accused, prosecution examined PW7, who was the beneficiary to the land acquired by the BDA, and to prove that the currency notes received from accused were not the rental amount given to her by PW7 as per her explanation, prosecution examined PW7 and also PW9, Bank Manager of Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch. Apart from these witnesses the prosecution 22 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 examined PW3 who conducted preliminary enquiry with respect to the allegation that BDA officials would do their public duty only if they are bribe through agents and mediators and PW 8, PW 10, PW 12 and PW 13 are the Investigating Officers.
15. Now, it is apposite to examine the evidences of these witnesses. PW3, Mohammad Mukharam has deposed that, he received a complaint through Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha and he conducted secret preliminary enquiry to find out the veracity of the allegation in the said complaint and it was revealed that the officials and staff of the BDA would not perform any of their public duty unless they are bribed through the agents and mediators and hence, after enquiry he submitted Ex.P10 report before the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City Division. On the basis of the said report, FIR in this case came to be registered. He 23 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 further testifies that Smt.Rajamma Chowda Reddy who was trapped and was facing investigation in Crime No.16/2014 had obtained bribe from a broker and the BDA officials had appointed their own agents at their office to receive bribe from the public and the situation at the BDA office was that no person would get their work done without bribing the officials through these agents and hence, there was crores of rupees loss incurred to the BDA and the Government properties were being alienated to strangers. He further testifies that the Investigating Officer Sri.Palakshaiah obtained search warrant and handed over to him and he searched the office of one D.C.Chandrashekaraiah. In his cross examination he admits that he did not conduct any enquiry with respect to the persons named in the complaint and also admits that they are not accused in this case either.
24
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
16. M.N.Ravishankar, the officer who searched and seized currency notes from the accused is examined as PW11 and his testimony in brief is that on 20.06.2014 he conducted the search of the office of the accused as per the instruction of the Investigating Officer on the strength of the Ex.P6 search warrant issued from this Court and he had secured the presence of two witnesses before conducting search. On search, 3 currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination and 332 currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations were found in the hand bag of accused which were seized as per Ex.P5 mahazar and also obtained Ex.D1 explanation from accused with respect to the possession of these currency notes with her. He further testifies that he obtained the attendance register from the office of accused and he arrested the accused and handed over her along with the seized currency notes and mahazar to the Investigating 25 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Officer. In his cross examination he admits that he had not drawn any separate mahazar with respect to seizure of currency notes from accused nor he had noted down the serial numbers of notes seized from the possession of accused. He also admits that the Ex.P6 search warrant issued from this Court bears the name and address of some other officer and offices to be searched and it has no mention with respect to the office of accused or the accused. He also admits that the accused had given written explanation immediately with respect to the possession of currency notes. He further admits that none of the officers or staff who worked in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer had maintained cash declaration registers. It is also further deposed by PW11 that he received information that there were no cash declaration registered maintained in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officers of the B.D.A. 26 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
17. PW1 is the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 mahazar witness which are not connected with this case. These are the search mahazars of other offices of the BDA and hence, have no relevance to this case. PW2 is the Ex.P5 mahazar witness and Ex.P5 is the search mahazar drawn by PW11 when he searched the office of accused and seized Rs.1,69,000/- from her possession. PW2 deposes before Court that on 20.06.2014 he witnessed the search conducted by PW11 at 4.00 pm in the office of the accused and at that time the accused was present in her office and during search, 3 currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination and 332 currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations were found in the hand bag of accused and when PW 11 asked the accused to produce the attendance register and cash declaration register of the office, the accused produced only the attendance register and intimated that the cash declaration 27 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 register is not maintained in her office and the accused gave her written explanation with respect to the possession of currency notes to PW11. In his cross examination PW2 admits that there were no brokers found either in the chamber of accused or in the chambers of her staff members. The written explanation given by accused was identified by the witness and marked as Ex.D1 and he admits that the said explanation was given by the accused spontaneously when asked by PW11. The Ex.D1 is the explanation submitted by the accused is as follows:
"ಮಮಲಲಲಡ ವಷಯಕಲ ಸಲಬಲಧಸದಲತ, ಹರಶಲಲ.ಜ.ಆರ ಆದ ನನನ ಅಪರ ಭಭಸಸಧಮನಧಕರಯಗ ಕರರವವ ನವರಹಸನತತದದ ನ ಈ ದನ ಮನವ ದ , ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಲಭಮಕಯನಕತ ಅಧಕರಗಳನ ಈ ಕಛಮರ ದಳ ಮಡದನ ದ , ಈ ಪಸನರಲ ದಭರರ ರಭ 1,69,000-00 ಗಳಗ ವಚರರಣ ಕಭಮರದನ ಕಳಕಲಡಲತ ನವಮದಸಕಭಲಡದ.
ಸದರ ವಷಯಕಲ ಸಲಬಲಧಸದಲತ ರಮಮ ಲ ಅರಕ ಮಡಕಭಳನ
ಳ ವದಮನಲದರ ನನನ ಅತತಯವರದ ಶಶಮಮತ ರಮರನಮಮ ರವರನ ದದ 28 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 ದ 21-05-2014 ರಲದನ ದದವಧಮನರಗದನ ಸದರ ಸಮಯದಲ ಅವರನ ಅನರಭಮಗವದಲದ ಬಳನತತದದ ನ ಅವರನ ನಮಮ ನದನಯದ ಶಶಮಮತ ಶಭಮಭ ರವರ ದ ಮನಯಲದನ ನಮಮ ನದನಯವರನ ಆಸಲತಶ ಮರನತ ಅಲದನ ಕಯರಗಳಗ ಹಣವನನ ನ ದ ಖಚನರ ಮಡದನ ಅವರಗ ಸಲದ ರಭಪದಲ ದ ಸದರಯವರನ ನ (1,50,000-00) ಮರನಪವತ ಮಡಬಮಕಗದನ ಹಣವನನ ದ ನವ ದಭರದಸನಪಳವದಲ ವಸವಗದದ ವಮಲಲನ ಗಡರನನಲ ವಸವಗದನ ಕರಣ ಕಛಮರ ಮನಗದ ನಲರರ ನಮಮ ನದಗ ಹಣವನನ ನ ನಮಡಲನ ಹಭಮಗಬಮಕಗದದರಲದ ನನನ ಬಳ ಪಸನರಲ ಇಟನ ಟ ಕಭಲಡರನತತಮನ. ದಯಮಡ ಸದರ ರಪಲನನ ನ ಮನಲಸಬಮಕಗ ಕಭಮರನತತಮನ.
ಸಲಬಲದಪಟಟ 1,50,000-00 ರಭಗಳನನ ನ ನಮಮ ಯಜಮನರದ ಬಡಗ ಹಣವನನ ನ ಕಭ ಶ ಢಮಕರಸ ನಮಮ ಮವನಮಜರ ಆದ ಹಗಡ ರವರಲದ ಪಡದನಕಭಲಡರನತತಮನ. ಉಳದ ರಭ 19,000-00 ಗಳನನ ನ ಈ ದನ ಅಥವ ನಳ ತಲಗಳ ದನಸಯನನ ನ ಗಶಸರಯನನ ನ ಖರಮದಸಲನ ಇಟನ ಟ ಕಭಲಡರನತತಮನ.
ಈ ಮಮಲಲಲಡ ಅಲಶಗಳನ ರಮಮ ಅವಗಹನಗ ಸಲಸನತತ, ಸದರ ಸರವ ಸಲಗತಗಳನನ ನ ನವಮದಸಕಭಲಡದ."29
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
18. PW5, V. Anand is the First Division Assistant working at the office of accused and he is cited by the prosecution to prove that the file with respect to the disbursement of compensation amount for acquisition of land was maintained at the office of accused and the accused had disbursed the cheque to PW6, the beneficiary of the compensation amount whose land was acquired by the BDA. PW5 deposes that the BDA had acquired land situated at Ullal, Sonnenahalli and Nagadevanahalli and developed those lands to form Vishweswarayya layout and the files with regard to the disbursement of compensation amount of these lands were handled at the office of the accused. During cross examination he admits that the cheque with respect to Sy.No.203/3 of Ullalu village land acquisition compensation amount was approved by the Commissioner on 16.06.2014 and on 17.06.2014 the cheque was prepared by the Finance Department. The 30 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 note sheets with respect to same is marked as Ex.D2 and it is his further deposition that he had put the notes and forwarded the same for further orders to the accused on 20.06.2014 and on the same day accused disbursed the cheque to PW6 and the accused did not make any delay in disbursing the cheque to the beneficiary.
19. PW6, Manjunath is the key witness cited by the prosecution to prove that out of the amount of Rs.1,69,000/- seized from the possession of accused, Rs.75,000/- was paid by PW6 to the accused as illegal gratification for disbursing the cheque to PW6. PW6 in his evidence before Court deposes that 23 guntas of his land in Sy.No.203/3 was acquired by the BDA 10-15 years back and he used to visit the BDA office for getting the compensation amount which he got after 4- 5 years of acquisition. He further testifies that he had met one Renukappa at the BDA office for 4-5 times but 31 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 he did not get any information with respect to his compensation amount and later he met accused who discussed his problems and she drew a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- and gave him and thus he obtained his compensation amount. He categorically says that for obtaining cheque he did not meet any other persons and he also deposes that he did not meet accused on any previous occasions and he specifically depose that he did not give any bribe amount to anybody to get his cheque disbursed from the BDA. Hence, he was treated hostile by the prosecution and he was cross examined in length by the learned Public Prosecutor and he denied all the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor and he further categorically denies that on 20.06.2014 at 4.00 pm he had handed over one bundle notes consisting of Rs.500/- denomination 100 notes amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1000 denomination 3 currency notes and 500 denomination 32 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 44 currency notes in all Rs.75,000/- to an agent and after that, within 10 minutes the accused brought the file with respect to the cheque from her case worker and disbursed the cheque to him. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for accused PW6 admits that after 4-5 months of his obtaining cheque the Lokayuktha police interrogated him.
20. PW 7 Chandrashekar Hegde, the Manager of accused person's husband was cited to prove that the money which was seized from the possession of accused were not given by him as the accused had given in her explanation and PW7's testimony is that as per the instructions of Vivekananda, he used to collect rents from the tenants in between 5 th to 20th of every money and after deducting the expenses he used to remit the amount into the account maintained at State Bank of India and ING Vyshya Bank. On 33 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 20.06.2014 after collecting the rent and deducting the expense Rs.1,50,000/- was to be handed over to Vivekananda Reddy and for that he went to Vivekananda's house and met Vivekananda's wife Harishilpa the accused herein, near the gate and usually when Vivekananda was not available he used to hand over the money to accused and hence, he handed over three bundles of notes consisting of Rs.500/- denomination, 100 notes each amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and the notes were having the bank seal and band of Canara Bank. He was treated hostile to the prosecution case and was permitted to cross examine by the learned Public Prosecutor and in his cross examination PW7 denies to the suggestion that the notes handed over by him to the accused was not containing any seal or band of any bank. Learned counsel for accused also cross examined PW7 and in his cross examination he further submits that he had 34 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 maintained a register depicting the receipt of rental amount, expenses, etc., which the Lokayuktha police had taken from him when he was interrogated.
21. PW9 Pushpa G. Kumar who was the Canara Bank Manager during 2014-2015 before Court she identified one bundle of currency notes of Rs.500 denomination had the Canara Bank seal dated 07.05.2014, but in her testimony she submits that it is not possible for her to identifying from which branch of Canara Bank these notes were disbursed and she also says that there will be no name of branch in the bundle and in her cross examination she states that the date on which the notes were disbursed is not mentioned in the MO1 currency notes shown to her. She also states that it is not possible for her to say whether the MO1 currency notes were obtained by the customer through cheque or through cheque withdrawal loose leaf. 35
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017
22. PW 8, 10, 12 and 13 are the Investigating Officers of this case. PW8 Palakshaiah had conducted initial investigation and he admits that he investigated the case for 6 days and he admits that PW11 M.N.Ravishankar had seized the MO1 currency notes from the accused and produced the same before him and he do not remember about any special identification marks on those currency notes. He states that he registered FIR as per the instruction of Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha. Then PW 10 took over investigation from PW 8 and continued the investigation as per Ex. P34 order of Superintendent of Police. He in his evidence deposes the details of documents collected by him which includes service particulars of accused, the statement of account pertaining to bank account of husband of accused and statements of witnesses were recorded. He admits in his cross examination that in Ex.P40, the note sheets 36 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 and other documents collected during investigation, there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. He also admits that during the period of investigation he did not collect any information to ascertain whether the husband of accused had rented out 18 residential premises and 4 commercial building and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- rental income every month.
23. PW 12 K.Ravishankar took over investigation as per Ex. P44 order of the Superintendent of Police and his evidence is that he verified the documents collected by his predecessor Investigating Officers and after preparing Final Report against the accused persons submitted the same to his superior officer for obtaining prosecution sanction order from the competent authorities of the accused. He in his cross examination states that he had not collected any documents and he had verified the mahazar, 37 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 statement of panch witnesses, PW5, PW 6, PW 7, cash declaration register of BDA office and call detail records of mobile phone numbers of accused.
24. PW 13, T.Mahadev is the Investigating Officer who laid charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution got marked 45 documents as Ex. P1 to P45 and amongst these only 22 documents is relevant with respect to this case. Ex.P5 is the search mahazar, Ex.P8 is prosecution sanction order, Ex. P28, P40 are certified copies of file extracts obtained from the office of the accused which shows that cheque for compensation amount was issued to PW6 on 20.06.2014, Ex. P14 is the FIR, Ex. P15 is the authorization to PW8 from Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru to register FIR and conduct investigation. Ex.P34 and P44 are authorization letters issued by the Superior Officers of 38 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 PW10 and PW12 respectively authorizing them to investigate the case.
25. The learned Public Prosecutor in his arguments submits that it has become a menace in the society that no officers or staff working at the B.D.A. offices would perform their public duty without being bribed and the bribe amounts were not received by the officials directly but all officers had appointed private persons as their own agents and mediators and hence, public had no access to the BDA office and hence, on complaints received from several quarters of the society the Karnataka Lokayuktha conducted raid simultaneously in several offices situated at the BDA, Head Office and found out rampant corruptions and the accused of this case was one of the officials who was caught red-handed with unaccounted cash in her possession and she had not maintained a cash 39 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 declaration register which is mandatorily to be maintained at all Government Offices and she gave a vague explanation with respect to possession of the currency notes with her that the cash was given to her by PW7 and during investigation it was found out that the currency notes which were seized from her possession was the bribe amount she had received from PW6 and the prosecution document such as Ex. P40 corroborates the same. He further submits that the prosecution has proved through Ex.P4 mahazar and evidence of PW 2, PW 11 that currency notes amounting to Rs.1,69,000/- has been recovered from the accused and the accused has also not disputed the same. The prosecution has further proved beyond doubt that there was work pending with the accused with respect to disbursement of cheque for compensation amount as the land belonging to PW 6 was acquired by the BDA and on the day of raid itself, 40 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 i.e., on 20.06.2014, the cheque was issued to PW6. This also further proved that the explanation offered by accused was not plausible and hence, the burden to prove that the amount of Rs.1,69,000/- seized from her possession was her legally earned money in the light of non-declaration of the said amount in any of the registers maintained in her office shifts on the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution has produced the statement of account of bank details of accused and her husband. Ex. P45 is the statement of account of the bank details of Canara Bank, BDA branch where the salary of accused is deposited and statements at page 203 shows that the accused has not withdrawn any amount from her account from 30.01.2014 till the date of raid and from Ex.P41 statement of account pertaining to the account held by the husband of the accused at the State Bank of Travancore, H.S.R. Layout branch, at page 262, it is 41 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 proved that neither her husband had withdrawn any amount from his account in between 18.06.2014 and 20.06.2014. In the explanation offered by accused as per Ex.D1 she states that Rs.1,50,000/- was given to her by PW7 and the remaining Rs.19,000/- was kept by her to purchase the monthly grocery for her house. She has not given any explanation with respect to from where she had procured this Rs.19,000/- and the Ex.P41 and Ex.P45 statement of accounts prove that there was no withdrawals of cash from the banks and hence, it is the accused to prove that the cash which were seized from her possession is not her ill-gotten money. The accused did not discharge this burden and hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the MO1 amount of Rs.1,69,000/- seized from the possession of accused was an unaccounted money and she failed to prove the explanation she 42 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 offered for the possession of same and hence, liable to be punished.
26. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused seriously objected the arguments addressed by the learned Public Prosecutor and he argues that Ex.P14 FIR is registered on the basis of Ex.P10 report of Muhammad Mukharam in which there are allegations against several named persons such as Chandrashekar, Teja, Shivaji, Manjunath, Vasu, Soori, Ashwath and Dhanyakumar and no investigation is done with respect to the involvement these persons nor there is any whisper in the Final Report with respect to these persons. Neither Ex.P10 report nor Ex.P14 FIR discloses the name of accused Harishilpa. He further argues that when PW11 raided her office and found MO1 cash in her possession she gave immediate and spontaneous explanation with respect 43 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 to the possession of the cash with her which categorically corroborates with the evidence given by PW7 before this Court. None of the offices situated at the BDA, Head Office were maintaining the cash declaration register and even if there is any fault in the side of accused for not maintaining a cash declaration register and not declaring the cash in her hand, in any of the office registers, that does not warrant any criminal proceedings against her but at the most for an action for dereliction of duty. Moreover, PW9 Bank Manager has not identified that Rs.50,000/- one bundle Rs.500 denomination notes were disbursed from Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch as alleged by the prosecution. He further raised a crucial question of law that the accused is charged for commission of offence under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Section 17 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates 44 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 that authorization from the officer of rank of Superintendent of Police is to be obtained by an Investigating Officer to investigate offence under section 13(1)(e) which is not forthcoming in this case and on that ground also the investigation conducted by PW 8, PW 10, PW 11, PW12 and PW13 would be non- est. He concluded his arguments by submitting that apart from these grounds, PW6 who is the only witness the prosecution had cited to prove that MO 1 cash is illegally got amount of accused, completely turned hostile to prosecution case. The definite case of the defence is that the accused was given Rs.1,50,000/- by PW7, which she received to hand over the same to her sister-in-law who had spent money for the medical and funeral expenses incurred to her mother-in-law. Accused could not hand over the money to her sister- in-law since she had to attend a case at the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka where she was one of the 45 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 respondents and in these circumstances the accused is entitled to be acquitted. He relied upon the following authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his arguments.
i) AIR 2017 Supreme Court page 3173 (Venkatrao Guhe V/s State of Madhya Pradesh)
ii) (2009)6 Supreme Court Cases page 587 (A.Subair V/s State of Kerala)
27. This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions made by Sri.D.Ramesh Babu, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.B.A.Nanja Reddy, the learned counsel for accused and also perused the documents and decisions relied on by the learned counsel for accused. On thorough analysis of prosecution records, it is clear that FIR is registered as per the Ex.P10 report of PW3 who had conducted preliminary enquiry and Ex.P15 is the 46 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 direction of Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru city to PW8 to register a case and to conduct investigation. Ex.P14 FIR discloses that case is registered for offence under section 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, PW8 registered FIR and began the investigation of the case. 2 nd proviso to Section 17 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that an offence under section 13(1)(e) shall not be investigated without an order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police and in this case FIR is registered for offences under section 7,8, 9, 10 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hence, for conducting investigation of this case by PW8, authorization under section 17 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not necessary as argued by the learned counsel for accused. But PW13 has laid the charge sheet against 47 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 the accused alleging commission of offence under section 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and none of the prosecution records depicts that at which stage of investigation the Investigating Officer has added Section 13(1)(e) and continued the investigation. There is not even a single piece of paper submitted before this Court by the Investigating agency with respect to addition of Section 13(1)(e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, it is not forthcoming from the records that at which stage of investigation this section was added and amongst PW8, PW 10, PW 12 and PW 13 who added this section also cannot be ascertained. Admittedly, the Superintendent of Police of Lokayuktha authorizing PW10 and PW12 respectively did not authorize them to conduct investigation of an offence under section 13(1)
(e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. If it is 48 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 presumed that PW13 who had laid the charge sheet had added this offence, just before filing Final Report before this Court, that will also not cure the technical defect which has to be mandatorily followed by the investigating agency before conducting any investigation of offence under section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
28. Coming to the other aspects of this case, it is the initial burden cast upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, only after discharge of this burden the onus shifts on to accused to prove her defence and the accused is not required to prove her defence with the standard of absolute proof, nonetheless she is required to produce acceptable, reliable evidence to probabalise her defense. From close analysis of the evidence of key witnesses PW5 and PW6 cited for the purpose to prove that the accused had obtained bribe to disburse cheque to PW6 49 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 it is clear that the evidence of these two witnesses does not help the prosecution case. PW5, though states that the accused had disbursed the cheque to PW6 and the procedures followed in his office with respect to disbursement of cheque to the beneficiaries whose land were acquired by the B.D.A., his evidence does not throw any light to connect the MO1 cash found in the possession of the accused with this case. As far as PW6 is concerned who is the beneficiary who received the cheque from the accused on 20.06.2014 i.e., on the date of raid, completely gave a set back to the prosecution case and treating this witness as hostile the learned Public Prosecutor has cross examined PW6 and in the course of cross examination, the whole of the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. made by the witness was put to him but except taking the denial nothing worth has been elicited to prove that the accused had received any bribe amount 50 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 from PW6. It is to be noted at this juncture that the accused was asked to offer explanation with respect to possession of Rs.1,69,000/- with her and immediately she gave Ex.D1 explanation and as PW11 did not find the explanation plausible, he arrested her, seized the MO1 cash as per Ex.P5 mahazar and produced before the Investigating Officer PW 8.
29. It is the prosecution case that on investigation, it is found that accused had handled a file wherein PW6 had to be disbursed with a cheque for compensation amount as the B.D.A. had acquired his land and the said cheque was disbursed to PW6 by the accused on 20.06.2014 i.e., on the date of raid and the specific case of the prosecution is that out of Rs.1,69,000/- seized from accused Rs.75,000/- was the bribe amount given by PW6 to accused which consisted of a bundle of 100 number of Rs.500/- 51
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 denomination notes, 3 notes of Rs.1000/- denomination and other 44 number of Rs.500/- denomination lose notes. Ex. P5 is the mahazar drawn with respect to search of office of accused and it also contains the seizure of currency notes from the hand bag belonging to the accused. But in the mahazar, it is mentioned that 3 currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination and 332 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were found and those currency notes were seized as per Ex.P5 mahazar. There is no mention with respect to seizure of bundle of 100 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination with the band and seal of Canara Bank, Malleshwaram branch as alleged by the prosecution and the MO1 currency notes produced before this Court do have a band and seal of Canara Bank but it do not show the name Malleshwaram branch. Even PW9, the bank manager has deposed before this Court that the bundle of notes 52 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 shown to her was disbursed from Canara Bank, but she is not able to identify whether it was issued from Malleshwaram branch and it is not forthcoming from the perusal of prosecution records as to from where and who gave the information to Investigating Officer about the MO1 bundle of notes were issued from particularly the Malleshwaram branch of Canara Bank. Evidence of PW7 is that he had handed over 3 bundles of notes consisting of Rs.500/- denominations to the accused on the same day morning. From Ex.P40 documents i.e., the certified copies of the file with respect to disbursement of cheque to PW6 and other and from Ex.D3, the certified copy of note sheet extract produced by the accused shows that PW5 had forwarded the file to the Sheristedar of his office on 20.06.2014 for orders and the Sheristedar in turn had forwarded the file to the accused and the accused had disbursed the cheque on the same day to PW6 which 53 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 corroborates the testimony of PW6 that he had met the accused only on 20.06.2014 and on the same day she gave him the cheque and hence, the prosecution allegation that PW6 was made by the accused and her staff to pay bribe of Rs.75,000/- and after several days of negotiation and after receipt of the bribe amount cheque was issued to PW6 and among the currency notes which were seized from the accused during search by PW11 were the bribe amount obtained from PW6 fails. The documents such as Ex. P40 itself puts a question mark on the credibility of the prosecution version of this case. Moreover, when the accused was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C., she reiterated the Ex.D1 statement and in proof of that she also produced the death certificate of her mother-in-law who expired exactly one month prior to the date of raid as stated in her statement and she also produced the certified copy of order sheet of a case which shows 54 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 that she had attended the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 20.06.2014 which probabalise her defence.
30. In Anand Ramachandra Chougle V/s Siddram Laxman Chougle (Crl.A.No.1006/2010 dated 06.08.2019), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "an accused is not required to establish or prove his defense beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defense, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material support of such defense, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case further held that "the fact that a defense may not have been taken by an accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C again cannot absolve the 55 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything." In Vasanth Rao Guha's case (Supra), the authority extensively relied upon by the learned counsel for accused, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "from the design and purpose of Section 13(1)(e) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is apparent that the primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct there under would be indubitably on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant either himself or though anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income and it 56 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 is only on the discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of such offence". So far as the law laid down in the judgments cited above is concerned I am of the opinion that the same would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Our Criminal Jurisprudence does not permit the Courts to condemn a person on the mere assumption that the accused might have committed the offence. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has the right of silence during the course of investigation and trial, but when the accused herself has broken the silence by taking up a definite plea with respect to the possession of the currency notes, she is bound to prove the said plea with probable satisfactory evidence if not with absolute proof, which in my considered opinion, she has discharged in this case, even though 57 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 the prosecution did not discharge its initial burden of proof that the MO1 currency notes were unaccounted earnings of accused. Hence, in view of the materials on record and the reasoning stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of criminal misconduct under section 13(1)(e) of the Act which warrants punishment under section 13(2) thereof against the accused thereby the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused and she is entitled to be acquitted on that ground and hence, I answer the points taken for consideration in the negative.
31. Point No 4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the accused Harishilpa is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) 58 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused other than the bonds executed by accused under section 437A of Cr.P.C, stands cancelled.
MO 1 cash of Rs. 1,69,000/- is ordered to be returned to the accused after the appeal period is over.
(Typed on my dictation by the Judgment Writer directly on computer, printed copy taken over, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04th day of January, 2020) Sd/-4.1.2020 [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 59 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Manjunath PW.2 : Karan Sheel PW.3 : Mohammed Mokram PW.4 : Abiram G.Shankar PW.5: V.Anand PW 6 : C.Manjunatha PW 7 : Chandrashekar N.Hegde PW 8 : D.Palakshaiah PW 9 : Smt.Pushpa G.Kumar PW 10: H.S.Venkatesh PW 11 : M.N.Ravishankar PW 12: K.Ravishankar PW 13: T.Mahadeva
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P 1 : Office search mahazar dtd 20.06.2014 Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P1(b) : Signature of PW 8 Ex P 2 : Search mahazar (1st floor) 60 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Ex P2(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3 : Search warrant office of Land Acquisition Officer Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3(b) : Signature of PW 8 Ex P4 : Search Warrant Ex P4(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P5 : Office search mahazar Ex P5(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P5(b) : Signature of PW 11 Ex P6 : Search warrant/M/N.Ravishankar Ex P6(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P7 : Office search mahazar dtd 21.06.2018 Ex P7(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P8 : Sanction order Ex P8(a) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P9: Relevant portion in the statement of PW6 ExP10 : Report of Investigating Officer Ex P11: Certified copy of search warrant Ex P12: Cerified copy of search mahazar 61 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Ex P13: Relevant portion in the statement of PW 7 Ex P14 : FIR Ex P14(a) : Signature of PW 8 Ex P 15 : Memo issued by Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex P16: Witness securing letter to BMTC Ex P17 : Requisition letter for search warrants Ex P18 : Search warrant Dr.Anil Kumaraswamy Ex P19 : Search warrant M.S.Srinivas Ex P20 : Search warrant R.Sudheer Ex P21 : 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/Mustaq Ahmed Ex P 22: 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/ K.S.Muniyappa Ex P 23: 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/ T.V.Raju Ex P 24: 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/M.Manjunatha Ex P 25: 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/ B.K.Sureshkumar Ex P26 : 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/H.P.Puttaswamy Ex P27 : 165 Cr.P.C authorisation letter/ N.G.Shivashankar Ex P28 : Attested copy of register extract 62 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Ex P29 : Report of Ravishankar Ex P30 : PF No.5/2014 Ex P31 : Search warrant /Srinivas Ex P32 : Search warrant /Anil Kumar Ex P33 : Search warrant /T.V.Raju Ex P34 : Proceedings of Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex P 35: SBM current account details of Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex P36 : Copies of declaration of cash, attendance register Ex P37 : Copy of attendance register of the accused Ex P38 : copy of the Notes, and cash declaration register Ex P39 : Salary details of accused Ex P40: Work distribution details Ex P41: State Bank of Travankoor, HSR Layout Branch, ING Vysya Bank account details. 63
Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Ex P42 : Permission letter pertaining to depositing cash to Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha, account Ex P43 : Rough sketch Ex P 44 : Proceedings under section 165 of Cr.P.C issued by Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha Ex P 45: Covering letter of Canara Bank, certificate and enclosures.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO 1 : Cash of Rs 1,69,000/- (500 x 332) + ( 1000x3) List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused: NIL List of documents marked on behalf of accused: Ex D1. Explanation of accused 64 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017 Ex D1(a) Signature of PW 2 Ex D2 : Note sheet Sl.No.127 of BDA office Ex D3 : Note sheet Sl.No.129 of BDA office Ex D3(a) : Signature of PW 5 Sd/-4.1.2020 [MANJULA ITTY] XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 65 Spl.C.C.No.268/2017