Bangalore District Court
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs C P Yogeshwara on 22 February, 2025
KABC030815922021
Presented on : 10-11-2021
Registered on : 10-11-2021
Decided on : 22-02-2025
Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 12 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Shri.K.N.SHIVAKUMAR, B.Sc.,(Agri),L.L.M.,
XLII Addl.CJM, Bengaluru City
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2025
C.C.No. 30786/2021
COMPLAINANT: Serious Fraud Investigation Office,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Government of India,
2nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003.
Represented by Assistant Director
Mr. Saumendra Kumar Nanda.
(Represented By Smt. Anuparna
Bordolol, Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Sri. C.P. Yogeshwara,
S/o. Sh. Puttamadegowda,
Aged about 48 Years,
2 C.C.No. 30786/2021
Managing Director of Megacity
(Bengaluru) Developers
& Builders Limited
464, 1st 'G' Cross,
2nd Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage,
BENGALURU 560085.
(Represented by Sri. VKJ Advocate)
2. Sri. C.P. Gangadhareshwara
Managing Director of Megacity
(Bengaluru) Developers
& Builders Limited
367, 1st 'E' Cross,
2nd Phase, BSK 3rd Stage,
BENGALURU 560085.
(Represented by Sri. VKJ Advocate)
3. Sh. Sanjay Shreesha, Chartered
Accountant Statutory Auditor of
Megacity (Bangalore) Developers
& Builders Limited
N.D.S & Co., Chartered Accountants,
1/4-4, 3rd Floor,
Sujatha Complex, 1st Main,
Gandhi Nagar,
BENGALURU 560009.
(Represented by Sri. VKJ Advocate)
4. M/s. Megacity (Bengaluru)
Developers & Builders Pvt Ltd
Mega Tower,
120, Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road,
BENGALURU 560027.
3 C.C.No. 30786/2021
Represented by its Nominee Director
Sri. C.V. Sanjeevan.
(Represented by Sri. KMN Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed complaint U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure R/w. Sec.621 of Companies Act, 1956 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 628 of Companies Act, 1956.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; The accused No.1 was the Managing Director, accused No.2 was the whole time Director and accused No.3 was the statutory auditor of M/s. Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers & Builders Ltd., (herein after referred to as 'MDBL'). Which was incorporated as a private limited company on 11/08/1994 and converted into a public limited company on 12/08/1998, with the object of carrying on the business to develop, construct, furnish, let-out, sell, deal in and to carry on all or any of 4 C.C.No. 30786/2021 the functions of Proprietors of lands, flats, dwelling houses, shops, offices, commercial complexes, factory sheds, buildings and accommodation of all kinds. The accused under the said company have floated a real estate project named Vajragiri project and collected about Rs.60 Crores towards booking amounts in respect of the same. However, the said project was not materialized and large number of investors money was not refunded. Accordingly, there were several complaints from the investors pointing towards the financial affairs of said company being conducted prejudicial to the interest of said investors. In view of such complaints regarding financial fraud against the company received by the Ministry of corporate Affairs, an inspection of the company U/Sec. 209A of the companies Act, was ordered and accordingly, the inspection report was submitted to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 31/09/2007, which brought out violation of various provisions of the companies Act by the said company. Further, the 5 C.C.No. 30786/2021 Registrar of companies, Karnataka has also conducted a scrutiny of the balance sheet of said company as on 31/03/2006 U/Sec. 234(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and submitted a report to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India U/Sec. 234(6) of the Act, indicating the possible diversion and misutilization of funds by the promoters of said company. In the light of said reports, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India has directed an investigation into the affairs of said MDBL company U/Sec. 235 of the Companies Act, by its order dated: 17/04/2009. Accordingly, a team of investigators was appointed to investigate into the financial and other irregularities, contraventions / violations of the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 or fraudulent Act committed by the said company and its Directors or its Officers or any other persons in the conduct of affairs of the company. After the investigation, the said team of investigators submitted the investigation report to the Government of 6 C.C.No. 30786/2021 India. On the basis of the findings given in the investigation report as to several irregularities, fraudulent acts and contravention / violation of the provisions of the companies Act, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had directed the complainant office i.e., The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (herein after referred as SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to file complaints against the said company, its Directors and Officers by its letter dated: 14/09/2011. Accordingly, on the basis of one of the findings of said investigation report as to the falsification of balance sheet for the year ending 31/03/2006, this complaint is filed. It is the specific allegation that, the Directors of said MDBL company have falsified the companies balance sheet as on 31/05/2006 by not including the lands valuing Rs.46,72,500/- in its stock of land and the value of vehicle purchased under the name of said company in the fixed assets of the company, which is an offence punishable U/Sec. 628 of the Companies Act. 7 C.C.No. 30786/2021 Accordingly, the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.628 of Companies Act, 1956.
3. After filing the complaint, the same was registered in PCR. As the complainant is a public servant, the sworn statement of the complainant was dispensed with and cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.628 of Companies Act, 1956 and this Criminal Case was registered and summons was issued to accused. On receipt of summons, the accused have appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. The plea of the accused for the accusation U/Sec.628 of Companies Act, 1956 was recorded, wherein, they have pleaded not guilty, but claimed to have defence. Hence the case was posted for recording the evidence from complainant side.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself got examined as PW1 and also examined four more witnesses as PW.2 to 5 and got marked 19 8 C.C.No. 30786/2021 documents as Ex.P1 to 19. Thereafter, the accused were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the incriminating evidences appeared against them in the evidence of complainant side and submitted to have no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned advocates for the accused and perused the materials available on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the managing director, Accused No.2 being the whole time director and accused No.3 being Chartered Accountant of M/s. Megacity (Bangalore) Developers & Builders Limited, Bangalore, dealing with land developments, having responsibility of day today affairs of the company have falsified the companies balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 by not including the land valuing Rs.46,72,500/- in it's stock and 9 C.C.No. 30786/2021 value of the vehicle purchased on behalf of the company in the fixed assets of the company and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.628 of Indian Penal Code ?
2. What Order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- It is the specific case of the complainant that, accused No.1 being the managing director, Accused No.2 being the whole time director and the accused No.3 being Chartered Accountant of M/s. Megacity (Bangalore) Developers & Builders Limited, Bangalore during the period 2005-06 dealing with land developments, having responsibility of day to day affairs of the company & signatories to the Balance sheet of said company as at 31.03.2006 have falsified the companies balance sheet as at 31/03/2006 by not 10 C.C.No. 30786/2021 including the 5 items of lands purchased in the name of the company during 2005-06 valuing Rs.46,72,500/- in it's stock and also by not including the value of the vehicle Mahendra Scorpio car purchased out of the funds of the company in the name of managing director i.e., accused No.1, in the fixed assets of the company and as such they have committed the alleged offence P/U/Sec. 628 of Companies Act, 1956.
9. In order to prove it's case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and examined four witness as PW2 to PW5. PW1 being complainant & Pw2 to 5 being the inspectors of said investigation team have in their evidence reiterated the allegations of the complaint as well as the findings of investigation report at Ex.P8 with regard to alleged falsification of balance sheet as at 31.03.2006. On considering the allegations of complaint & the testimony of Pw1 to 5, it appears that there are two fold allegations as to falsification of balance sheet of said 11 C.C.No. 30786/2021 company as at 31.03.2006. Firstly, falsification as to non- mentioning about the purchase of lands worth Rs. 46.72,500/- during 2005-06 and secondly the falsification as to non-mentioning about purchase of a vehicle-Mahindra Scorpio in the name of the Managing director of said company out of the the funds of said company.
10. The Pw1 to 5 have deposed that during investigation the team had verified the balance sheets of said company for the period from 31.03.1997 to 31.03.1999, wherein it was found that till 31.03.1999 the stock of land was shown to be Rs. 1,16,16,165/- under the head Current assets. But in the balance sheets for the year ending 31.03.2000 to 31.03.2006 said stock of land value was shown under the head project work in progress. Further in the balance sheet for the period ending 31.03.2005 lands worth Rs.1,60,73,844/- was shown under the head project work in progress and in 12 C.C.No. 30786/2021 the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2006 lands worth Rs. 1,57, 70,122/- was shown under the head project work in progress. As such there was a decrease of Rs.3,03,722/- in the value of lands under the head project work in progress in the balance sheet of 2006. In this regard they have deposed that the investigation team had also verified the profit & loss account statement of said company for the period 2005-06, wherein it was found that during the year 2005 land worth Rs.3,03,722/ was sold and there was no mention as addition of any land by purchase in the balance sheet of 2005-06. As such it is clear that no fresh lands were taken in the name of the company during 2005-06 as per their balance sheets. But the investigation team also found on examination of available records relating to sale deeds obtained from CID, Bengaluru & the details furnished by the company that items of lands for total consideration of Rs.46,72,500/- were purchased in the name of said company during 2005-06. But the same was 13 C.C.No. 30786/2021 not shown in the balance sheet of the company during the year 2005-06 in its stock of lands.
11. In support of their testimony the complainant got produced the alleged balance sheets from the year ending 31.03.2000 to 31.03.2006 as Ex.P9, the copy of profit & loss accounts statement for the year ending 31.03.2006 as Ex.P10 and also produced alleged 5 sale deeds in the course of evidence of Pw2 as Ex.P15 to 19. It is the specific defence of the accused that, said items of lands under Ex.P15 to 19 were under sale agreement with M/s. Shivapriya Farms & Resorts. Subsequently, said M/s. Shivapriya Farms & Resorts entered into an agreement with the MDBL company to sell those properties as per the agreement dated: 03/10/1996. Under the said agreement of sale, the MDBL company had paid advance sale consideration to the tune of Rs.1.5 Crores in total. As such, the MDBL company had 14 C.C.No. 30786/2021 taken all said properties under said agreement as their current assets in their balance sheet of 1996.
12. In the course of cross examination of PW2, said agreement of sale with said M/s. Shivapriya Farms & Resorts was confronted and got marked as Ex.D1. The PW1 on showing said agreement also admitted that, there was said agreement between the MDBL company and said M/s. Shivapriya Farms & Resorts. He also categorically admitted in his cross examination that, the MDBL company has taken all said properties under said agreement as their current assets in their balance sheet of 1996. He also admitted that, later in ordered to perfect the title the MDBL company had obtained sale deeds from the real owners of those lands through said M/s. Shivapriya Farms & Resorts. However, he has denied that all the properties mentioned in the said sale deeds at Ex.P15 to 19 were already taken as current assets by the MDBL company during 1996 itself and volunteers to say 15 C.C.No. 30786/2021 that some of them were taken as current assets, but not all. In this regard, on perusal of said sale agreement Ex.D1 and the evidence of PW2 in his examination in chief and the allegations at paragraph 17 of the complaint, it appears very clear that all the 5 items of properties as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the complaint as well as the deposition of PW2 are also included under the said sale agreement Ex.D1 along with other properties in total to an extent of 90 acres. That apart, the PW2 in his cross examination at page-9 also admitted that, purchase of lands to an extent of 18.07 acres as stated by him in his examination in chief was accounted by the accused company in its balance sheet.
13. On considering the defence of accused in the light of said sale agreement Ex.D1 and the sale deeds at Ex.P15 to 19, it appears that as the said MDBL company made payment of advance sale consideration under the said sale agreement Ex.D1 on 03/10/1996 itself, as 16 C.C.No. 30786/2021 admitted by PW2 it had taken all said 5 items of properties under the said agreement as their current assets in their balance sheet of 1996 itself. That being the case, even though the sale deeds in respect of said 5 items of lands were executed during 2005, as said properties were already included and shown in the balance sheet of 1996 itself, they might had not included them in their balance sheet for the year ending 31/03/2006. On considering the evidence led by the complainant i.e., the testimony of PW1 to 5 and the documents at Ex.D1 & Ex.P15 to 19 which were produced subsequently in this case, it appears that the investigating team without ascertaining and analyzing said facts, might had come to a wrong conclusion that those properties under the sale deeds at Ex.P15 to 19 were not included in the balance sheet of said company for the year ending 31/03/2006.
17 C.C.No. 30786/2021
14. The second allegation as to falsification of balance sheet is that, a vehicle Mahindra Scorpio was purchased out of the funds of the company in the name of Managing Director - accused No.1, which ought to have been transferred in to the name of company after clearing the loan. But, even though the Managing Director - accused No.1 had executed necessary papers in that regard and submitted to the company on 31/03/2005 itself, said vehicle was not included in the balance sheet for the year ending 31/03/2006. According to the report of investigating team as alleged in the complaint said fact was noticed by the investigating team on the basis of the Board meeting of said MDBL company dated: 19/04/2005, wherein it was resolved as follows;
"the chairman informed that the company had purchased a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle in the name of Managing Director since the bank has not sanctioned the loan to the company. Now, the loan has been cleared and the vehicle may be registered in the name of the company. The 18 C.C.No. 30786/2021 Managing Director has executed necessary papers in this regard and submitted to the company on 31/03/2005".
15. On the basis of said resolution, the investigating team has drawn an opinion that, as the necessary papers were executed and submitted to the company on 31/03/2005, there is possibility that said Mahindra Scorpio vehicle may not have been included in the fixed assets of the company as on 31/03/2005. Nevertheless it should have been included in the fixed assets of the company as on 31/03/2006. But, in the schedule of fixed assets in the balance sheet of the company as on 31/03/2006 there was no addition of said Mahindra Scorpio vehicle. In this regard, it is the defence of the accused that, the investigating team had barely relied on alleged resolution or Minutes of meeting dated:
19/04/2005, but not made any efforts to ascertain the truth fullness of said resolution. The investigating team has not collected any document from the accused 19 C.C.No. 30786/2021 company. More so, except saying that a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle was purchased in the name of accused No.1, they have not collected any document in support of the same. They might had collected the registration certificate of said vehicle to substantiate their conclusion.
Even they have not mentioned either in the report or the complaint or even in the testimony of PW1 to 5 the registration Number, year of making, the model and other details of said Mahindra Scorpio vehicle. The PW2 in his cross examination categorically admitted the same.
16. Further, though it is specifically stated in the complaint that, they have received copies of documents from COD Bengaluru, the PW2 categorically deposed that, he do not remember as to what documents were received from COD Bengaluru while receiving the information. With regard to the alleged document i.e., the Extract of Minutes of Meeting dated: 19/04/2005 which was marked as Ex.P11, it is the defence of the 20 C.C.No. 30786/2021 accused that, the said Minutes of Meeting cannot be relied on, because the complainant has not produced the entire book of Minutes of Meeting to prove that said extract was from the said book or to show that said extract Ex.P11 is part of said Book of Minutes of Meeting. In this regard, the PW2 clearly admits that he has not collected and produced any such book of the Minutes of Meeting of said company. He also categorically admits that, without verifying the Minutes of Meeting book of said company for the year ending 31/03/2005 he has wrongly stated that a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle worth Rs.16 lakhs was purchased from the company's fund in the personal name of accused No.1. For reference said admission of PW2 at page 8 of his evidence is extracted herein below;
" It is true to suggest that, a company maintains its Minutes book. I have not produced the entire Minutes book of said MDBL company. It is true to suggest that, without verifying the Minutes book for the year 31/03/2005, I have wrongly stated that a 21 C.C.No. 30786/2021 Mahindra Scorpio vehicle worth Rs.16 Lakhs was purchased from the companies fund in the personal name of accused No.1. It is true to suggest that in the course of investigation I have not made attempt to procure the registration document of said vehicle from the concerned RTO. It is true to suggest that I have not ascertained the registration number of said vehicle. It is true to suggest that, Ex.P11 is not the part of Minute book of said MDBL company".
17. This witness PW2 is the Head of said investigation team. That being the case his testimony with regard to the alleged falsification in the balance sheet fetches more weightage than the evidence of any other witnesses examined by the complainant. As discussed herein above, the categorical admissions by this witness PW2 clearly establish that the Minutes of Meeting at Ex.P11 cannot be accepted as the extract or part of the minutes book of said MDBL company. More so, the clear admissions by this witness would enable this court to come to a clear conclusion that the 22 C.C.No. 30786/2021 investigating team might not had conducted proper investigation and not made serious attempts to ascertain as to whether any such vehicle was purchased in the name of accused No.1 and whether said vehicle was purchased out of the funds of MDBL company. More so, the investigation team has least bothered to collect even the details of such vehicle like the registration certificate etc., to ascertain their conclusion. Rather, it appears very clear that, only on the basis of alleged extract Ex.P11, which was not duly proved to be the extract from the minutes book of said company, said investigating team might had come to a wrong or unsupported or unsubstantiated conclusion that the company had purchased alleged vehicle in the name of its Managing Director - accused No.1 and intentionally not included the same in its balance sheet for the year ending 31/03/2006 under the fixed assets.
23 C.C.No. 30786/2021
18. Apart from all the above discussed facts & evidences, it is pertinent to note that, there are several admissions by PW2 which makes it very clear that the investigation was not properly and completely done with regard to the allegations made in this case. Some of such admissions which may appear to be relevant for deciding the issue in this case or extracted herein below for clarity;
" It is true to suggest that, in the complaint it is stated we have received copies of sale deeds from COD Bengaluru. Said sale deeds are not produced in this case. It is true to suggest that Ex.P1 to 9 are not seized from the office of MDBL company. It is true to suggest that I have not seized any documents from the MDBL company. It is true to suggest that without seizing any relevant documents from the MDBL company, I have stated that said company had purchased and registered about 18 acres of land worth Rs.93,45,000/- during 2005-06 only on the basis of oral information from COD, Bengaluru. It is true to suggest that, without taking any document from COD Bengaluru I have stated that the company has falsified the balance sheet for the year 2006. It is true to suggest that for the year ending 31/03/2006 24 C.C.No. 30786/2021 we have not furnished the complete balance sheet".
19. That apart, the PW1, PW3, PW4 & PW5 have also given several relevant admissions in respect of said allegations. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that, he has not examined the balance sheet at Ex.P9 & 10 and he do not know the registration number of vehicle that was purchased in the name of Managing Director of said company. He has categorical admitted that he do not know as to whether said balance sheets were falsified or not. More so, he has admitted that, he do not know as to whether the notices at Ex.P12 & 13 issued to the accused company seeking information about the said vehicle were served on the accused company or not. The PW3 who was one of the Members of said investigation team has deposed that she has no knowledge about the other investigation done in the matter, except the part of investigation or enquiry done 25 C.C.No. 30786/2021 by her relating to the Income Tax Department. Except this no substantive evidence was adduced by this witness to support the allegations of this case. The PW4 who was also a member of said investigation team in his cross examination categorically admitted that, an amount of Rs.3,03,722/- was shown as cost of land in the year 2005-06. He also admitted that the amount shown under the Head project work in progress in the balance sheet is shown under current assets. He also stated that he could not say the registration number of said vehicle. He says that they have investigated to ascertain the registration number and other particulars of said vehicle. But not stated anything as to what was the result of such investigation. He also categorically admits that they have not seized the entire minutes book of said company. He admits that, in such minutes book the dates of minutes of meetings would be entered serially and that the Ex.P11 i.e., the extract of Minutes of Meeting does not bear any such serial number. He further deposed that, he do not 26 C.C.No. 30786/2021 know as to whether any investigation was done or any document was collected to show as to whether the accused No.1 has withdrawn alleged Rs.37 Crores and Rs.16 Crores from the company fund towards purchase of lands and purchase of alleged vehicle. Thus, from the testimony of this witness also no such substantive materials could be gathered to substantiate the allegations of this complaint. The PW5 who was also one of the Members of investigating team in his evidence categorically admitted that he has not taken part in the process of issuing summons to the accused, verification of balance sheets and Minutes of Meeting of the accused company and collection of information from COD, Bengaluru. Further, he has categorically admitted that, he had no role to play in the course of investigation of the allegations of this particular case and he has not involved in preparation of the final investigation report. Thus, from the testimony of this witness also no such 27 C.C.No. 30786/2021 increminiating evidences against the accused could be gathered.
20. From all the above discussed facts, circumstance, evidences and the reasons, it can be concluded that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused have falsified the balance sheet of the said MDBL company for the year ending 31/03/2006 by not including the land for the sale consideration of Rs.46,72,500/- in its stock of lands and not including the value of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle in its fixed assets. As such, it can be held that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 628 of Companies Act, 1956 beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
21. Point No.2- In view of the above findings on point No.1, the following order is passed; 28 C.C.No. 30786/2021
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 628 of the Companies Act.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of February, 2025).
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW.1 - Somendra Kumar Nanda PW.2 - J.K. Teotia PW.3 - Indrani Sen Chawdhuree PW.4 - Anupam Vasishista PW.5 - R.S. Chaudhary Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 - Gazatte Notification
Ex.P2 - Order copy dated: 17/10/2011
Ex.P3 - Incorporation
Ex.P4 - Copy of Memorandum of Association
29 C.C.No. 30786/2021
Ex.P5 - Order dated: 17/04/2009
Ex.P6 - Order dated: 30/12/2009
Ex.P7 - Sanction order
Ex.P8 - Investigation report into the Affairs
Ex.P9 - Balance sheet
Ex.P10 - Copy of Profit and loss account
Ex.P11 - Minutes of Meeting
Ex.P12 - Letter dated: 13/05/2011
Ex.P13 - Letter dated: 21/06/2011
Ex.P14 - Reply dated: 19/05/2011
Ex.P15 - Sale deed dated: 12/09/2005
Ex.P16 - Sale deed dated: 30/08/2005
Ex.P17 - Sale deed dated: 31/08/2005
Ex.P18 - Sale deed dated: 17/09/2005
Ex.P19 - Sale deed dated: 15/09/2005
Witnesses examined for the Defence:
- Nil -
Documents exhibited for the defence:
Ex.D1 - Agreement of Sale
Material objections:
- Nil -
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR)
XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru
(Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 30 C.C.No. 30786/2021 (Order pronounced in open court Vide Separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 628 of the Companies Act.
Bail bonds and surety
bonds of the accused shall stand
canceled.
( K.N. SHIVAKUMAR )
XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru
(Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as 31 C.C.No. 30786/2021 well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka)