Bangalore District Court
State By Seshadripuram Police Station vs Has Not Deposited The Amount To The Bank on 18 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 18th day of June 2018
Present: Sri. Laxman R. Kurane, B.Com., LL.B (Spl).,
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 7406/2003
2. Date of offence : 30.10.1998
3. Complainant : State by Seshadripuram Police Station
4. Accused : B.N.Parijatha W/o C.R.Kumar
54 years, r/at No. 62/Y,
13th Main Road, 3rd Y Block,
Rajajinagara, Bangalore-560 010.
5. Offences complained of : Sec. 408, 477 (A), 420 IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused is
acquitted
The PSI of Seshadripuram Police Station has filed the final report as
against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sec. 408, 477
(A), 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the accused
being the FDC in Bruhut Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and working as the
2
Govt. servant from 11.1.1997 to 12.8.1998 collected the amount from public
for change of katha, registration of katha, but without remitting to the BBMP
caused loss of Rs 7,25,835.40 as per the audit report by falsifying the
account and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused person appeared through his counsel and was enlarged
on bail. Prosecution papers are furnished to the accused person in
compliance of 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing before charge, since no
grounds were made out for his discharge, charges were framed, read over to
the accused person in the language known to him. The accused person
having understood the same, denied it to be false and claimed to be tried. As
such, the matter was set down for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused person
had cited C.W.1 to 13 as its charge sheet witnesses, among whom
C.W.2,1,3,9,10,12,6 and 23 are examined as P.W.1 to 8 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to P.13. The accused was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for
the incriminating circumstances appeared against her. She denied the same
and not chosen to adduce evidence on her behalf. As such, the matter was
posted for arguments.
3
5. Heard the learned Sr. APP for the prosecution and the learned
counsel for the accused person. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Following points arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused person has committed the offence punishable under
Sec. 408, 477 (A), 420 IPC ?
(2) What order ?
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1 :
8. P.W.1 Devendra, Assistant Revenue Officer, has stated in his
evidence that accused was working as FDA in Revenue Department during
the year 1996 to 1998 has misappropriated Rs 8,94,000/- and odd and after
coming to know about it, they searched the house of accused for the books
such as receipt and cash books and recovered three cash books and brought
the same to the office for verification and found the entries in the book, but
accused has not deposited the amount to the Bank, but only repaid Rs
1,69,000/-.
4
9. P.W.2 Ramakrishnappa, Retired Asst. Revenue Officer has stated in
his evidence that accused person was working as FDC in Rajajinagar office
of BBMP and the job responsibility of accused was to collect money with
regard to katha transfers, khata certificate, khatha extract, khatha clubbing
and khatha bifurcation and suppose to remit the amount in the bank on the
next day and issue receipt for having collected the amount.
10. P.W.3 Rathnamma, Revenue Officer, BBMP, has stated in her
evidence that she does not know anything about misappropriation of amount
and she came to know only after lodging of complaint with regard to
misappropriation of money. The evidence of P.W.4 Ravimario,
Stenographer, BBMP, P.W.5 Narasimhamurthy, Driver, BBMP and P.W.6
Ramaiah, Retired Revenue Assessor are in line with the evidence of P.W.3.
P.W.4 to 6 have turned out hostile to the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W.7 Suresh, Deputy Commissioner, BBMP has stated in his
evidence that accused person was working as FDA in his office Rajajinagar
during 2003 to 2006 and the job responsibility of accused was to collect
money with regard to khatha transfer, khata certificate, khatha extract,
khatha clubbing and khatha bifurcation and collection of fees fixed by the
Government, issuance of receipt for collecting money and remittance of the
5
money to the Bank and out of Rs 7,25,000/- to be remitted to the Bank, but
accused person has misappropriated Rs 6,93,000/- and then the police
recorded his statement and he came to know that accounts books and ledger
books were seized from the house of accused.
12. PW.8 Lakshmipathigowda, Retired ACP has stated in his evidence
that on 13.9.2002 he obtained case file from P.I. and perused the
investigation and requested the concerned departments to submit original
documents pertaining to this case, recorded statements of C.W.13, C.W.11,
C.W.12, C.W.15 and 16 and after taking permission from ADP filed the
charge sheet against accused person.
13. Except the evidence of these 8 witnesses, the prosecution has not
examined any other witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1 Asst. Revenue
Officer is not corroborated by any other witnesses. P.W.2 Retired Asst.
Revenue Officer has stated about duties and responsibilities of the accused.
P.W.3 Revenue Officer, BBMP, has stated that she does not know anything
about misappropriation of amount. P.W.4 to 6 Stenographer, Driver and
Retired Revenue Assessor have turned out hostile to the case of the
prosecution. P.W.7 Deputy Commissioner, BBMP in his cross-examination
has stated that he does not know how the accused was performing her duties
in the office and he came to know about misappropriation of money from his
6
Manager. P.W.8 is the retired ACP has stated about investigation of the
case. Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused person that she has
committed the alleged offences. There is no corroboration to the evidence of
P.W.1. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
person beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer the above point
in the negative.
Point No. 2 :
14. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 408, 477 (A), 420 IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and his surety shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 18th day of June 2018) (LAXMAN R. KURANE), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
7ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Devendra P.W.2 : Ramakrishna P.W.3 : Rathnamma P.W.4 : Ravikoria P.W.5 : Narasimhamurthy P.W.6 : Ramaiah P.W.7 : P.Suresha P.W.8 : S.R.Lakshmipathigowda
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Notes Ex.P.2 : Office order Ex.P.3 to 5 : Notice seeking explanation Ex.P.6 & 7 : Challan Ex.P.8 : Complaint with notes Ex.P.9 : Complaint Ex.P.10 : Letter Ex.P.11 : Report Ex.P.12 : Memorandum Ex.P.13 : Statement of P.W.4
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Nil For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU. 8 9 10