Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs A.R.Ranganatha S/O Late A.C.Ramanna on 4 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.A.), BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.79)
Present: Sri.Ravindra Hegde, M.A., LL.M.,
LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C.A.), Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 4th day of December 2018
Special C.C. No.416/2015
Complainant: State of Karnataka, represented by
Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: A.R.Ranganatha S/o Late A.C.Ramanna
Aged about 54 years,
Sr. Marketing Supervisor,
Raitha Santhe, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
R/at No.17, 4th 'B' Cross,
9th Main, Kama Neharu Layout,
Yeshawanthapura,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.Rangaswamy, Advocate)
Date of commission of offence 08.07.2014, 10.07.2014 &
18.07.2014
Date of report of occurrence 18.07.2014
Date of arrest of accused 19.07.2014
Date of release of accused on 24.07.2014
bail
Date of commencement of 27.03.2017
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 02.07.2018
Name of the complainant H.Srinivas
2 Spl.C.C.416/2015
Offences complained of Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act
Opinion of the Judge Convicted
Date of Judgment 04.12.2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has filed this charge sheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (In short PC Act).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
Accused-A.R.Ranganath was Senior Marketing Supervisor in APMC Raithara santhe Market, Yelahanka, Bengaluru and was a public servant. Complainant-H.Srinivas S/o Hanumanthappa was bringing vegetables grown in his agricultural property of one acre in Devanahalli Village and also vegetables grown by others in the vehicle belonging to him to Raithara Santhe Market, Yelahanka and selling the same from about 10 years prior to giving complaint. On 08.07.2014 when he brought his vehicle with vegetables, accused who was working as Administrator in Raithara Santhe Market, stopped him and asked him to show Identity Card and other documents and took complainant to his office and demanded bribe of Rs.8,000/-p.m. to allow him to do business
3 Spl.C.C.416/2015 in Raithara Santhe Market and threatened that if amount is not given, his vehicle will not be allowed inside. Complainant agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- and on 09.07.2014 complainant went to give Rs.2,000/-, but accused has not received it. Thereafter on 10.07.2014 complainant met security guard by name Thimmegowda and he took complainant to accused and then accused agreed to receive Rs.3,500/- and when complainant went to give Rs.3,500/-, accused gave signal to keep the amount in table drawer and accordingly complainant kept the amount in table drawer of accused. Accused further asked complainant to pay this amount of Rs.3,500/- pm on 1 st of every month and also asked him to pay amount for previous months and demanded Rs.50,000/- and then brought it down to Rs.10,000/- by writing the amount on a paper. Complainant took 5-6 days time to pay this amount. Thereafter on 18.07.2014 accused made a phone call and insisted for payment of amount and complainant took time till next day. Complainant recorded his conversation with accused and then with his friend-Narayanaswamy he came to Lokayuktha Office on 18.07.2014 and gave complaint and even produced C.D. containing recordings made by him. On receiving complaint, Lokayuktha Police Inspector has registered the case in Crime No.35/14 and submitted FIR to the Court. Lokayukta Police Inspector secured panchas and made all arrangements for trap and followed the procedures. On 19.07.2014 between 9.30 a.m to 11.00 a.m. in the office of accused in Raithara 4 Spl.C.C.416/2015 Santhe Market, on the signal given by accused, complainant kept the taintd notes of Rs.10,000/- in Table drawer and then gave signal to trap team and accused was caught. Tainted notes were recovered from drawer of the table on the left side of accused. Thereafter, trap procedures were followed and accused was arrested and produced before the Court. Investigating Officer continued investigation and after completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet.
3. Cognizance of offences is taken by this Court. Accused appeared and is enlarged on bail. Copies of prosecution papers are furnished to Accused. After hearing both sides regarding framing of charge and having found prima-facie materials, charge is framed against Accused and read over to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 9 are examined. Exs.P1 to P.29 are marked. M.O.1 to M.O.11 are also marked.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of Accused, as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused has denied incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Ex.D.1 is marked for Accused.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. Now, Points that arise for my consideration are:-
5 Spl.C.C.416/2015
1) Whether the prosecution proves that there is a valid sanction to prosecute the Accused?
2) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, Accused being public servant, working as Senior Marketing Supervisor in Raithara Santhe Market, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, has on 08.07.2014, 09.07.2014 and 10.07.2014 demanded bribe from complainant for allowing him to bring vegetables for sale in Raithara Santhe Market in his vehicle and asked complainant to pay Rs.3,500/- p.m and also demanded Rs.10,000/- for the previous period and on 18.07.2014 he again demanded amount by making phone call and on 19.07.2014 between 9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in his office in Raithara Santhe Market, Yelahanka, accused again demanded and then instructed complainant to keep the amount in the drawer of table on his left side and accordingly complainant kept the tainted notes of Rs.10,000/-in left side table drawer and thereby accused demanded and received illegal gratification from complainant as a motive or reward to do official act or official favour to complainant and committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused being public servant working as Senior Marketing Supervisor in Raithara Santhe Market, Yelahanka, Bengaluru has on 19.07.2014 between 9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in his office in Raithara Santhe Market, Yelahanka, Bengaluru by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.10,000/- without public interest, from complainant and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 6 Spl.C.C.416/2015 punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act?
4) What Order?
8. My findings on the above Points are:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, Point No.3: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No. 1 : Accused is a public servant working as Senior Marketing Supervisor in Raithara Santhe, Yelahanka, Bengaluru coming under APMC. Accused is charged for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per section 19 of PC Act, previous sanction to prosecute accused who is public servant is mandatory. To prove sanction given to prosecute accused and its validity, Dr. Mudhumohan, the then Director of APMC has given evidence as P.W.1. He has stated that he has received requisition from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru dated 24.11.2014 seeking sanction to prosecute accused and he has also received copy of complaint, mahazars, statement of witnesses and other investigation records and he has gone through the same and applied his mind and found prima-facie materials to proceed against accused and accordingly, he has issued Prosecution Sanction Order against accused as per Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has verified the records, but he has not enquired as to whether complainant is 7 Spl.C.C.416/2015 Farmer or Agent and he has not enquired with Investigating Officer regarding dates of recorded conversations mentioned in Pre-trap Mahazar. He has denied that without applying his mind he has mechanically given sanction order.
10. On looking to Ex.P.1 and evidence of P.W.1, there is no dispute that P.W.1 was competent sanctioning authority to accused. It is clear that along with requisition material records were placed before P.W.1 and he has gone through the same and having been satisfied that there is a case to accord sanction, he has accorded sanction. There are no such materials before this court showing that sanction accorded by P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1 is not valid. Moreover, it is on the basis of same documents which had been produced before sanctioning authority, this court found prima-facie case and took cognizance and registered the case and has framed charge. Therefore Prosecution Sanction Order issued by P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1 is valid. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
11. Point No.2 & 3: Since these Points are inter- linked with each other, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
12. To prove the charge against Accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9. P.W.2-H.Srinivas is the complainant.
8 Spl.C.C.416/2015 P.W.3-Narayanaswamy is the friend of complainant who is said to have accompanied complainant while giving complaint. P.W.4-Madhusudhan, is panch and shadow witness. P.W.5- Vikarm. Y. Kanase is another panch witness. P.W.6- H.A.Chandramohan was secretary in APMC who is said to have identified voice of accused in the recordings. Prosecution Sanctioning Officer-Dr.Muddumohan is examined as P.W.1, P.W.7-Mustaq Ahmed- Lokayuktha police Inspector is Investigating Officer. P.W.8-Allama Prabhu Hiregowdar is the subsequent Investigating Officer and P.W.9-T.V.Manjunath, is another subsequent Investigating Officer who has submitted report of FSL on voice identification before this Court subsequent to filing of charge sheet.
13. On behalf of the prosecution, documents at Exs.P1 to P.29 are marked. Ex.P3 is the complaint, Ex.P.17 is FIR. Sheet containing number of notes is marked as Ex.P.9. Pre- trap Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.4 and Trap Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.5. Transcription of the recordings produced by complainant are marked as Ex.P.6 & 7. The transcriptions of the voice in the voice recorder at the time of trap is marked as Ex.P.8. The written explanation given by accused is marked as Ex.P.10. Ex.P.12 and 27 are the transcriptions of the sample voice collected from accused. Mahazar for taking sample voice of accused is marked as Ex.P.14. Ex.P.11 and 13 are sample seals. Ex.P.15 is the report given by P.W.6 on voice 9 Spl.C.C.416/2015 identification. Spot sketch is marked as Ex.P.18 and copy of attendance register is marked as Ex.P.19. Chemical Examination Report is marked as Ex.P.21. Copy of Farmers ID Card given by Raithara Santhe to complainant is marked as Ex.P.22. Call details are marked as Ex.P.23. Ex.P.24 is the spot sketch prepared by Assistant Engineer. The certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of different C.Ds is marked as Ex.P.25. Ex.P.28 is acknowledgement for sending C.D.s for voice identification. Ex.P.29 is report of FSL on voice identification. Ex.P.2 is service details of accused and Ex.P.1 is the Prosecution Sanction Order. For the prosecution M.Os.1 to 11 are also marked. Two metal seals are marked as M.O.1 and
3. Tainted notes of Rs.10,000/- seized in this case are marked as M.O.2. Bottles containing solution taken during Pre-trap Mahazar are marked as M.O.4 & 5. M.O.6 to 10 are the C.D.s and M.O.11 is two sheets of paper and envelope on which tainted notes were found in the drawer.
14. For the Accused, RTC's of Sy.No.32/1 of Prasannahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk are marked as Ex.D.1 by confronting to PW.2.
15. As per the prosecution case, P.W.2-complainant gave complaint as per Ex.P.3 to Lokayuktha police stating that he was selling vegetables grown in his property in Devanahalli in Raithara Santhe Market in Yelahanka and on 08.07.2014 accused who is Senior Marketing Supervisor in Raithara 10 Spl.C.C.416/2015 Santhe Market and Administrator therein has stopped him and asked Identity Card, photo etc., and complainant gave the same and accused took him to his office and asked him to pay Rs.8,000/- p.m. as bribe and complainant agreed to give Rs.5,000/-. He has also stated in Ex.P.3 that on 10.07.2014 in the presence of Thimmegowda-Security guard, accused agreed to receive Rs.3,500/- p.m. and on the signal given by accused, complainant kept Rs.3,500/- in table drawer of Accused and then again accused asked amount for previous period and by writing on paper he asked him to give Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, on 18.07.2014 accused made phone call to complainant and insisted for bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and complainant recorded this conversation and then transmitted to C.D. Then along with P.W.3, he went to lokayukta Office and with CD he gave complaint. P.W.7- Investigating Officer registered the case and secured P.W.4 & 5 as panch witnesses and introduced P.W.2 to them and they have ascertained veracity of complaint from P.W.2 and P.W.2 produced Rs.10,000/- in denomination of Rs.500 X 20 and number of currency notes were noted as per Ex.P9 and Signatures were taken. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and P.W.5 verified the notes again. Since P.W.2 was to meet Accused on next day, tainted notes were kept in Almirah. Thereafter, sodium carbonate solution was prepared and after taking sample, hands of P.W.5 were washed in solution and solution turned to pink colour and was 11 Spl.C.C.416/2015 seized in bottle. C.D. produced by complainant was played and contents were transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.6 & 7 and C.D. was seized as per M.O.6. Complainant was given instructions to meet accused on 19.07.2014 and to enquire about his work and to give tainted notes to accused only in case of demand and then to flash signal by wiping his face and P.W.2 was also given voice recorder. P.W.4 was instructed to follow complainant as shadow witness and to watch the happenings and to report later. Pre-trap proceedings were videographed and then transmitted to C.D and C.D. was seized. All the members of trap team were asked to come on 19.07.2014 at 7.30 a.m. and Pre-trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.4 and Signatures were taken.
16. It is further case of the prosecution that on 19.07.2014 trap team gathered in Lokayuktha Office and tainted notes which were in the Almirah were taken out by P.W.5 and kept it in left side shirt pocket of P.W.2 and instructions were reminded and trap team consisting of ten members proceeded towards Raithara Santhe Market in Yelahanka and reached there at about 9.00 a.m. and vehicle was stopped at a distance. After reminding the instructions, P.W.2 and 4 were sent to meet accused and P.W.2 was instructed to switch on the voice recorder given to him and other members of trap team got scattered themselves inside Raithara Santhe Market compound by watching P.W.2 & 4 and waiting for signal. P.W.2 went inside Raithara Santhe Market 12 Spl.C.C.416/2015 at 9.30 a.m. P.W.2 received a phone call from accused asking whether he has come to Raithara Santhe Market and P.W.2 informed that he has already come and Accused asked P.W.2 to come after ten minutes. After sometime, accused made phone call and asked P.W.2 to come to his office and P.W.2 by switching on the voice recorder went to Office of accused and accused asked whether amount is brought. P.W.2 informed that he has brought Rs.8,000/- and will give balance after 2-4 days. Thereafter, P.W.2 took out tainted notes of Rs.10,000/- from his left side shirt pocket and gave to accused and then, accused by giving signal asked P.W.2 to keep the amount in drawer of the table on his left side and P.W.2 kept the amount in the drawer on two papers and then came out and gave signal to trap team. P.W.4, shadow witness had followed P.W.2 and was watching him by sitting near water tank, from where he could see P.W.2 meeting accused and talking to him. After getting signal, P.W.7 along with his team came near P.W.2 and he took trap team inside the office of accused and shown the accused as person who had received the bribe amount from him and informed that he has kept the tainted notes as per the instructions of accused in drawer of table on his left side. P.W.7 disclosed his identity to accused and informed purpose of visit and ascertained his details. On questioning, accused informed that amount received from P.W.2 is in upper drawer of the table on left side of his sitting place. On opening the said drawer Rs.10,000/- was found on two papers. Amount 13 Spl.C.C.416/2015 was verified and it tallied with Ex.P.9. A paper and an envelope on which tainted notes were kept was also seized and produced as M.O.11. On search of accused another Rs.11,650/- was found with him and accused informed that said amount is his own and it was returned to him. Voice recorder given to complainant was played and then transmitted to C.D as per M.O.8 and recordings were transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.8. The trap proceedings were video graphed and then transmitted to C.D. On questioning accused gave written explanation as per Ex.P.10 and it was found to be not acceptable. By securing P.W.6- higher officer of accused, C.D. produced by complainant and C.D. containing transmission from voice recorder were played before him and he identified voice of accused and gave report as per Ex.P.15. Thereafter seized articles were sealed with metal seal bearing letter "N" and seal was given to P.W.5 with instruction to produce the same as and when called. By following procedure accused was arrested and produced before the Court. The trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.5 and signatures were taken and copy of mahazar was even furnished to accused. P.W.7 continued investigation and secured relevant materials. In respect of M.O.6,7 and 8, he has given certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. During the course of investigation P.W.7 secured call details as per Ex.P.23 in respect of mobile number of accused. He has received Chemical Examination Report as per Ex.P.21 and also 14 Spl.C.C.416/2015 service details as per Ex.P.2. He has prepared spot sketch as per Ex.P.18 and also obtained spot sketch from the Engineer as per Ex.P.24. On 21.05.2015 P.W.7 secured accused as well as P.W.4 & 5 and sample voice of accused was taken by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.14. Sample voice recorded through voice recorder was transmitted to C.D as per M.O.10 and it was sent to FSL for voice identification along with C.D. in M.O. 6 and 8. P.W.7 has prepared final report and P.W.8 after obtaining Prosecution Sanction Order as per Ex.P.1 has filed charge sheet. Subsequently P.W.9 has received report regarding voice identification from FSL and he has produced the same before this court as per Ex.P.29.
17. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 13(1) (d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has to prove that accused being a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Prosecution must also prove that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is for doing some official act or for doing official favour to complainant. On proving the demand and acceptance, presumption can be drawn Under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act to the effect that such illegal gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as mentioned in section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. On proving the acceptance of pecuniary advantage by accused without public interest by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant, criminal mis-
15 Spl.C.C.416/2015 conduct of accused under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act will also be established.
18. As held in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, demand of illegal gratification by accused is sine-quo- non for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Even for the offence under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification is necessary to be proved. As per the prosecution case before giving complaint by P.W.2 to Lokayuktha police and even at the time of trap accused has made demand for bribe amount. Ex.P.3 states that on 08.07.2014 for the first time accused made a demand for Rs.8,000/- p.m. and brought it down to Rs.5,000/- and on 10.07.2014 amount was brought down to Rs.3,500/-p.m. and P.W.2 paid the said amount by keeping it in a drawer as per the instructions of accused. As per Ex.P.3 accused even demanded Rs.50,000/- towards bribe for previous years of complainant's activities in Raithara Santhe Market and then amount was brought down to Rs.10,000/- and P.W.2 agreed to pay within 5-6 days and thereafter on 10.7.2014 accused made a phone call and reiterated his demand and then complaint is given. Even on 19.07.2014 at the time of trap accused is said to have asked whether amount is brought and then gave signal to keep it in drawer. Admittedly, accused is Senior Marketing Supervisor in Rairtha Santhe Market of APMC, Yelahanka. It is mentioned in the complaint that on 08.07.2014 accused stopped Complainant 16 Spl.C.C.416/2015 when he was bringing vegetables in the vehicle and he enquired about I.D.Card and copy of I.D. card of complainant is produced in this case as Ex.P.22. To prove the alleged demand of bribe by accused prior to giving complaint and at the time of trap, prosecution is mainly relying on evidence of P.W.2, 3, 4 and also on recordings in C.D. produced by complainant and also in the recordings found in voice recorder which was transmitted to C.D during trap proceedings.
19. According to prosecution, when complainant had talked to accused on 10.07.2014 personally and on 18.07.2014 over phone, he has recorded conversation and then transmitted to C.D and produced while giving complaint. The C.D. is produced as M.O.6 and transcriptions of recordings in C.D. are in Ex.P.6 & 7. Admittedly, in CD for one recording date is mentioned as 05.07.2014 but according to complainant he has recorded as per Ex.P.6 on 10.07.2014. For Ex.P.7 conversation was recorded on 18.07.2014, but C.D. show the date as 01.01.2013. P.W.7 and 2 have stated in their evidence that dates mentioned in the C.D. as 05.07.2014 and 01.01.2013 are default dates and these recordings were made on 10.07.2014 and 18.07.2014 and then recordings were transmitted to C.D as found in M.O.6. At the time of trap, complainant was given voice recorder. P.W.2 has stated that while meeting accused in his office he has switched on voice recorder and recordings in voice recorder are transmitted to C.D as per M.O.8 and then transcribed as per Ex.P.8. In the 17 Spl.C.C.416/2015 course of investigation these recordings in M.O. 6 and 8 were said to have been played before P.W.6 who is working as secretary in APMC and he identified the voice of accused and gave report as per Ex.P.15. In the course of investigation even sample voice of accused was taken by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.14 and sample voice which was transmitted to C.D as per M.O.10 was sent to FSL for voice identification with M.O.6 & 8. In FSL, the C.D.s sent were examined and after making analysis, report submitted as per Ex.P.29 in which sample voice found in M.O.10 is stated to be similar to one voice found in M.O.6 & 8 and thereby stating that one voice in M.O.6 & 8 is that of accused. Recordings as per M.O.6, 8 and 10 have come into existence from Mobile and voice recorder and these devices are not produced before the Court.
20. In a decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 (Anvar P.V -Vs- P.K.Basheer and others) , Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.22 has held as under;
"22. ...An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, Chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in term of section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissable."
21. Therefore, without a valid certificate under section 18 Spl.C.C.416/2015 65B of Indian Evidence Act these C.D.'s and transcriptions are not admissible in evidence. In respect of M.O.10 which is sample voice recorded and transmitted to C.D which was sent to FSL for identification of voice by comparing with other C.D.s, there is no certificate obtained under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, prima-facie, M.O.10-C.D., on the basis of which report is given by FSL as per Ex.P.29 is not admissible in evidence. Regarding M.O.6 & 8 C.D.s, P.W. 7 has issued certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.25. Admittedly M.O.6 C.D. was produced by P.W.2 while giving complaint. Therefore it is P.W.2 who is competent to issue certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act and P.W.7 is not competent to issue the same. Therefore Ex.P.25 is not a valid certificate in respect of M.O.6 C.D. In respect of M.O.8 C.D (Article.No.7), in Ex.P.25 description is given as proceedings of trap Mahazar, though it is transmission of recording in voice recorder. Therefore description of recordings from which M.O.8 has come into existence is not clear in Ex.P.25. Moreover, the descriptions of the C.D. in which these recordings were burnt and the details of the computer and exclusive use of computer by P.W.7 are not mentioned in the certificate. Therefore, this Ex.P.25 certificate under section 65B will not be of much help to the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe by accused before giving complaint and at the time of trap. Even if Ex.P.25 is accepted, in the absence of such certificate in respect of M.O.10- C.D. 19 Spl.C.C.416/2015 containing sample voice, report of Expert as per Ex.P.29 will be of no help. Though P.W.6 is said to have identified the voice of accused, he is not expert in voice identification. Therefore, the C.D's in M.O.6, 8 & 10 and transcriptions at Ex.P. 6,7,8 ,12 and 27 and even Ex.P.25 certificate and Report as per Ex.P29 do not help the prosecution to prove the alleged demand and even acceptance of bribe.
22. It is stated in Trap Mahazar and also in evidence of P.W.2 that there were phone calls exchanged between complainant and accused. Call details of accused are secured in the course of investigation as per Ex.P.23 and several calls are high lighted to show that calls were made to or from mobile number of accused. In respect of these call details also no certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act is obtained. In a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.2539/2014 between Harpal singh Vs- State of Punjab dated 21.11.2016, in para No.11, it is held as under:
" Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call details, kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a hard disc of the company sever, to complaint-relate the calls made from and to the cell phones involved including those amongst others recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under section 20 Spl.C.C.416/2015 65B(4) of the Act. though the High court, in its impugned, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the stipulations contained under section 65 of the Act had been complied with, in the teeth of the decisions of this court in Anvar P.V.(supra) ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of Sections 65B(2) and (4) of the complainant, we are unable to sustain this finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65(2) had been complied with, in absence of certificate under Section 65B (4) , the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence."
In view of this decision even copy of call details are not admissible in evidence in the absence of certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act.
23. Therefore in the absence of these recordings, call details and report of FSL, prosecution has to establish its case of demand of bribe by accused prior to giving of complaint and even at the time of trap. P.W.2-complainant has stated the demand of bribe by accused in detail in his chief evidence. He has stated about accused stopping the vehicle and demanding I.D.Card and other details and accused demanding monthly bribe amount for bring vegetables for sale in Raithara Santhe Market and he giving Rs.3,500/- to accused through Thammegowda and accused again asking for Rs.10,000/- for previous period. He has stated that the happenings on 21 Spl.C.C.416/2015 08.07.2014, 09.07.2014 and 10.07.2014 and also about giving complaint on 18.07.2014 and also stated about the procedure followed in Lokayuktha Office during pre-trap proceedings and also about trap proceedings and accused asking whether amount is brought at the time of trap. Therefore P.W.2 has clearly stated about demand of bribe by accused before giving complaint on 08.07.2014, 10.07.2014 and 18.07.2014 and during trap on 19.07.2014. In his cross-examination he has denied that he is not having agricultural land and admitted that the agriculture property is not standing in his name as seen in Ex.D.1 RTCs and stated that it is joint family property and denied that he has created fraudulent documents for obtaining the I.D. Card from APMC. Even questions are asked about his father's name differently appearing in complaint and I.D.Card. Even in his cross-examination, he has stated that on 08.07.2014 he brought the vegetables in his vehicle and accused stopped him and accused took him to his office. He has admitted the suggestions that accused asked him to produce the documents to show that he is agriculturist, but has denied that as accused asked him to show that he is agriculturist, he gave false complaint. In his cross- examination, P.W.2 has reiterated demand of bribe by accused and also that he had given Rs.3,500/- to accused on 10.07.2014. The witness has also stated that on 18.07.2014 he went to Lokayuktha Office along with Narayanaswamy who is also a Farmer and gave complaint. He has also stated that 22 Spl.C.C.416/2015 Narayanaswamy had also given bribe to accused. On looking to entire cross-examination of P.W.2, he has clearly stated about demand of bribe by accused and that he gave Rs.3,500/- and accused further demanded Rs.10,000/-. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly show the alleged demand of bribe by accused on 08.07.2014, 10.07.2014 and 18.07.2014 and also at the time of trap on 19.07.2014. Though witness was cross- examined at length, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the case of prosecution. Though there are minor contradictions found here and there, they are natural due to laps of time and they do not affect the case of prosecution.
24. P.W.3-Narayanaswamy, friend of complainant has also stated that on 10.07.2014 accused had asked him Rs.5,000/- p.m. to do business in the market and accused had asked Rs.3,500/- from complainant and after complainant giving that amount, accused had asked complainant to give Rs.10,000/- and then complaint was given. In his cross- examination he has stated that he has not seen when complainant gave amount to accused and when accused demanded Rs.10,000/- from complainant and admitted that he has not seen accused demanding or receiving any bribe amount from complainant. The evidence of P.W.3 though states that demand of bribe by accused was not in his presence, in his chief evidence he has stated not only about demand of bribe from complainant but has stated about demand even from him. Admittedly along with P.W.3, P.W.2 23 Spl.C.C.416/2015 had come to Lokayuktha Office and gave complaint. No reasons are elicited in his cross examination, for P.W.3 giving chief evidence against Accused. Therefore, his evidence stating about regular conduct of accused would corroborate with the evidence of P.W.2, generally about demand of bribe by accused. The P.W.4 shadow witness could be the relevant witness to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to demand of bribe by accused at the time trap. This P.W.4 has stated that he was following the complainant and he was sitting near water tank outside the office of accused and inside the compound and from there, he could see the happenings inside the office of accused through window. He has stated that complainant and accused were talking to each other which could not be heard and that after accused giving signal complainant gave tainted notes and kept it in the left side drawer of table. Therefore, P.W.4 also in his evidence has stated that complainant and accused were talking to each other for sometime in the office of accused. His evidence show that P.W.2 came to office of accused and talked to him. According to P.W.2, accused talked to him about bribe and enquired whether amount is brought. In the cross- examination of P.W.4 nothing worth is elicited against prosecution case.
25. On looking to evidence of P.W.2 and 3, case of prosecution about demand of bribe by accused on 08.07.2014, 10.07.2014 and 18.07.2014 is clearly established.
24 Spl.C.C.416/2015 Even accused enquiring about bribe amount at the time of trap on 19.07.2014 in his office is also established by evidence of P.W.2 and 4. Accused questioning P.W.1 on 8.7.2014 is even admitted by accused by making suggestions to P.W.2 that accused had enquired complainant about he doing illegal business without proper license in the market. It is even suggested that, as Accused questioned P.W.2, he gave false complainant against accused. When statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C, accused has only denied the evidence lead for the prosecution but has not given any explanation about P.W.2 doing illegal business without proper license in Raithara Santhe and he taking any action against him. Accused is Senior Marketing Supervisor looking after Raithara Santhe Market in Yelahanka. If accused found the complainant doing illegal business without proper license in Raithara Santhe, accused would have taken action against him. No such records are produced by Accused in his defence to show any action taken by him against complainant, because of which, P.W.2 falsely implicated accused in false case. As per section 21 of Prevention of Corruption Act accused is competent witness to the defence and he may give evidence on oath in dis-proof of the charges made against him. If false complaint was given by P.W.2 for questioning his illegal business, accused should have produced records about action taken by him and to probablise his defence. Accused had not made any such efforts. Evidence of P.W.2 supported 25 Spl.C.C.416/2015 by P.W.3 and also evidence of P.W.4 and complaint averments have sufficiently established the prosecution case of demand of illegal gratification by accused before giving complaint and even at the time of trap.
26. As per section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act or for showing any official favour. Accused who was Senior Market Supervisor in Raithara Santhe Market in Yelahanka, was supervising entire Raithara Santhe in which complainant was doing business by bringing vegetables grown in his land and also others. P.W.2 was having I.D.Card as per Ex.P.22. Though by showing Ex.D.1 it is contended that property in Sy.No.22/1 is not standing in the name of P.W.2, if I.D.Card issued to P.W.2 was not valid, action would have been taken by accused against P.W.2. There are no such documents produced to show that regarding P.W.2 doing business illegally in Raithara Santhe, action has been taken or his I.D.Card has been cancelled etc., In the absence of such materials, P.W.2 entering Raithara Santhe Market cannot be termed as Illegal. According to P.W.2 when he brought the vehicle with vegetables, he was stopped by accused and P.W.2 was threatened by stating that if he do not pay bribe, he will not be allowed to bring vegetables to Raithara Santhe Market. Since accused was the head in Raithara Santhe Market and was supervising the same, he was having power to restrain P.W.2 from doing business in the market. Therefore accused 26 Spl.C.C.416/2015 had capacity to stop P.W.2 from entering Raithara Santhe Market and doing business there. Accused has demanded illegal gratification as a motive or reward for allowing complainant to do business in Raithara Santhe Market. Therefore demand was for doing official act or for doing official favour to complainant and is coming under sction 7 of PC Act.
27. Coming to acceptance of bribe amount, after following pre-trap procedure on 18.07.2014 and also on 19.07.2014, P.W.2 and 4 were sent to Raithara Santhe and other members of trap team followed them from distance. According to P.W.2 accused made a phone call and asked him whether he has come and asked him to come to the office and then he went to office of accused and accused was present there and asked whether he had brought amount. P.W.2 has further stated that he went to give amount and then, accused instructed by signal to keep amount in table drawer and accordingly, P.W.2 kept the amount in drawer of the table and then came out and gave signal. He has also stated about the recovery of amount from table drawer. He has even stated that C.W.3 and 4 panch witnesses were watching the happenings inside the office of accused from two windows. Though C.W.4 was not sent as shadow witness, C.W.3-P.W.4 is a shadow witness and his evidence corroborate with evidence of P.W.2. P.W.4 has stated that inside the office of accused, complainant was talking to accused and after sometime 27 Spl.C.C.416/2015 accused gave some signal to complainant and accordingly complainant took out the amount from his left side shirt pocket and kept it in the left side drawer of table of accused and thereafter P.W.2 gave signal and thereafter amount was recovered from table drawer. P.W.4 has clearly stated that he has seen P.W.2 meeting accused and talking to him and on signal of accused, he took out amount and kept it in table drawer. The evidence of P.W.4 completely corroborate with evidence of P.W.2 with regard to complainant meeting accused and talking to him and accused giving signal to keep amount in table drawer and complainant keeping the tainted notes in drawer on left side of accused. Suggestions about innocence of accused and accused not knowing about keeping amount in drawer etc have been denied by these witnesses in their cross examination. Evidence of P.W.5 and 7 supports recovery of tainted notes from Table drawer in the Office of Accused.
28. These witnesses have admitted that tainted notes were not found in table drawer of accused but were kept in the drawer of table which was on the left side of accused. There is no evidence before the court or even suggestions on behalf of accused to show that there were several officials sitting in the office of accused at the relevant time. As per Attendance register produced in this case as per Ex.P19, there is only one staff, Senior Marketing Supervisor- A.R.Ranganath i.e., accused. Ex.P.19 does not show about any other officials working in office of Accused. Even no suggestions were put to 28 Spl.C.C.416/2015 the witnesses about presence of some other official in that office. Even P.W.4 in his cross-examination has stated that there were no other persons in the office of accused. Under such circumstances, contention of accused that in his absence, complainant has entered the office and planted the tainted notes in table drawer cannot be accepted. When there is only one officer and there are no other officials in Raithara Santhe working in office of Accused and there is no evidence before court to show that along with accused there are other officials or officers working in Raithara Santhe office at the relevant time, table in which amount was found was not that of accused is also not a valid defence for Accused. Evidence before the Court show that office room of Raithara Santhe was in exclusive use of accused and there is no possibility of some other person entering and keeping amount in drawer in the absence of Accused. As per Trap Mahazar- Ex.P.4, on questioning, accused has shown the drawer as place where amount is kept. Accused has given written explanation immediately after trap in his hand writing as per Ex.P.10. In Ex.P.10, he has only stated that he has not taken amount which was found in the other table and was seized by Lokayuktha police and that he was falsely implicated.
29. Entire evidence and materials show the presence of complainant and accused in office of accused where there is no other officials sitting. Therefore, in the presence of Evidence of P.W.2 and 4 establishing P.W.2 meeting Accused in 29 Spl.C.C.416/2015 his office and evidence of P.W.2, 4, 5 and 7 stating about recovery of amount from table drawer in office of Accused, accused should say what transpired between them, other than prosecution version, if there is so. In the absence of such explanation, evidence of P.W.2 and 4 clearly prove that as per the instructions of accused, tainted notes were kept in the table drawer by P.W.2, in furtherance of his demand for bribe, which was later recovered. All the happenings on the date of trap is stated by P.W.2 who was inside the office and P.W.4 who was watching the happenings from the window. Other person who was inside the office was accused. Accused has not lead any defence evidence to explain the circumstances in which tainted notes were found in the table drawer inside his office and also about motive of complainant to falsely implicate him and also to show that there is possibility of complainant entering his office in his absence. In the absence of such explanation by accused, prosecution is successful in proving not only demand of illegal gratification by accused but also its acceptance and recovery from accused.
30. The Learned counsel for accused has drawn my attention to a decision reported in (1996) 11 SCC 720 (M.K.Harshan Vs State of Kerala). This decision was on similar facts like present case in which tainted money was recovered from the drawer of the accused in his office and accused contended that the money was put into his drawer without his knowledge and complainant stated that tainted 30 Spl.C.C.416/2015 money was put in the drawer on the direction of accused. In that case, evidence of complainant and other prosecution witnesses was contradictory on this aspect and no other clinching or corroborative evidence to support the version of complainant was present. On those circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that accused was entitled for benefit of doubt and has set aside the sentence imposed on the accused. On going through the facts of the case and on considering evidence before this court, evidence of P.W.2 about he keeping tainted notes in the drawer, on the direction of accused is corroborated by evidence of P.W.4. Evidence of other prosecution witnesses also supported the prosecution case with regard to demand, acceptance and recovery of amount. The accused has not made any efforts to take a specific defence and establish the same by preponderance of probability. The evidence before the court mainly of P.W.2 and 4 clearly proved that the tainted money was put in the drawer of accused on the direction of accused. Hence above cited decision do not help the accused.
31. Another decision reported in 2011(1) MWN (Cr.)145 (R.Muthusamy V State. Rep. By Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore) of Hon'ble High Court of Madras is also cited by learned counsel for accused. On going through this decision, in the said case evidence regarding acceptance of bribe was found to be 31 Spl.C.C.416/2015 doubtful and evidence regarding demand of bribe amount was not corroborated. Therefore, it was held that it was not safe to convict the accused. In the present case, demand for illegal gratification by accused and acceptance and recovery of amount by accused are clearly established and contrary contention of accused is not shown to be highly probable. The evidence of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence placed before this Court and improper and unacceptable defence of Accused leads to irresistible conclusion that Accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification from complainant, though he has not touched the tainted notes.
32. When demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved, even presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act will be available to the prosecution. Therefore on proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused, presumption would also rises to the effect that such demand and acceptance is as a motive or reward to do any official act or to do any official favour. Though accused can rebut the presumption by preponderance of probability, accused in this case has failed to explain the circumstances under which tainted notes were found in the table drawer of his office and circumstances that lead to giving of complaint against him by complainant. The contention of accused about falsely implicating him, as suggested to the prosecution witnesses, is not acceptable as there are no such materials to show any enimity between 32 Spl.C.C.416/2015 complainant and accused. Therefore presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not rebutted. On considering all these aspects, prosecution has proved the demand of bribe amount by accused and also proved the acceptance of the same.
33. For all these reasons, prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec.7 of PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accused by abusing his position as public servant, by corrupt means has obtained pecuniary advantage from complainant without having any public interest and thereby committed criminal mis-conduct as per section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, commission of offence by accused under Section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is to be convicted for the offences alleged against him. Accordingly, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the Affirmative.
34. Point No. 4:- For the discussion and findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3, accused is to be convicted. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER Accused is found guilty for the offences under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Acting u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offences punishable 33 Spl.C.C.416/2015 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
M.O.2-Cash of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.
M.O.1 and 3 Metal seals be returned to Lokayukta Police, after expiry of appeal period.
M.Os.4 to 11 are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period, as they are worthless.
Put up for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 4 th day of December, 2018).
(Ravindra Hegde), LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru 34 Spl.C.C.416/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the accused, Learned counsel for accused and Learned Public Prosecutor on sentence to be imposed on accused.
Accused and learned counsel for accused have submitted that accused is aged 59 years and is due for retirement within seven months and is having dependant family and he have to look after his family and is having huge responsibilities and therefore, lenient view may be taken in sentencing him.
On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused being a public servant has committed heinous offence of taking bribe and he is involved in corrupt practice and therefore maximum punishment is to be imposed.
Commission of offence by accused under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is proved in this case and accused is found guilty for said offences. Offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is punishable with minimum imprisonment of 6 months and maximum of 5 years and also with fine. Offence under Sec.13 (1)(d) which is punishable under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is punishable with minimum imprisonment of 1 year and maximum of 7 years and also with fine. As per Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, where sentence of fine is imposed under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the court in fixing amount of fine shall take into consideration amount which accused has obtained by committing the offence. Even though by way of recent amendment, minimum and maximum imprisonment provided for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are 35 Spl.C.C.416/2015 enhanced, those amended provisions are not applicable to this case, as offences alleged against accused were committed prior to coming into force of amendment.
Accused was Senior Marketing Supervisor in APMC Raithara Santhe Market, at the time of commission of alleged offence and is aged person, who is said to be retiring within 7 months. The demand of illegal gratification was for Rs.10,000/- and at the time trap, he received Rs.10,000/-. On looking to the nature of duties and position of accused as Senior Marketing Supervisor in Raithara Santhe Market, effect of corrupt act of accused on the society is grave and serious. At the same time age of the accused is also to be considered while imposing sentence.
On considering all these aspects and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence and its consequences on the society and the leniency prayed by the accused, it is proper to sentence the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Sec.13 (1)(d), punishable under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Three years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of 36 Spl.C.C.416/2015 fine, to undergo further Simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) for the offence under Sec.13(1)(d), punishable under Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Both Substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Accused is entitle for the benefit of set-off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. for the period for which he was in Judicial custody in this case.
Copy of judgment be furnished to accused forthwith.
(Ravindra Hegde) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru 37 Spl.C.C.416/2015 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 - Dr.Madhumohan P.W.2 - H.Srinivas P.W.3 - Narayanaswamy P.W.4 - Madhusudhan P.W.5 - Vikram Y Kanase P.W.6 - H.A.Chandramohan P.W.7 - Mustaq Ahmed P.W.8 - Allama Prabhu Hiregowdar P.W.9 - T.V.Manjunath
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 - Prosecution Sanction Order
Ex.P.1(a) - Sign of P.W.1
Ex.P2 - Service particulars of accused
Ex.P3 - complaint
Ex.P.3(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(b) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P4 - Pre-trap Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.4(b) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.4(c) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.4(d) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P5 - Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.5(b) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.5(c) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.5(d) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P6 - Transcription of recordings.
Ex.P.6(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.6(b) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.6(c) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P7 - Transcription of recordings.
Ex.P.7(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.7(b) - Sign of P.W.4
38 Spl.C.C.416/2015
Ex.P.7(c) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.7(d) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P8 - Transcription of recordings.
Ex.P.8(a) - Sign of P.W.2
Ex.P.8(b) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.8(c) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.8(d) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P9 - List containing number of
currency notes
Ex.P.9(a & b) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.9(c & d) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.9(e & f) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P10 - written explanation of accused
Ex.P.10(a) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.10(b) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.10(c) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P11 - Sample Seal
Ex.P.11(a) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.11(b) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P12 - Transcription Sheet
Ex.P.12(a) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.12(b) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.12(c) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P13 - Sample Seal
Ex.P.13(a) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.13(b) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.13(c) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P14 - Mahazar for collection of sample voice
Ex.P.14(a) - Sign of P.W.4
Ex.P.14(b) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P.14(c) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P15 - Report of P.W.6 on Voice identification
Ex.P.15(a) - Sign of P.W.6
Ex.P.15(b) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P16 - Acknowledgement of seal
Ex.P.16(b) - Sign of P.W.5
Ex.P17 - FIR
Ex.P.17(b) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P18 - Rough Sketch
39 Spl.C.C.416/2015
Ex.P.18(a) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P19 - Copy of Attendance Register of
accused
Ex.P.20 - I.D.Card of Accused
Ex.P21 - Chemical Examination Report
Ex.P21(a) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P22 - Raitha Santhe I.D.Card of
complainant
Ex.P23 - Call details
Ex.P.23(a) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P24 - Spot Sketch
Ex.P.24(a) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P25 - Certificate u/s 65 B Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.P.25(b) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P26 - Acknowledgement
Ex.P.26(a) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P27 - Transcription of sample voice of
accused
Ex.P.27(a) - Sign of P.W.7
Ex.P28 - FSL Acknowledgement
Ex.P.29 - Voice analysis report
Ex.P.29(a) - Sign of P.W.9
Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence:
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D.1 - RTCs Material Objects marked by Prosecution:
M.O.1 - Metal seal
M.O.2 - Cash of Rs.10,000/-
M.O.2(a) - Cover
M.O.3 - Metal seal
M.O.4 - Sample Sodium carbonate solution.
M.O.5 - Hand wash of P.W.5
M.O.6 to 10- Five C.Ds.
M.O.6(a)
40 Spl.C.C.416/2015
to M.O.10(a)- C.D. Covers
M.O.11- Two sheets of paper and one envelope.
M.O.11(a)- cover
(Ravindra Hegde),
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (PCA),
Bengaluru
***
41 Spl.C.C.416/2015
42 Spl.C.C.416/2015