Bangalore District Court
State By Registrar vs Sri.C.P.Yogeshwara on 29 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH82)
Dated: This the 29th day of June, 2019
Spl. CC No. 216/2018
-: Present :-
Sri RAMACHANDRA.D.HUDDAR, B.Com., LLM., (Spl)
LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)
Complainant :- State by Registrar
Karnataka Lokayukta
(Represented by Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- 1.Sri.C.P.Yogeshwara
Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly
Channapattana Constituency,
No.61, "Navasuma" 20th main
Muneshwara Block,
Girinagara, Bengaluru-85.
Date of offence 29-05-2006
Date of report of offence 28-05-2008
Name of the complainant Sri.Ravindra Beleyur
Date of commencement of 12-01-2017
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 25-04-2019
2 Spl.CC No.216/2018
Offences complained of U/s. 177 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Advocate By
Sri. V.K.Jain
JUDGMENT
This complaint arises out of an order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha in complaint/Lokayuktha/BCD 395/2007/ARE 2002 Bengaluru, based upon the complaint filed by one Sri.Ravindra Beleyur against accused person.
2. The said complainant submitted the complaint before the Lokayuktha in Form No.1 with enclosures alleging that, accused being the then member of Legislative Assembly, Channapatna Constituency while submitting his assets and Liabilities Statement in Form No.4 for a period from 1-01-2006 to 31-12-2006 before the Lokayuktha submitted false declarations with regard to his Assets and Liabilities.
It is alleged by the said complainant that the accused though submitted his assets and Liabilities for the period from 01-01- 2006 to 31-12-2006, it does not contain the details of the Bank 3 Spl.CC No.216/2018 balance though savings Bank account numbers are mentioned. It is alleged in the complaint that the share holdings of the accused and his wife in Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers and Builders Limited as on 31-12-2006 have not been mentioned. It is further stated by the complainant that there is variance with regard to the insurance amount as accused showed an amount of Rs.35 lakh as on 31-03-2006 and the said amount is shown as 25 lakh as on 31-12-2006, so also it is alleged by the complainant that accused has not mentioned about the vehicle owned by him on 31-12-2006 though earlier he had shown vehicle No.KA02 MF 1234 Scorpio belongs to him. Thus, it is alleged that there is discrepancy in the information furnished with regard to the property owned by the accused and even he has not declared lands standing in his name so also in the name of his wife. The said complainant alleges that accused has not mentioned about the land measuring 50 acres owned by him and his wife. This mis-statement of facts being furnished by him so also in respect of loan taken from Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Limited have been 4 Spl.CC No.216/2018 furnished by the accused. With these allegations the complaint came to be filed before the Lokayuktha.
3. The Hon'ble Lokayuktha after receipt of the complaint, comments have been obtained with regard to the allegations made in the complaint from the accused. He has given the comments stating that Column No.4(E) of the format in which the accused is filed relates to bank accounts and there is no column asking bank balances. It is further commented by the accused in additional statement that on 10-08-2007 he has given the details of share holdings in Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers and Builders Limited.
4. It is further commented that he had insured Rs.35 lakhs, either for non-payment or for some other reason he has retained policy worth of Rs.25 lakhs in his name and it is further contended that, vehicle bearing No.KA02 MF 1234 was handed over to Megacity (Bengaluru)Developers and Builders Limited on 31-03-2004 and ownership is transferred in the name of the Company much prior to 31-12-2006. Thus accused in his comment has stated that, he has mentioned about the land 5 Spl.CC No.216/2018 which are purchased by him in his individual capacity and out of joint family. He further contended that the advance amount paid by Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Limited to the tune of Rs.5 crores has been reduced to Rs.3,37,58,378/- as on 31-12-2006 and the same is mentioned in the additional statement dated 10-08-2007 filed by him.
5. After receipt of the notice from the accused, Hon'ble Lokayuktha called for rejoinder of the complainant. He filed rejoinder and he re-iterated the contention taken up in the complaint.
6. After perusal of the complaint and its enclosures, comments of the accused as well as the other records, Hon'ble Lokayuktha raised the point for determination as whether the accused has made false declaration in the statement of the accused submitted before the Lokayuktha for the period from 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2006.
7. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties the Hon'ble Lokayuktha have passed order as under:-
ORDER 6 Spl.CC No.216/2018 The respondent has furnished false declaration, in the statements of assets and liabilities filed by him in Form IV before this authority for the period from 1/1/2006 t0 31/12/2006, by the following omissions:
(i) The respondent has not mentioned the details of his bank deposits, though, he has mentioned the account numbrs in Apex Bank, Legislators Home and Statement Bank of India, Channapattana.
(ii) The respondent has not mentioned about vehicle No.KA02 MF 1234 belonging to him.
(iii) The respondent has not mentioned about the property in municipal Door No.1857/1/1 of Channapattana Municipality purchased by him form C.R.Nagashayana and others for Rs.40.00 lakhs under the registered sale deed dated 15-
12-2006. The respondent has also not mentioned about properties in Sy.No.69/9 of Seshagirihalli village measuring 1.25 acres standing in the name of himself and his wife and Sy.No.32/1 of Kurubara Karenahalli measuring 2 acres 34 guntas, standing in the name of his wife Manjukumari.7 Spl.CC No.216/2018
By making false declaration as
mentioned above, the respondent has
committed an offence under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. Acting under section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984, I hereby direct the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha to file a complaint against the respondent before the jurisdictional Magistrate for the above said offence.
8. Based upon this order the then Registrar of Lokayuktha, M.S.Building, Bengaluru filed the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate i., 8th ACMM, Bengaluru u/s 200 of Cr.P.C stating that based upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha dated 27-05-2008 he has filed this complaint. It is stated by him that based upon the complaint filed by one Sri.Ravindra Beleyur, this order came to be passed by Hon'ble Lokayuktha. It is further stated that the explanation so offered by the accused were not at all acceptable. It was incumbent upon the accused to mention the details of the property held by him and liabilities incurred by him in his Assets and Liabilities Statement submitted before the Lokayuktha u/s 22 of the 8 Spl.CC No.216/2018 Karnataka Lokayuktha Act 1984, Legislators shall submit their statements of Assets and Liabilities on or before 30th June of every year. At the end of Form IV, prescribed under Rule 7 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Rules, the concerned Magistrate shall solemnly declare the information furnished by them as true and correct. In view of the provisions of section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, this complainant is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Lokayuktha before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court and accordingly, he has filed the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
9. After filing the complaint, the jurisdictional Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence. The process came to be issued to the accused person. He appeared before the jurisdictional Court and was enlarged on bail.
10. Substance of the accusation u/s 177 of IPC came to be framed read over and explained to the accused person. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Even the evidence was partly commenced before the said Court. In view of the establishment of this Court to deal with the cases against MP 9 Spl.CC No.216/2018 and MLA, the entire records of this case are transmitted to this Court and renumbered as above.
11. Prosecution to substantiate the case made out against the accused in all examined 4 witnesses from PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and closed the prosecution evidence. During the course of cross-examination certain documents were confronted to witnesses on behalf of the defence. They are marked a Ex.D1 to D16.
12. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused is questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not chose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
13. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused persons at length. Meticulously, perused the records.
14. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:-
10 Spl.CC No.216/2018
1. Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that accused being the former member of Legislative Assembly from Channapatna Constituency furnished false information to the Lokayuktha in his Assets and Liabilities Statement for the period from 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2006 and after verification it was revealed that he has submitted the details of bank deposits , account numbers in Apex Bank, Legislators Home and State Bank of India, Channapatna, information about vehicle No.KA-02 MF-1234, information about the property in Municipal Door No.1857/1/1 of Channapatna worth Rs.40 lakhs and not mentioned information about the properties in Sy.No.69/9 of Seshagirihalli village measuring 1.25 acres standing in the name of himself, his wife & Sy.No.32/1 of Kurubara Karenahalli measuring 2 acres 34 guntas standing in the name of his wife Manjukumari and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 177 of IPC?
2. What order or sentence?11 Spl.CC No.216/2018
15.My answer to the above points are as under;
Point No.1: - In the Negative Point No.2: - As per the final order, for the following REASONS
16. Point No.1: In the case of the present nature, it is bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence. In this case allegation is made by the complainant that accused has failed to furnish the correct information in his Assets/Liabilities Statement and what ever the information so furnished by him is the false information. Therefore, it is alleged by the prosecution that this accused has committed the offence u/s 177 of IPC.
Sec. 176 of the criminal code speaks omission to give notice or information to the public servant by person legally bound to give it. This section 177 have got certain ingredients. They are 12 Spl.CC No.216/2018 i. that a person must be legally bound to furnish information on a particular subject to a public servant.
ii. That he must furnish, as true, information on that subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false.
'Legally bound' words used in this section covers the provision of section 39 and 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein it legally bind the person to give information regarding certain offences.
17. In Order to prove the cases of the present nature the prosecution is under the obligation to prove
i) that the accused was legally bound to furnish the information in question as a public servant;
ii) that he did furnish certain information in pursuance of such application.
iii) That information so furnished was false.
iv) That he furnished it as true although he knew, or had reason to believe, it to be false.
For the second clause of the section prove further -
v) That such information was with respect to the commission of an offence.
13 Spl.CC No.216/2018If we read the provisions of section 177 of IPC, so also the provisions of section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, law mandates that complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or some other public servants to whom he is subordinate, is necessary.
18. Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C lay down that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 except on the complaint in writing of the Public servant is concerned. The provisions of section 195(1) of Cr.P.C are mandatory and therefore in the absence of a complaint by public servant concerned, the cognizance taken is without jurisdiction. It is also not curable by section 465 of Cr.P.C as it goes to the root of the matter.
19. In this case, if this provision is applied the complainant being the then Registrar of Karnataka Lokayuktha, filed the complaint as per Ex.P1 based upon the orders being passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha vide order dated 27-05-2008 empowering or delegating the registrar to file the complaint before the jurisdictional Magitrate.
14 Spl.CC No.216/2018These provisions of section 195 of Cr.P.C have been complied with. This fact is not disputed by the defence in a cogent manner.
20. The only grievance of the defence is that under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 section 14 empowers initiation of the proceedings. The permission to file the complaint has to be granted by Upa Lokayuktha. Therefore, this complaint is vitiated. Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha speaks that if after investigation into any complaint the Lokayuktha or an Upa-Lokayuktha is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence [and should be prosecuted ] in a Court of law for such offence, then, he may pass an order to that effect and initiate prosecution of the public servant concerned and if prior sanction of any authority is required for such prosecution, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted by the appropriate authority on the date of such order. Herein, as stated supra Lokayuktha has passed order to initiate the proceedings against the accused person. 15 Spl.CC No.216/2018
21. Counsel for the accused places reliance on the provisions of section 21 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, which speaks of power to delegate but section 14 specifically says that if after investigation into any complaint Lokayuktha or Upa Lokayuktha is satisfied to initiate prosecution of the public servant.
22. Therefore, the arguments of the counsel for the accused that there is no proper delegation has no substance in eyes of law.
In this case, it is specifically alleged by the complainant in the complaint that, this accused has not furnished the statement in a proper manner and what ever he has furnished is false. The false information has been noticed by the Lokayuktha as under:-
i) The accused has not mentioned the details of his bank deposits, though, he has mentioned the account numbers in Apex Bank, Legislators Home and Statement Bank of India, Channapattana.16 Spl.CC No.216/2018
ii) The accused has not mentioned about vehicle No.KA02 MF 1234 belonging to him.
iii) The accused has not mentioned about the property in municipal Door No.1857/1/1, of Channapattana Municipality purchased by him from Sri.C.R. Nagashayana and others for Rs.40.00 lakhs under the registered sale deed dated 15/12/2006. The accused has also not mentioned about the properties in Sy.No.69/9 of Seshagirihalli village measuring 1.25 acres standing in the name of himself and his wife and Sy.No.32/1 of Kurubara Karenahalli measuring 2 acres 34 guntas, standing in the name of his wife Manjukumari.
23. It is stated by the complainant that explanation of word from the accused was not satisfactory. Therefore, the Hon'ble Lokayuktha has passed an order as per Ex.P2 on 27-05-2008 as under:-
i) The respondent has not mentioned the details of his bank deposits, though, he has mentioned the account numbers in Apex Bank, Legislators Home and Statement Bank of India, Channapattana.
ii) The respondent has not mentioned about vehicle No.KA02 MF 1234 belonging to him.
17 Spl.CC No.216/2018
iii) The respondent has not mentioned about the property in municipal Door No.1857/1/1 of Channapattana Municipality purchased by him form C.R.Nagashayana and others for Rs.40.00 lakhs under the registered sale deed dated 15-12-2006. The respondent has also not mentioned about properties in Sy.No.69/9 of Seshagirihalli village measuring 1.25 acres standing in the name of himself and his wife and Sy.No.32/1 of Kurubara Karenahalli measuring 2 acres 34 guntas, standing in the name of his wife Manjukumari.
24. Ex.P3 is the complaint filed by the complainant. Ex.P3(a) is the affidavit so filed by the complainant Ex.P3(c)(d) are the enclosures along with affidavit Ex.P4 Form IV. Ex.P5 is the copy of certificate of Registration. Ex.P6 is the copy of RTC, so also Ex.P7. Ex.P8 and Ex.P8(a) are the copies of the sale deed. Ex.P9 is the comment being furnished by the accused. These are the documents relied upon by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused.
25. PW.1 being the complainant, being the then Registrar of Lokayuktha office has come before the Court and deposed in 18 Spl.CC No.216/2018 line with the complaint allegations. He has been intensively cross-examined by the counsel for the accused wherein documents which were there with the office have been produced and only photo copies are produced. According to his evidence, his role in this case is, on receipt of the order of Lokayuktha, he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. His cross- examination so directed is worth reading.
26. He admits in the cross-examination that, if any public servant was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such for his personal interest or improper or corrupt motive will be investigated by the Lokayuktha, if the public servant does any favouritism, lacks integrity, in his capacity as public servant, in those circumstances Lokayuktha will investigate the same. During the investigation by the Lokayuktha, if he found that the complaint is lodged to take any revenge such, a complaint will be dismissed.
27. He relies on the provisions of section 22 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 wherein it states that though 19 Spl.CC No.216/2018 the accused being the public servant is expected to submit true account statement, he has not furnished. Therefore, the complaint is lodged.
28. He himself admits in the cross-examination that a similar complaint was lodged by the complainant Ravindra Belayuru against the accused for the period 2007 and it was dismissed by Lokayuktha. It is produced by the accused as per Ex.D1. This Ex.D1 is confronted to PW.1 and he admits that Lokayuktha has dismissed the complaint filed by CW-1 vide separte order. There the question arose before the Lokayuktha as per Ex.D1 that this accused has not given the correct picture of his investment in Megacity Developers and Builders Private Ltd. Since the accused has mentioned his investment in the said concern at Rs.35 lakhs approximately, so also certain allegations were made which relates to the Election Commission and all the complaint averments have been negatived by passing orders stating that there are no materials to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was not continued for investigation holding that it is 20 Spl.CC No.216/2018 not a fit case to continue the investigation. So for subsequent years this accused was being targeted by the complainant by filing a complaint, but the Lokayuktha has negatived the said complaint.
29. Ex.D2 is confronted to PW.1 wherein the accused has challenged the election notice by the election commission wherein the accused was called upon to furnish the additional documents. The said Writ Petition No.4972/2017 came to be allowed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per the order dated 15-06-2009. A writ Appeal came to be preferred by the respondent therein as appellants but the said writ appeal came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per Ex.D3 vide order dated 21-03-2014.
30. This fact of dismissal of the writ appeal have been admitted by this PW-1. He further states in his cross- examination that, in column 4(e) of Ex.P4 there is no mention that the bank balances of respective accused are to be mentioned. He voluntarily states that in the note appearing 21 Spl.CC No.216/2018 below the column No.1 to 4, the details of the property, valuation, source of acquisition and other details are liable to be furnished for identification. If the said Form is meticulously perused, as rightly argued by the counsel for the accused only it is stated that bank accounts and not bank balance is to be stated. Thus, the very arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor that there is a mis-statement given by the accused has no substance.
31. It is admitted by PW-1 that during the enquiry Lokayuktha has power to summon documents as Civil Court but no documents are summoned by Lokayuktha from the offices or bank to substantiate the reasoning's being assigned in the order as per the submission of the counsel for the accused. When law permits to summon the documents to know truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint nothing prevented to summon the documents to understand the truthfulness of the complaint allegations. 22 Spl.CC No.216/2018
32. Ex.D4 and D5 are confronted to PW-1 wherein they show the bank balance standing in the name of the accused. He did not verify any of the document at the time of filing the complaint. So the very allegations of the complainant that the said accused has not furnished the bank balance. It is submitted by the counsel for the accused that there is no substance in the submission of the prosecution.
33. On the scrupulous reading of Ex.D4-D5 confronted on PW-1, they do demonstrate about the bank balance. In the comments so stated by the accused before the Lokayuktha, he has submitted so. This allegation is substantiated by the complainant with cogent evidence.
34. Another grievance of the prosecution is that, this accused has not furnished any details with regard to the possession of Scorpio Vehicle bearing No.KA02 MF 1234 though owned by him. It is a specific comment of the accused before the Lokayuktha that though he was the owner of the said vehicle, he has transferred the said vehicle on 20-03-2004 to 23 Spl.CC No.216/2018 Megacity Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., to that effect Ex.D6 is produced. Form 29 is also produced as per Ex.D7. When already the accused has sold the said vehicle as per Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 and delivered the said vehicle to the purchaser, it is submitted by the counsel for the accused that question of showing as an asset in the Assets Liabilities statement by the accused for the year 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2006 do not arise at all. There is substance in the submission of the counsel for the accused that when the accused was not the owner of the said vehicle in the year 2006, he has already sold the said vehicle, then the question of he showing the same as his asset does not arise at all. PW-1 admits about the contents of Ex.D6 and D7.
35. Another allegation made by the accused is, he has not shown in his Assets and Liabilities Statement the property bearing Municipal No.1857/1/1 purchased by him from C.R.Nagashayana for Rs.40 lakhs. It is suggested to PW-1 that by way of additional information this accused has stated on 10- 08-2007 and furnished details of acquisition of property bearing the Municipal No.1857/1/1 situated at Channapattana Town 24 Spl.CC No.216/2018 with Municipal Khatha No.856/1. Ex.P8 is the copy of the sale deed and at page No.6 the property bearing No.856/1 is shown as Municipal Khatha No.1857/1/1 by way of additional information accused has submitted the Assets and Liabilities before the Lokayuktha. Thus, the very allegations of the prosecution that there is no mention with regard to the said Municipal Door Number in the said Assets and Liabilities Statement has no substance. However, this PW-1 states, that he has gone through the contents of Ex.P8 and he drafted as per Ex.P1 but his evidence is not trust worthy. He denies the suggestion of defence. Therefore, the allegations falls to the ground.
36. Another allegation of the prosecution is that accused has not mentioned about property of Sy.No.69/9 of Sheshagiri Village measuring 1.25 acres standing in his name and in the name of his wife. This Pw-1 is cross-examined about this allegation. This PW1 in unequivocal terms admits that on 31- 12-2006 the land bearing Sy.No.69/9 of Sheshagiri village measuring 1.25 acres was not standing in the name of the 25 Spl.CC No.216/2018 accused. The document is confronted to him and it disclosed that an order was passed by Bengaluru Mysore Infrastructure Development Authority that the said land was acquired by the said authority. The said documents are marked at Ex.D-8 and Ex.D9. So when already the said land have been acquired by the competent authority the question of showing the same does not arise. This Pw.1 admits that these documents Ex.D8-D9 show about the selling of land in Sy.No.69/9 to the various members of Mega City Developers. So therefore, the allegation so made by the prosecution has no substance. This accusation is not substantiated by the prosecution with relevant documents.
37. With regard to the selling of the land in Sy.No.69/9 of Sheshagiri Halli village, other lands are sold to members of Megacity Developers. This is not denied by PW-1. It is suggested to PW-1 in the cross-examination that the landed property bearing Sy.No. 32/1 of Kurubara Karena Halli measuring 2 acre 34 guntas was sold by the wife of the accused to one Nagaraj Achar. The copy of the said sale deed 26 Spl.CC No.216/2018 is confronted to PW-1. These documents are marked at Ex.D13. The document is also confronted as per Ex.D-14 being the additional statement submitted by the accused to the Lokayuktha on 10-08-2007. It is suggested that this complainant is in the habit of filing false complaint against the accused, but this suggestion is denied. He did not know whether CW.1 demanded huge sum from the accused in order to resist from filing the complaint against the accused.
38. PW-2 Ravindra Beleyur is the complainant in this case. He has stated with regard to non disclosure of the Scorpio Vehicle in the assets and Liabilities. Pw-2 has stated so many things in the cross-examination, even he admits that on seeing the balance sheet records, he came to know that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 Mahindra Scorpio was delivered in favour of Mega City Developers by the accused. He also admits about the bank balance etc., He states that he is unaware of the availability of delivery note in the records of the Lokayuktha, he do not remember whether Lokayuktha has forwarded all the records along with Ex.P9 required to him. He 27 Spl.CC No.216/2018 admits that vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 Mahindra Scorpio is in possession of Mega City Developers on the date of filing of Form No.4. This admission of PW2 goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. Then this allegation of not showing the vehicle in the assets and Liabilities statement has no substance as in the year 2004 itself accused has sold the said vehicle. It is the transferee or the purchaser of the vehicle to get it transferred in his name and for that accused cannot be blamed.
39. With regard to Sy.No.69/9, he shows ignorance by stating that, he do not know that the land bearing Sy.No.69/9 of Sheshagiri village measuring 1 acre 25 guntas standing in the name of wife of accused was secured by Government for formation of sites by M/s.Mega City Developers. When he does not know about the acquisition of the said property how come he files a complaint making such allegation is not explained by PW.1 or PW.2. Even he deposes ignorance about Indu Gowda and Nirbhaya Gowda being the owners of the sites in M/s.Mega City Developers. Though he denies suggestion but the said 28 Spl.CC No.216/2018 document speaks about the acquisition of the lands. He admits that he is aware that Mega City Developers allotted site and registered in the name of the many allottees. According to his evidence before filing of the complaint he did not obtain records pertaining to the acquisition of the land for M/s. Mega City Developers by the Government.
40. This PW-2 has been directed in the cross-examination that as per Ex.D9 he came to know that, there were acquisition proceedings of lands of Mega City Developers. So when he knew about Ex.D9 about acquisition, he has given different evidence and filed a complaint. He deposed so many ignorance before the Court. He admits that accused has not suppressed about bank account Numbers in Form No.4. He has given two bank accounts. He did not request the Lokayuktha to call the bank statements of those accounts. Even he deposed ignorance about the accused having purchased the property bearing No.1857/1/1 situated at Hanumantha Nagara, Chennapattana for Rs.40,00,000/- a per Ex.P8 and he has disclosed about the said purchase by showing additional 29 Spl.CC No.216/2018 declaration on 10-08-2017 which is produced at Ex.D-14 but makes allegations against the accused person. He admits that he has produced photo copy of the sale deed dated 15-12- 2006. As accused has filed additional declaration with regard to the purchase of the aid land as per Ex.D14, then, there is no substance in the submission of PW-2 complainant. He is confronted with so many documents and he deposed ignorance of the contents of the said documents.
41. He says that he is knowing about the submission of the additional declaration declared in the aforesaid property as per Ex.D14. He filed serious complaint againt the accused, even he says that the complaint against the accused in crime No.255/2006 before the SR Nagar Police Station on behalf of the Mega City Bengaluru Developers and Builders Limited Site Members Welfore Association etc., is filed He has received Rs.8 lakh as he was not allotted any site in Mega City Bengaluru Developers and Builders Limited. He went up to the Supreme Court.
30 Spl.CC No.216/2018
42. On reading to the evidence of PWs1 and 2 meticulously, though some allegations are made in the complaint but they have not been substantiated by them with cogent evidence. They have given a clear go by to the case of the prosecution.
43. Madaiah, Sub Registrar wherein he says about signing of the sale deed dated 15-12-2006 by him, he admits his signature as per Ex.P8. No cross-examination is directed by him.
44. PW-4 G.Rehamanthulla retired ARTO says that vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MF-1234 was standing in the name of accused as on 17-09-2002. He has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. He admits, that Ex.P-5 pertains to the registration of the vehicle etc., He submits that Form No.29 mentions the date of sale and actual transfer takes place only after transfer order is passed by the RTO. When the said vehicle was already sold, it can be stated the allegations made in the complaint are not properly substantiated by the complainant against the accused suffers from material 31 Spl.CC No.216/2018 particulars. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 spoken in the cross- examination falsifies case of the prosecution. Therefore, it can very well be stated that the case of the prosecution suffers from material particulars.
45. In this case the counsel for accused places reliance on the following judgments.
1. 2007(5) SCC 730 2.2016(16) SCC 483 3.2011(4) SCC 240
4. 2009(15) SCC 200 5.2017 AIR (SCW) 540
6. 2012 ILR (Karnataka)4393 These judgments speak with regard to the production of secondary evidence. In this case photo copies are produced and therefore, unless the prosecution makes a ground for producing secondary evidence cannot be relied upon. Some documents is marked subject to objections. But objections so raised is not properly explained by the prosecution. Counsel for 32 Spl.CC No.216/2018 the accused also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2012 Kar Page 4393 in the case between Veeranna Versus State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court have held as under:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 177 Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984, Section 14 - Petitioner alleged to had furnished false information before the Election Officer - Omission to give information was without any intention or 'mens rea' - furnishing of false information is distinct from the omission to give information-Both are distinct and are triabl separately - Section 177 of Indian Penal Code makes it clear that a person who is legally bound to furnish the information, furnishes the information as true and fully agrees that he has reasons to believe it to be false, only then it amounts to commission on his part under section 177 of Indian Penal Code - Petitioner had already disclosed the ownership of his two wheeler in the statement of assets and Liabilites furnished for the relevant year - Though the same was found in the balance sheet, by oversight he omitted to mention the same in the 33 Spl.CC No.216/2018 assets and Liabilities declaration submitted u/s 22 of the Act - Held, that it cannot be considered as an offence u/s 177 of the Act, because there was no reason for him to suppress the ownership of the scooter as the same ha been declared in the previous year and for the relevant year, the balance sheet discloses the same - therefore, Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted-Complaint lodged against the petitioner quashed.
46. In the course of the judgment Hon'ble High Court has held that how the offence u/s 177 of IPC is to be proved. As stated supra, the ingredients of the offence are not properly proved by the prosecution with legal evidence. There are discrepancies, material contradictions, omissions and admissions in favor of the accused which shake the basic case of the prosecution. Therefore, if all these factual features are put together, it can be stated the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 34 Spl.CC No.216/2018 Hence accused is entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. Hence, I record my finding on point No.1 in the negative.
47. POINT NO.2: As a result by foregoing discussions and reasons stated there and read over are entitled for acquittal by benefit of doubt. Therefore, acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C, I pass the following ORDER Accused is acquitted of the charges u/s 177 of IPC and his bail bond stands cancelled.
He is set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, same is corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 29th day of June, 2019) (RAMACHANDRA.D.HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) 35 Spl.CC No.216/2018 ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
PW1 L.Subramanya PW2 Ravindra Beleyuru PW3 Madaiah PW4 G.Rehmathulla
Witnesses examined by the defence/accused. -- NIL Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signture of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Order dated 27-05-2008 Ex.P.3 Complaint Ex.P.3(a) Affidavit Ex.P.3(b) Enclosure - 1 Ex.P.3(c) Enclosure - 2Signature of PW-5 Ex.P.3(d) Enclosure - 3 Ex.P.4 Form No-4 Ex.P5 Copy of certificate of registration Ex.P6 Copy of RTC Ex.P.7 Copy of RTC Ex.P.8 Copy of sale deed Ex.P.8(a) Copy of Sale deed Ex.P.9 Comments
Documents exhibited by the defence/accused. - NIL Ex.D.1 Copy of the order sheet Ex.D.2 Copy of order in W.P.No.4972/07 Ex.D.3 Copy of order in W.P.No.3519, 3520/09 Ex.D.4 Bank Documents Ex.D.5 Bank Dcouments Ex.D6 Copy of delivery Note Ex.D7 Form No.29 Ex.D8 Documents/Order dt;24-10-2000 Ex.D9 Documents/Order dt;24-10-2000 36 Spl.CC No.216/2018 Ex.D10 to Certified copy of sale Deed Ex.D12 Ex.D13 Certified Copy of Sale Deed Ex.D14 Additional Statement Ex.D15 Letter dated 1-02-2018.
Ex.D16 Certified Copy of FIR Dt: 16-11-2006 Ex.D17 Complaint
List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- NIL LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82).