Bangalore District Court
C.C./9704/2014 on 14 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 14th day of August 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.9704/2014
Date of Ofeene : from 1-1-2009 to 11-12-2012
Name of nomplaieaet : State by R.T.Nagar
Poline Statioe, Beegaluru.
Name of annused : Mahaethesh S. Birala
s/o late Shivappa,
aged 36 years, r/o No.66,
3rd nross, Marutieagar,
Nagarabhavi maie road,
Beegaluru 72
owe address Noolvi village,
N.H.4 road, Dharawad taluk,
Hubli-Dharwad distrint.
Ofeenes nomplaieed of: U/s.120BB , 468, 471 aed 420
of IPC aed 66© aed 66BD of
I.T. Ant, 2008.
Plea of annused : Pleaded eot guilty
Fieal Order : As per feal order
Date of Order : 14-8-2018.
2 C.C.No.9704/2014
JUDGMENT
The Iespentor of Poline, R.T.Nagar Poline Statioe, Beegaluru has fled the nharge sheet agaiest the annused for the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant.
2. It is the nase of the prosenutioe that, the annused beieg the employee of Ienome Tax Departmeet nolluded with ofnials of the Ienome Tax workieg ie the ofne at R.T.Nagar-naegaeagar HMT Bbhavae with ieteetioe to make illegal moeey made believe C.W.2 to get moeey aed obtaieed PAN nard eumber of C.W.1 aed also State Baek of Mysore Baek annouet aed submitted false ienome tax retures by usieg user ID of the Ienome Tax Departmeet aed eetered wroeg data eetry over the period from 2010 to 2011 aed obtaieed 3 C.C.No.9704/2014 six nheques worth of Rs.5,78,270/- aed eenashed the same ie the baek beloegs to C.W.1 aed make use of ATM nard of C.W.2 for takieg moeey aed failed to pay the same to C.W.2 aed played a fraud oe the noveremeet. Ueder sunh nirnumstaenes the nomplaieaet has fled a nomplaiet agaiest the annused before the jurisdintioeal poline. Annordiegly, the R.T.Nagar poline have registered the nase agaiest the annused for the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant ie Crime No.452/2012. After nompletioe of ievestigatioe, the Ievestigatieg Ofner has fled the nharge sheet agaiest the annused for the aforesaid ofeenes.
3. After appearaene of the annused eenessary donumeets as relied by the prosenutioe, are fureished to the annused as provided ueder Sentioe 207 of Cr.P.C. 4 C.C.No.9704/2014 Charge has beee framed aed same is read over aed explaieed to the annused. The annused pleaded eot guilty aed nlaims to be tried. Therefore, the nase was posted for prosenutioe evideene.
4. C.Ws.1 to 16 have beee nited as nharge sheet witeesses. Ie order to prove the guilt of the annused, durieg the nourse of trial, C.Ws.9, 15 aed 11 have beee examieed as P.Ws.1 to 3 respentively aed got marked Exs.P1 to P8. So far as other nharge sheet witeesses are noenereed, their preseene is eot senured, iespite of sufnieet time aed repeated issuaene of summoes aed warraets. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After nompletioe of prosenutioe evideene, the statemeet of the annused was renorded ueder Sentioe 313 of Cr.P.C. The annused has eot adduned aey 5 C.C.No.9704/2014 defeene evideene oe his behalf. Therefore, there is eo defeene evideene oe behalf of the annused
6. Heard the argumeets of leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed nouesel appearieg for annused. The poiets that would arise for my noesideratioe are as ueder:
1. Whether the prosenutioe proves beyoed all reasoeable doubt that, the annused has nommitted the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant?
2. What order ?
7. My aeswer to the above poiets are as ueder:
Poiet No.1: Ie the Negative.
Poiet No.2: As per feal order, for the followieg:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The noeteetioe of the prosenutioe is that the annused beieg the employee of Ienome Tax 6 C.C.No.9704/2014 Departmeet nolluded with ofnials of the Ienome Tax workieg ie the ofne at R.T.Nagar-naegaeagar HMT Bbhavae with ieteetioe to make illegal moeey made believe C.W.2 to get moeey aed obtaieed PAN nard eumber of C.W.1 aed also State Baek of Mysore Baek annouet aed submitted false ienome tax retures by usieg user ID of the Ienome Tax Departmeet aed eetered wroeg data eetry over the period from 2010 to 2011 aed obtaieed six nheques worth of Rs.5,78,270/- aed eenashed the same ie the baek beloegs to C.W.1 aed make use of ATM nard of C.W.2 for takieg moeey aed failed to pay the same to C.W.2 aed played a fraud oe the noveremeet aed thereby the annused has nommitted the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant.
7 C.C.No.9704/2014
9. Ie order to prove the guilt of the annused for the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant, C.W.9 is examieed as P.W.1. P.W.1 is eoee other thae the Maeager of State Baek of Mysore, Keegeri braenh who has deposed that as requested by Ievestigatieg Ofner he has fureished the nopies of annouet opeeieg form, statemeet of annouet aed KYC pertaies to annouet No.54055608694 of R.T.Nagar braenh. The said annouet was staedieg ie the eame of Aeeasaheb S Biradar aed got marked those donumeets as Exs.P1 to P3. The evideene of P.W.1 disnloses that the baek annouet was staedieg ie the eame of Aeeasaheb S Biradar, but eot to the annused. Ie order to establish that the annused has played a fraud oe C.W.2 aed nreated all donumeets aed withdraw the amouet through annouet of C.W.2, the evideene of C.W.2 ie the preseet nase is very importaet, but C.W.2 8 C.C.No.9704/2014 is eot examieed ie the preseet nase. Therefore, eoe-examieatioe of C.W.2 ie the preseet nase is fatal to the nase of the prosenutioe to prove that the annused has played a fraud oe C.W.2 aed misused his password aed ATM nard aed baek annouet. Therefore, ie order to prove all those fants, examieatioe of C.W.2 is very importaet. Therefore, eoe-examieatioe of C.W.2 naeeot be dispeesed with to prove the guilt of the annused for the alleged ofeenes beyoed all reasoeable doubt. Heene, the evideene of P.W.1 pertaies to fureishieg of nertaie donumeets to Ievestigatieg Ofner is eot sufnieet to prove the guilt of the annused.
10. Ie the nourse of nhief-examieatioe itself P.W.1 has deposed that he does eot keow Aeeasaheb S Biradar aed he has eot ideetifed the annused who was preseet before the nourt. Heene, the evideene of P.W.1 is eot sufnieet to prove the guilt of the annused. 9 C.C.No.9704/2014
11. C.W.15 is examieed as P.W.2 who is ae Assistaet Sub-Iespentor of Poline, who has deposed with regard to the registratioe of nomplaiet aed submissioe of FIR.
The leareed nouesel appearieg for the annused has nross-examieed P.W.2 ie brief, ie whinh he has deposed to the followieg efent:
¤¦-5 gÀ ªÀÉÄÃ¯É ZÁ¸ÀÁ-1 EªÀgÀ ¸À» EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ¤¦-5 gÀªÉÄÃ¯É CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸À» ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆj£À°è ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ ¢®èªÉAzÀgɸÀj.10 C.C.No.9704/2014
The evideene of P.W.2 as above is eot at all sufnieet to prove the guilt of the annused for the alleged ofeenes.
12. C.W.11 is examieed as P.W.3, who is a Sub-Registrar of Nagarabhavi Poline Statioe who has deposed that he has produned the nertifed nopy of nift deed dated 21-11-2012 as requested by the Ievestigatieg ofner. The evideene of P.W.3 naeeot be relied oe, benause he was eot subjented for nross-examieatioe.
Ie this regard, this nourt has relied oe the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble High Court of Kareataka ie the nase of Saeearevaeappa Bharamajappa Kalal Vs. State of Kareataka, reported ie ILR 1990 KAR 1205, whereie their lordship has held that, 11 C.C.No.9704/2014 "CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 BCeetral Ant No.2 of 1974 -Sentioe 319- Complete 'evideene' nalls for nross-
examieatioe eot examieatioe-ie-nhief aloee-If witeess does eot submit to nross-examieatioe after examieatioe-ie- nhief Court prenluded from antieg oe sunh ienomplete evideene".
Therefore, ie view of the law laid dowe ie the above said judgmeet aed ie view of the fant that the nomplaieaet aed material witeesses are eot examieed, I am of the opieioe that the prosenutioe has miserably failed to prove its nase, agaiest the annused for the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant beyoed all reasoeable doubt. Heene, it is held that the annused is eetitled for anquittal for the 12 C.C.No.9704/2014 alleged ofeenes. Annordiegly, I aeswer poiet No.1 ie the negative.
13. Point No.2:- Ie view of my aeswer oe the poiet No.1, I proneed to pass the followieg:
ORDER The annused is eot foued guilty for the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant.
Therefore, he is anquitted for the said ofeenes ueder Sentioe 248B1 Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the annused staeds naenelled.
BDintated to the steeographer dirently oe nomputer, typed by her, revised aed thee norrented by me aed thee proeouened ie opee nourt oe this the 14th day of August 2018 .
BV.Jagadeesh I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.13 C.C.No.9704/2014
ANNEXURE List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of prosenutioe:-
P.W.1, Aeilkumar Vydhyam, P.W.2, Y.Thirumalaiah, P.W.3, Basava Aradhya;
List of donumeets marked oe behalf of prosenutioe:-
Ex.P1, Annouet opeeieg form,
Ex.P2, Copy of drivieg lineene,
Ex.P3, Statemeet of annouet,
Ex.P4, Complaiet,
Ex.P4Ba , Sigeature of P.W.2,
Ex.P5, FIR,
Ex.P5Ba , Sigeature of P.W.2,
Ex.P6, Certifed nopy of nift Deed,
Ex.P7, Certifed nopy of eenumbraene
nertifnate,
Ex.P8, Fanieg sheet;
List of material objent: NIL
List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of the defeene:-
NIL.
List of donumeets marked oe behalf of the defeene:-
NIL BV.Jagadeesh I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.14 C.C.No.9704/2014 15 C.C.No.9704/2014
14/8/2018 State by Sr.APP Annused C/B For Judgmeet BJudgmeet proeouened ie the Opee Court ORDER The annused is eot foued guilty for the ofeenes pueishable ueder Sentioes 120BB , 468, 471 aed 420 of IPC aed 66BC aed 66BD of Ieformatioe Tenheology Ant. Therefore, he is anquitted for the said ofeenes ueder Sentioe 248B1 Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the annused staeds naenelled.
BV.Jagadeesh , I ACMM, Beegaluru.16 C.C.No.9704/2014 17 C.C.No.9704/2014