Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt. H.V.Saraswathi on 18 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-78)
PRESENT: SRI MALLIKARJUNAGOUD,
B.A.L. LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: 18th NOVEMBER, 2017
Spl. C.C.No. 162/2010
*****
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka,
Rep by Inspector of Police,
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
Bengaluru City Wing, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri S.P.Hubballi, Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: Smt. H.V.Saraswathi, Aged 51 years,
W/o D.S.Ramamurthy,
Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes,
Tax Auditing No.61 DVO 6
Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-20.
R/a No.58, 2nd cross, 1st Main,
Ganesh Block, Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru-20,
(Rep by Sri V.B.Naik, Advocate)
2 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sec.7, 13(1)(d)R/w Sec.13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
2. Date of Commission 03-11-2009
of offence:
3. Date of First Information 03-11-2009
Report:
4. Date of Arrest: 03-11-2009
5. Date of Commencement 05-11-2011
Of recording of evidence:
6. Date of Closing of evidence: 02-02-2017
7. Date of Pronouncement of 18-11-2017
Judgment.
8. Result of the case: Accused is acquitted.
^^^^^
JUDGMENT
In this case Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City Division, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.(In short PC.Act).
2. The charges leveled against the accused are that: on 28-07- 2009 this accused had visited to Nithish Granites Factory pertains to the complainant situated at Tumkur and informed the complainant to appear before her, in her office with its documents. On 31-08-2009 she had issued a notice to the complainant to appear before her with 3 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 the documents pertains to his granite factory. On 14-09-2009 the complainant appeared in the office of accused, at that time, she demanded bribe amount of Rs.One-lakh for preparing the assessment order of his granite factory for Four years. For that the complainant told her that, it is not possible for him to pay that much amount, so he went back. Again on 06-10-2009 the complainant appeared in the office of accused and discussed about assessment orders of his granite factory. At that time, again accused demanded the said sum of Rs.One-lakh and after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.49,000-00 and this accused shown that figure by typing it in her calculator.
3. On 03-11-2009 at about 3.05 p.m. when the accused was present in her office situated at Tax Auditing No.601, DVO 6, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru, the complainant went there to meet the accused. At that time, again she demanded the bribe amount told by her. On her demand, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.49,000-00 to the her, out of it she returned Rs.6000-00 to the complainant with a direction to pay Rs.5,000-00 to one Smt.Sumithra and balance Rs.1,000-00 to one Mr. Achar. After paying a sum of Rs.43,000-00 by the complainant to the accused, he came out of that office and gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police. Thereafter, they trapped her, 4 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 interrogated her, investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
4. After submitting the charge sheet, the presence of the accused was secured before the court by issuing summons. She appeared before the court through her counsel, copy of the charge sheet was supplied to her under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and she was enlarged on bail.
5. The Spl.PP opened his case by addressing his arguments.
6. Heard arguments of both the sides on hearing before charge. After hearing on HBC, after perusal of the charge sheet and the documents placed before the court, this court held that there is a prima facie case against the accused for prosecuting her for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. The charges against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are read over and explained to her in the language known to her, for that, she pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. 5 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
8. In all the Lokayuktha Police have cited as many as 15- witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of them the prosecution has examined CW.1-P. Suresh, the complainant is examined as PW.2, CW.2-Smt.Manjula J. and CW.3-B.V.Viswanatha Aradhya, the panch witnesses are examined as PW.3 and 4, CW.5-Syed Jamal, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax office, Bengaluru, who identified the voice of the accused recorded in a CD and issued some attested documents to the I.O. is examined as PW.1. CW9-S.R.Rajagopala, the then Besk Office in the Financial Secretariat Bengaluru, who issued sanction order is examined as PW.5. CW.15-K.C.Laxminarayana, Police Inspector cum Investigating Officer is examined as PW.6, got marked 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.17 and got marked 17 material objects as M.O.1 to 17. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, he has given up other witnesses and closed his side.
9. Statement of the accused Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and she denies the incriminating evidence against her. Enquired the accused about the defence evidence for that, she got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked 21-documents as Ex.D.1 to D.21 and closed her side.
6 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
10. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.
11. After hearing the arguments, after perusal of the charge sheet and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the following points arise for consideration of this court:-
1. Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves that the sanction order issued for prosecuting the accused is valid?
2. Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused being a public servant working as Assistant Commissioner in Commercial Tax Office at Sheshadripuram, Auditing No.61, DVO 6, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru, has demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.One-lakh from the complainant for preparing four years Assessment Orders of his Nithish Granites Factory, situated at Tumkur and after bargaining, it was settled for Rs.49,000-00, thereafter on 03-11-2009 at about 3.05 p.m. this accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.43,000-00 from the complainant-P. Suresh in her office to do official favour to him and thereby she has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 03-11-2009 at 7 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 about 3.05 p.m. this accused while working as a public servant in her office situated at Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru, has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.43,000-00 from the complainant CW.1-
P.Suresh for doing official favour, by misusing her official position as a public servant and thereby she has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4. Point No.4: What Order?
12. My answers for the above point is in the followings because of my below discussed reasons.
POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.3: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.4: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
13. POINT No.1: Here after considering the evidence of PW.5- S.R.Rajagopal along with the documents marked at Ex.P.13 and Ex.D.3 and the point remain for consideration of this court is, whether the sanction order issued for prosecuting this accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention 8 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 of Corruption Act is valid or not is the fact to be decided by this court. Counsel for the accused has submitted before the court stating that by looking into the documents marked at Ex.D.3, there is no sanction from the Government to prosecute this accused for the offences alleged against her, so the sanction order marked at Ex.P.13 is not a valid sanction. In support of his case he relied on the following decisions:
1. 2014 AIR SCW 472 (A) Supreme Court between (CBI V/s Ashok Kumar Aggarwal)
2. 2008 (1) SCC (Cri.) 130 (A) Supreme Court between (State of Karnataka V/s Ameer jan)
3. 2014 (3) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 394 (A) between (P.L. Patwal V/s State of Madhya Pradesh),
4. 2013 (3) KCCR 1788 between (M. Manjunath V/s State by Lokayuktha Police).
14. Contrary to this, learned Public Prosecutor submitted before the court stating that, the counsel for the accused has not properly considered the proceedings appearing in Ex.D.3. In that proceedings, details of the allegations made against the accused are mentioned, on the basis of the same, to initiate action and recommendation for suspension of this accused was accrued by the Government as appearing at Sl.No.40. Later, after completion of the entire investigation and sending the charge sheet papers by the ADGP 9 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 to the Government, again the Government has placed the proceedings before the Government (Chief Minister) for obtaining sanction. On the basis of the same, at Sl.No.80 of Ex.D.3, the Chief Minister has ordered to issue sanction against this accused to prosecute her for the offences alleged against her, so on the basis of that order only PW.5 has issued sanction order marked at Ex.P.13, so it is valid sanction.
15. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and after going through the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused with Ex.D.3, it indicates that, Ex.D.3 is the proceedings with regard to initiate some disciplinary action and judicial proceedings against the accused. In that proceeding, there is a note for sanction by the Government for keeping the accused under suspension after registering this case. After completion of entire investigation and before submitting charge sheet by the I.O. before the court, the Lokayuktha Police have submitted a requisition before the Government for obtaining sanction. By considering the material placed by the Lokayuktha ADGP before the Government, on 05-05-2010 PW.5 issued the sanction order marked at Ex.P.13. By considering all these facts into consideration, it is clear that, the sanction order marked at Ex.P.13 is a valid sanction. The suspension order passed by the 10 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 Government against this accused under Ex.D.3 was not challenged by her before the competent court. Further the counsel for the accused submitted before the court stating that, only signature of the Chief Minster is appearing, but there is no any order by the Government. By looking into the note, the Chief Minister has affixed his signature to that proceeding only after knowing the contents of that note placed before him for obtaining his signature. When the Chief Minister has affixed his signature by looking into the contents appearing in that note has granted sanction to suspend her and to prosecute her. This itself is sufficient to hold that he ordered for approval of sanction as prayed in the said notes. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused stated above, the ration involved in the said decisions are entirely different from the case on hand, so this court did not consider the said decisions for adjudicating this matter only on the basis of sanction order. By considering the evidence of PW.5 along with the document marked at Ex.D.3 and Ex.P.13, this court held that the sanction granted by the Government for prosecuting this accused is a valid sanction. Hence, this court answered the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
11 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
16. POINT No.2 AND 3:
For giving findings of this court on point No.2 and 3 common discussion of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution before the court is necessary. So both these points are taken up for common discussion.
17. This is the case of the prosecution that the complainant- PW.2-P. Suresh is the proprietor of Nitish Granites, situated at Tumkur. From 2005 to 2008 this complainant has not submitted his books of accounts for inspection and not submitted the returns of his establishment as required under the Law. In this connection, a notice was issued by this accused, she had visited and inspected his establishment and asked him to appear before her in her office along with book of accounts. As he was not in possession of the said accounts on the date of her inspection, so he requested her to grant time. As per her instruction, in the month of Sept. 2009 complainant had appeared before the office of accused along with the books of accounts pertains to his establishment. After verifying the said records she has demanded bribe amount of Rs. One lakh for clearing his four years assessment. After hearing the same, he sought some time and came back. Again in the month of Oct. 2009, he had visited 12 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 to the office of accused and asked her about his assessment work. At that time, again she demanded the bribe amount of Rs.One lakh and later after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.60,000-00 and again after bargaining she reduced it to Rs.50,000-00. At that time he expressed his inability to pay Rs.60,000-00, but she did not agreed. Lastly it was settled for Rs.49,000-00. The complainant was not intended to pay the bribe amount to the accused, so on 03-11-2009 he appeared before the Bengaluru City Division, Lokayuktha office and filed his complaint as per Ex.P.5. After registering that complaint, Lokayuktha Police have secured the presence of two panch witnesses namely PW.3-Smt. Manjula and PW.4-B.V.Viswanatha Aradhya. After their arrival, I.O. introduced them to the complainant, supplied copy of complaint to read. After verifying the same, they enquired the complainant about its contents, for that, he told them that the contents of the same are true and correct. Thereafter the I.O. asked the complainant to produce the bribe amount of Rs.49,000-00. Thereafter he produced 49-currency notes of Rs.1000-00 denomination before I.O. After submitting the same, he note down the notes numbers in a sheet marked at Ex.P.8, smeared phenolphthalein powder on the same. Later I.O. asked PW.4-B.V.Vishwanatha Aradhya to verify and count the said notes and keep it in the right side pant pocket of complainant- 13 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 PW.2. As per his instruction, he verified the said notes and kept the same in the pant pocket of the complainant as instructed by the I.O. Later I.O. prepared sodium carbonate solution in two bowls, taken out some portion of it in a empty bottle and asked PW.4 to wash his both the hands in the remaining solution in the said bowl. After washing his hands, the said solution was changed into pink colour and I.O. has seized the same in a separate bottle. In this regard the I.O. drawn the pre trap mahazar as per Ex.P.9 and obtained the signatures of complainant and panch witnesses on the same. Thereafter the I.O. directed the complainant to pay the tainted currency notes to the accused only after demand and to give signal by wiping his head with the right hand. He requested PW.3-Smt. Manjula to act as a shadow witness by accompany the complainant and directed her to follow and watch the conversation between the complainant and the accused. After completion of pre trap mahazar, they left the office of Lokayuktha in a Maruthi van and came near the office of the accused. After their arrival, again I.O. instructed the complainant to pay the tainted currency notes to accused only on demand and after paying the same he asked him to give signal to him by wiping his head with the right hand and asked PW.3-Manjula to accompany him. Thereafter PW.2 and 3 entered the office of accused and noticed one Smt. 14 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 Sumithra, Tax Inspector and asked about his papers. Later, the accused came out of her chamber and gave directions to Sumithra to prepare his file and asked complainant to see her in her chamber. By seeing PW.3-Manjula said Sumithra asked PW.2-complainant about PW.3, for that he told her that she is his sister. Since Sumithra enquired about PW.3, so he smelt that the accused and Sumithra may suspect him, if he take PW.3 in the chamber of the accused, so he left her with Sumithra and he alone went in to the chamber of this accused. After he went there he handed over two blank cheques to the accused. Later she asked about the bribe amount as balance amount, at that time, he gave the tainted currency notes of Rs.49,000-00 to her. Out of said amount, she gave 6000-00 to the complainant and asked him to pay 5000-00 to Smt. Sumithra and 1000-00 to one Mr. Achar. After the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused, he came out of that chamber and gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police as instructed by them. After receiving the signal Lokayuktha Police entered into the chamber of the accused and enquired the complainant about the accused. By showing the accused, complainant told him that she is the person who demanded and accepted the bribe amount from him. Thereafter the Lokayuktha Police got introduced themselves to the accused and got prepared the 15 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 sodium carbonate solution in two bowls, taken out some portion of it in a empty bottle and asked the accused to wash her both hands in the remaining solution. After washing her both hands in the sodium carbonate solution, that solution was changed into pink colour. Thereafter Lokayuktha Police enquired the accused about the bribe amount, for that accused told him that she kept in her almariah. Thereafter the Lokayuktha Police seized tainted currency notes of Rs.43,000-00 from the position of this accused and remaining Rs.6000-00 from the complainant and verified those numbers with Ex.P.8. After verifying the same, they satisfied that the numbers of the said notes are tally with the tainted currency notes given by the complainant to the accused as bribe amount. Thereafter they secured the presence of PW.1, got identified the voice of the accused recorded in the voice recorder and CD, collected certified copies of some documents pertains to the file of complainant, taken her to their station, drawn trap mahazar as per Ex.P.11, obtained the signatures of complainant, panch witnesses and the accused on the same for having handed over the copy of that trap mahazar. Thereafter I.O. has conducted further investigation and after completion of entire investigation, he obtained sanction from the Government and submitted charge sheet against the accused before the court. 16 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
18. In support of the case of the prosecution, learned Public Prosecutor submitted before the court stating that, by considering the evidence of PW.1 to 4, and 6 the fact that verifying the sale and purchase of goods of the complainant's establishment for the year 2005 to 2008 was pending and he has not accounted for the same. In view of the same, this accused visited to the establishment of complainant and enquired him to produce his business records. As he has handed over the said records to his auditor, so he was unable to produce it before the accused. On account of the same, she asked him to appear before her in her office along with the said documents. After appearance and after verifying the records, she demanded bribe amount of Rs. One lakh and after bargain, it was lastly reduced to Rs.49,000-00. The said conversation was recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant. As the complainant was not intending to pay that bribe amount, so on 03-11-2009 he had visited to the Lokayuktha office and filed his complaint as per Ex.P.5. After registering the case, I.O. secured the presence of PW.3 and 4, conducted pre trap proceedings, taken them with the complainant in a Maruthi van to the office of accused, conducted trap as stated by PW.2 to 4 and 6. By considering the evidence of PW.2 to 4 and 6 along with the documents 17 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant is proved with the evidence of PW.2 and 3. Further their evidence is supported with trap mahazar marked at Ex.P.11. The notes numbers seized under Ex.P.11 are tally with the currency notes sheet marked at Ex.P.8. The shadow and panch witnesses PW.3 and 4 have also stated in their evidence about the case of the prosecution and supported the prosecution case with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant. Their evidences are corroborated with the evidence of PW.6-K.C.Laxminarayana, I.O. Since the evidence of PW.2 to 4 and 6 corroborates with each other and establishes the prosecution case against the accused, so it may be held that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he requested the court to convict the accused by awarding maximum sentence. In support of his case, he relied on the following decisions:
1. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.1864 of 2011, dt:16-09-2014, between (Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel V/s State of Gujarat),
2. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.697 of 2011, dt:01-07-2015, between (Chaitanya Prakash Audichya V/s C.B.I.), 18 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
3. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.1317 of 2008, dt:06-05-2015, between (State of Andhra Pradesh V/s P. Venkateshwarlu),
4. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.955 of 2015, dt:24-07-2015, between (Gurjant Singh V/s State of Punjab),
5. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.618 of 2012, dt:05-07-2016, between (Mukhtiar Singh V/s State of Punjab).
6. 2016(2) Crimes 116 (Supreme Court) between (V. Sejappa V/s The State by Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, Chitradurga) and
7. 1985 Crl.L.J. 1602 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) between (State of Punjab V/s Bhim Sain).
19. Contrary to this, the learned counsel for the accused submitted before the court stating that, merely because the prosecution witnesses have supported its case, itself is not sufficient to convict the accused. Because it is golden principles of criminal jurisprudence that "Hundred criminals may be acquitted but one innocent person shall not be convicted". Further he has submitted that, in criminal cases the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if there is any doubt in the case of the prosecution, its benefit shall be given to the accused for acquittal and accused shall not be convicted by taking benefit of doubt. For convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 19 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the prosecution has to prove the important element of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. Here by considering the case of the prosecution the fact that, the returns of the complainant's establishment for the year 2005 to 2008 were not submitted before the competent authority, on account of the same, they issued notice to the complainant. After service of notice, he appeared before the accused and produced his records. After verifying the same, she demanded the bribe amount of Rs. One lakh and after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.49,000-00. As the complainant was not intending to pay that amount, so on 03-11-2009 he appeared before the Lokayuktha Police and filed his complaint as per Ex.P.5. By looking into the seized amount and amount mentioned in the complaint, it indicates that there is a variation of Rs.6,000-00. As per the complaint, accused has demanded Rs.49,000-00 but the amount seized from the position of the accused is Rs.43,000-00. Whether that amount received by her is a bribe amount or due payable by this complainant to the Government or not are the facts to be considered by the court. As per the prosecution case, PW.3-Manjula was a shadow witness. This complainant has not taken her into the chamber of the accused and she was not present at that time of any negotiations taken place 20 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 between the accused and the complainant in her chamber. PW.3 has not seen the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant.
20. Usually in bribe cases the complainant is very much interested in convicting the accused by exaggerating his case or by filing a false complaint. So to curtail the said acts of the complainant, Legislatures have held that the complainant should be accompanied by a shadow witness and corroboration of that shadow witness is must for accepting the evidence of the complainant. In this case, PW.3-Manjula was not taken by this complainant into the chamber of the accused and she was not a witness to the same. In the examination in chief of PW.2-complainant has stated that he has not taken PW.3-Manjula into the chamber of the accused as one Smt. Sumithra suspected about him by seeing PW.3. In the examination in chief of PW.3-Manjula on page 3 para 4 at-last four lines she has stated that, PW.2 alone went into the chamber of accused and after sometime he came out of that chamber and gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police by wiping his head. So her statement goes to show that, she was not a witness to any demand and acceptance taken place between the accused and the complainant. When the testimony of PW.2 is not corroborated with the 21 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 evidence of shadow witness with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused, under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.2-complainant is unbelievable. In the cross-examination of PW.3 on page 6 para 8 she has stated that when she told him that she would be with him, for that, he told her that she need not be with him. This statement of PW.3 creates suspicious in the mind of the court about the bonafideness of the complainant.
21. Though this accused has admitted the fact of receiving of Rs.43,000-00 from the complainant, she has specifically stated that, it is the due amount payable by this complainant towards his purchase and sale tax as stated in her examination in chief. The defence evidence of DW.1 is corroborated with the documentary evidence placed before the court. By considering the defence of this accused along with her oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is clear that, the said amount is not a bribe amount and the principles of sina-qua-non is not proved by the prosecution. In various decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Apex Court their Lordships have held that in Prevention of Corruption Act cases, the proof of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant is must. Further in other decisions, it is held that, if 22 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 the evidence of complainant is not corroborated with the evidence of independent or shadow witnesses, under such circumstances also the court shall not believe the sole testimony of complainant for convicting the accused. Though PW.2 to 4 and 6 have supported the prosecution case, but by considering the omissions and contradictions appearing in their cross-examination along with the defence of the accused, it indicates that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. The very fact of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant is not proved and as the complainant has not properly accounted for non-submitting of his returns as required under law, under such circumstances, it is clear that, it is a pre planned trap case initiated by the complainant against the accused by colluding with the Lokayuktha officials. In the cross- examination of the complainant on page 15 last para he has admitted that earlier to this complaint, he had filed a complaint against one Jayashankar attached to Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bengaluru. By considering the same, it indicates that, he is in the habit of initiating this type of cases against the Government officials with an intention to take them into his control. So by considering the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses 23 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 examined before the court, it is clear that, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of all these reasons, he requested the court to acquit the accused. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions:
1. (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 250 between (Om Prakash V/s State of Haryana),
2. 1997 (2) Crimes 412 HN-1 between (Duraisamy V/s The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing),
3. 2013 (6) Kar. L.J. 419 between (Smt. K. Chandrika V/s State by Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B., Bengaluru),
4. AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1538 between Babu Lal Baipai, V/s State by U.P.),
5. 2012 (1) KCCR 414 HN-A & B, between (R. Malini V/s State of Karnataka),
6. (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 (P. Sathyanarayana Murthy V/s Dist. Inspector of Police and Another),
7. 2014 AIR SCW 2080 between (B. Jayaraj V/s State of A.P.),
8. (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450 between (Banarasi Dass V/s State of Haryana),
9. (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 211 HN-B, between (Ganga Kumar Srivastava V/s State of Bihar), 24 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
10. 1997(2) Crimes Madras High Court 412 HN-1 between (Duraisamy V/s The State rep.by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing),
11. AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1538 between (Babu Lal Bajpai V/s State of U.P.),
12. 2007 (1) Kar. L.J.227 HN-A, (Supreme Court) between (V. Venkata Subbarao V/s State),
13. 2006 (3) KCCR 1445 between (State of Karnataka V/s K.T.Hanumanthaiah),
14. AIR 2016 Supreme Court 298 between (Kishan Chander V/s State of Delhi),
15. (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 153 between (State of Punjab V/s Madan Mohan Lal Verma),
16. (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 600 between (Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan V/s State of Maharashtra),
17. 2010 (3) KCCR 1851 between (State of Karnataka V/s M. Gopalakrishnaiah and others),
18. (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450 HN-B between (Banarsi Dass V/s State of Haryana),
19. (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 401 between (T. Subramanian V/s State of T.N),
20. (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 HN-B, between (Anvar P.V. V/s P.K. Basheer and others),
21. 2015 SAR (Criminal) 454 between HN-D, (Tomaso Bruno & Another V/s State of U.P.),
22. 2012 (2) KCCR 1157 HN-B&C, between ( Sri. Hanumanthappa V/s State of Karnataka),
23. 2011 SAR (Criminal) 421, HN-B, between (State of M.P. V.s Ramesh & Another), 25 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
24. 1970 Crl.L.J. 526 AIR 1970 Sc 450 HN-B between (Lachman Dass V/s State of Punjab),
25. AIR 2007 SC 3213 between (Ganapathi Sanya Naik V/s State of Karnataka),
26. (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 521 between (State of T.N. V/s Krishnan & Another),
27. (2014) 2 SCC 1 between HN-A, (Lalitha Kumari V/s Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others),
28. 1988 Crl.L.J. 152, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2402 between (G.V.Nanjundaiah V/s State Delhi Administration),
29. Cri.Appeal No.878/2008 between (State by Lokayuktha Police, Kolar V/s V. Venkatesh),
30. 2015(5) Kar. L.J. 435 between (Dr. S.R.Chowdaiah V/s State of Karnataka),
31. Copies of concerned Sections of KVAT, CIRCUMSTANCES & KTEG Act:
a) Section 10(4) of KVAT Act 2003
b) Section 3(2) of KVAT Act 2003
c) Rule 50(1) of KVAT Rules 2005
d) Section 8 of CIRCUMSTANCES Act 1956
e) Section 5 of KTEG Act 1979
f) Notification No. FD 11 CET 2002 Dtd:30.11.2002 under KTEG Act 1979,
g) No. JDN(CR-3) 2009-10 Dtd:31.07.2009 KVAT Act 2003 (Power to recover tax).
23. Here after considering the submissions of both the sides and after going through the oral, documentary and electronic evidence placed by the prosecution before the court along with the citations relied upon by both sides, this court held that the prosecution case is 26 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 based on oral, documentary and electronic evidence. Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act says about the admissibility of electronic evidence in the proceedings before the court. In a decision relied upon by the counsel for the accused reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 24 (B) between (Anvar P.V. V/s P.K.Basheer and others). Their Lordships held as follows:
"B. Evidence Act,1872-S.65B(4)-Secondary evidence of electronic record-Producing copy of statement pertaining to electronic record in evidence not being the original electronic record-Mandatory pre-requirement-Held, such statement has to be accompanied by a certificate as specified in S.65-B(4)-Essential ingredients of such certificate, enumerated-Held, such certificate must accompany electronic record like CD,VCD, pen drive, etc., which contains the statement which is sought to be given as secondary evidence, when the same is produced in evidence -In absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic record cannot be admitted in evidence, as in present case."
In another decision reported in 2015 SAR (Criminal) 454 between HN-D, (Tomaso Bruno & Another V/s State of U.P.). Their Lordships have held as follows:
27 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
"D. Evidence Act,1872-Secs.65, 65-A, 65-B- Electronic evidence-Admissibility of-Electronic documents strictu sensu are admitted material evidence-With the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced into chapter V relating to documentary evidence-Section 65-A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with-Computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act- Sub-section (1) of Section 65B makes admissible as a document, paper print out of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub- section (2) of Section 65B-Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act".
In that decision their Lordships have also specifically stated as to what section 65-B (4) of Indian Evidence Act says and it reads as follows:
"Under Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it 28 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:"
(a) There must be a certificate which should identify the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device". In the decision their Lordships held as to how the electronic evidence are admissible in evidence before the court. As per that decision, the electronic evidence are admissible only the above said conditions are fulfilled by the prosecution. Here as per the evidence of complainant- PW.2 he has stated that, the demand of bribe amount by the accused from him was recorded in his mobile phone and later he got the data transmitted to a CD. Said statement is on page 3 of his statement and it reads as follows:
29 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
"........The conversation I had recorded in mobile and later, got the date transferred to a CD....."
The said conversation CD was handed over by him to PW.6-K.C. Laxminarayan, I.O. on 03-11-2009 along with his complaint marked at Ex.P.5. Further on the date of complaint I.O. has handed over spy camera and voice recorder to him to record his conversation with the accused, but nothing was recorded in it. M.O.6,8 and 14 are CDs pertains to the conversation recorded in spy camera and voice recorder, M.O.8 is the CD conversation transmitted from the conversation recorded in mobile phone and M.O.14 is the CD recorded at the time of pre trap and trap proceedings. None of the said CDs are accompanied with the certificate of the person who transmitted the said conversation recorded in the spy camera, mobile phone and video and with what device. In the absence of such certificate and in the absence of non-examination of that person the prosecution case cannot be considered on electronic evidence. When the conditions mentioned in Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are not fulfilled by the prosecution, then the said evidence shall not be accepted as evidence against this accused for adjudication of the matter, so the said CDs are not considered as electronic evidence for adjudication of this matter.
30 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
24. After denying the admissibility of the electronic evidence, now the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution before the court remains for consideration of this court. It is well settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that "hundred criminals may be acquitted but one innocent person shall not be convicted". Further under the Indian Evidence Act, it is said that, the burden of proof will be always on the person who approaches the court for seeking justice in his favour. As per Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, in criminal cases the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and if there is any benefit of doubt in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, such benefit of doubt given to the accused for acquittal and accused shall not be convicted by taking such benefit of doubt. In a decision reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2773 between (Kaliram V/s State of Himachal Preadesh). Their Lordships held that "two views were possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the appellant and other to his innocence, the view that was favourable to the appellant had to be accepted". Similar fact was considered by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the subsequent 31 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 decisions also. Keeping all these principles in mind, the court has to decide the case on hand.
25. Here the fact that the complainant is the Proprietor of Nithish Granites, situated at Tumkur and this accused is working as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru and she is a public servant are not in dispute. The fact that the complainant was bound to submit books of accounts of his factory before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for its verification from time to time is not in dispute. By looking into the documents marked at Ex.D.5 letter dt:16-07-2010, it indicates that accused has issued a notice to the complainant's granite factory for producing books of accounts of his firm for auditing from the year 2005-06 to 2008-09. By considering the admissions of complainant-PW.2 in his cross- examination, it is clear that, he was suppose to pay VAT to the State Government and any tax payable to the Central Government. He has admitted that on 28-07-2009 this accused had visited to his factory, at that time, he was not in position of any books of accounts and sought three days time. After three months, this accused informed the complainant about the same, for four times and asked him to produce such documents before her for inspection. By considering this 32 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 admission, it is clear that, this complainant has not properly audited his accounts and submitted the same before the Commercial Tax Department as required under Law. When he has not produced his books of accounts before the concerned authorities for verification and he has not produced any evidence stating as to what payment he has made to the Government towards his business as its tax, under such circumstances, the bonafideness of the complainant with regard to the allegations made by him against the accused is suspectable. For convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the proof of demand of bribe amount by the accused is important as held by Apex Court in a decision reported in (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 (P. Sathyanarayana Murthy V/s Dist. Inspector of Police and Another), relied by the counsel for the accused. In that decision their Lordships held that "Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Ss. 7 and 13 of 1988 Act". With regard to the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe amount by this accused from the complainant, his alleged conversation with the accused recorded in the CDs marked at M.O.6 33 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 and 8 are important. For acceptance of the conversation in the said CDs, the prosecution has not complied the conditions mentioned under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Further by considering the statement given by PW.1-Syed Jamad, Joint commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru, again it creates doubt in the mind of the court about such demand by this accused from the complainant. Ex.P.3 is the statement given by him before the I.O. and Ex.D.1 is the portion of his statement with regard to the conversation in the CD displayed before him. In that statement he has stated as follows:
"The discussions recorded in the Audio tapes relating only to proceedings relating to Audit verification".
In view of the absence of any evidence with regard to the demand of bribe amount of Rs.49,000-00 by this accused from the complainant, his oral evidence holds no water. Because PW.1-Syed Jamad, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax has specifically stated that, the conversation heard by him in the audio was with regard to the audit proceedings and there was no any demand.
26. It is true that, in his evidence before the court the complainant has stated that after he entered into the chamber of the accused, he handed over two blank cheques and thereafter this 34 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 accused demanded the bribe amount. At that time, the I.O. has provided a spy camera and voice recorder to the complainant to record his conversation with the accused, but he has not recorded the same in the spy camera and voice recorder. Non-recording of such conversation with the accused is fatal to the prosecution case. In his cross-examination on page 13 he admitted that fact and it reads as follows:
".....I admit that what transpired in the chamber of the accused was not recorded in the pen camera.......".
In view of this admission, again it creates doubt in the mind of the court about the demand of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant on 03-11-2009.
27. As per the case of the prosecution, PW.3-Smt.Manjula J. was a shadow witness to the prosecution case. The very object of sending of shadow witness with the complainant in trap proceedings is for the corroboration of the complainant's evidence against the accused. The complainant is always interested in getting the accused convicted by giving his evidence by exaggerating his case. For considering the evidence of complainant, the corroboration of his evidence with the shadow witness is must. In a decision relied upon by 35 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 the counsel for the accused reported in 2006 (3) KCCR 1445 (A) between (State of Karnataka V/s K.T.Hanumanthaiah). Their Lordships held as follows:
" A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. -Sections 7,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) -There should be independent corroboration for proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In that decision their Lordships held that:
"HELD - Absolutely there is no independent corroboration to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of bribe. It is neither shown by the prosecution nor explained by PW.2 that as to why PW.2 could not follow PW.1 to witness the trap. Only on the basis of interested testimony of PW.1 it is not safe to base conviction. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial court is sound and proper".
Here in this also, though PW.3 was accompanied the complainant- PW.2 as a shadow witness. He has not taken her with him into the chamber of the accused. However, he has stated that he has not taken her with him stating that Sumithra officer of Commercial Tax office may suspect about her. The said portion is on the page 5 of his evidence and it reads as follows:
36 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
" .......Sumithra asked me about Manjula. I told that she is my sister. Thereafter, I felt doubt of taking Manjula with me inside the chamber, apprehending the accused may get altered. Hence, I left Manjula with Sumithra and went to the chambers of the accused....".
When he told her that said Manjula is his sister, why he has hesitated to take her along with him and why he has not recorded his conversation with the accused in spy camera and voice recorder supplied by the I.O. creates doubt in the mind of the court. PW.3-Smt. Manjula J. who is a shadow witness has stated that the complainant left her and went inside the chamber of accused stating that she need not be with him. The said portion is on page 6 and it reads as follows:
"....... When I told PW.2 that I would be with him he told me that I need not be with him.....".
When she told him that she shall follow him and he refused to take her to the chamber of accused, that itself creates doubt in the mind of the court about the case of the prosecution against the accused on the basis of sole testimony of complainant.
28. It is true that PW.2 and 3 have stated about the procedures followed by PW.6 before trap and after trap, but that itself is not 37 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. By looking into the various decisions reported in the journals of High Court of Karnataka, Supreme Court and other High Courts, their Lordships have held that " for considering the case of prosecution with regard to the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe amount from the complainant'. In a decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2080 (B) between (B. Jayaraj V/s State of A.P.). Their Lordships have held about Section 20 and it reads as follows:
"(B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.20-Presumption that gratification was received for doing or not doing official act-Pre-condition for raising-
Proof of acceptance is essential-Presumption under S.20 is limited to offence under S.7-Does not apply to offence under S. 13".
Further in a decision reported in (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450 (A) between (Banarasi Dass V/s State of Haryana). Their Lordships have held that "Mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in the absence of substantive evidence of demand and acceptance". In a decision reported in 1997(2) Crimes Madras High Court 412 HN-1 between 38 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 (Duraisamy V/s The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing). Their Lordships held that:
"Held--The decoy witness or witnesses PWs 1 and 2 are highly suspicious in attitude and their versions could not at all be believed as they are not cogent but look very artificial with big and deep gaps in their claim still remaining unexplained and thereby rendering their oral testimony as totally unbelievable and the credibility of the trap witness is not at all available to support the trap. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 is of no consequence at all in either way.
Here in this case, in view of non-supporting the version of PW.2 by shadow witness PW.3, his statement before the court with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount by this accused from the complainant is not admissible. In view of the same the decisions relied upon by the public prosecutor are not considered.
29. It is true that this accused has admitted the fact of receiving of Rs.43,000-00 from the complainant on the date of trap.
Whether such admission will amount to admitting the guilt or not is the fact to be decided by this court. In criminal cases Silence is the right of accused and the entire burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the 39 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 silence is the right of accused, for establishing her defence with regard to acceptance of Rs.43,000-00 from the complainant on the date of trap, she relied on the documents marked at Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.13. The said records are the audits of the complainant's firm from the year 2005-06 to 2008-09. By looking into the said documents, it indicates that for the year 2005-06 he was liable to pay tax to the tune of Rs.11,369-00, for the year 2006-07 Rs.20,088-00, for the year 2007- 08 Rs.8,126-00 and for the year 2008-09 Rs.3417-00. After calculation the above amounts, the total tax payable by the complainant was Rs.43,000-00. By considering the said documentary evidence along with the oral evidence of the accused, it is clear that, the amount of Rs.43,000-00 marked at M.O.17 is a taxable amount payable by this complainant to the Commercial Tax Department. If really she has demanded Rs.49,000-00 why she used to receive only Rs.43,000-00 is the fact to be considered by the court. It is true that in the examination in chief, the PW.2 has stated that after payment of that Rs.49,000-00 to the accused, she gave him Rs.6,000-00 stating that he has to pay Rs.5,000-00 to Sumithra, Tax Inspector and Rs.1000-00 to one Mr. Achar. When she directed him to pay the said amount to them, why he has not paid that amount and gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police is also the fact to be considered by the court. When 40 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 the accused has stated that Rs.43,000-00 received by her was the tax amount payable by this complainant as appearing in Ex.D.6 to 13, what evidence he has placed before the court stating that, that was not the amount payable by him as a tax to the Government and what was the actual amount payable by him to the Government as a tax is the fact to be considered by the court. For establishing this fact, he has not produced any material evidence before the court or examined said Sumithra with regard to the same. By considering the admission of the complainant in his cross-examination on page 15 last para, it indicates that, he is in the habit of filing false complaint to take the Government officials under control. Because he has admitted that earlier to this, he had filed a complaint against Mr. Jayakumar attached to KIADB, Bengaluru. Further he has admitted that after this proceeding no persons from Commercial Tax Department have visited to his office. So this admission goes to show that, he is in the habit of putting the Government officials under threat by filing false complaint.
It is true that PW.6-K.L.Laxminarayana has supported the prosecution case and stated about Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and M.O.1 to 17. The sole testimony of I.O. is not sufficient to consider the guilt of the accused.
As per the golden principles of criminal jurisprudence the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.41 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
Firstly, the prosecution has failed to prove the very fact of demand of bribe amount of Rs.49,000-00 by the accused from the complainant with any cogent evidence. Secondly, wantonly the complainant has not taken PW.3-Smt. Manjula J. (shadow witness) along with him while he was entering into the chamber of the accused. Thirdly, on 03-11-2009 he has not recorded his conversation with the accused in the spy camera and voice recorder supplied by I.O. to him. Fourthly, though the complainant stated that accused has demanded bribe amount of Rs.49,000-00, he has failed to establish the payment of entire amount to her. However, by considering the defence of this accused along with the documents marked at Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.13, it is clear that, the amount of Rs.43,000-00 (M.O.-17) received by her from the complainant is the tax payable by the complainant to the Government from 2005-06 to 2008-09 as stated by the accused. By considering all these facts into consideration, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this court answered points No.2 and 3 in the Negative.42 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010
POINT No.4:
30. In view of all the reasons this court proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
Her bail bond stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period.
MO.1 to 16 which are worthless are ordered to be destroyed and M.O.17 i.e., cash of Rs.43,000-00 (Rs. Forty three thousands only) is ordered to be confiscated to the State after lapse of appeal period. (Dictated to the judgment-writer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of Nov. 2017) (MALLIKARJUNAGOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CCH-78 ()()()()() 43 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1: Syed Jamad PW.2: P. Suresh PW.3: Smt. Manjula J.
PW.4: B.V.Vishwanatha Aradya PW.5: S.R.Rajagopal PW.6: K.C.Lakshminarayana LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Copy of the documents (page No.48 to 65) Ex.P.1(a): Page 55 & 56 of charge sheet (Ex.P.1) Ex.P.1(b): Page 50 of charge sheet (Ex.P.1) Ex.P.1(c to e): Page 53 & 52 of charge sheet (Ex.P.1) Ex.P.2: Attendance register extract Ex.P.3: Explanation of PW.1 report Ex.P.3(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.4: Report with Xerox copy of page No.39 to 47 Ex.P.4(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.5: Complaint dt.03.11.2009 Ex.P.5(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.6: Copy of notice dt:22-07-2009 Ex.P.7: Endorsement dt:31-08-2009 Ex.P.8: Currency notes details sheet Ex.P.8(a & b): Signatures of PW.3 and 6 Ex.P.9: Pre trap mahazar Ex.P.9(a): Signature of PW.2 44 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 Ex.P.9(b to f): Signatures of PW.3 Ex.P.9(g to k): Signatures of PW.4 Ex.P.9(l): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.10: Explanation of accused Ex.P.11: Trap mahazar Ex.P.11(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.11(b to k): Signatures of PW.3 Ex.P.11(l to u): Signatures of PW.4 Ex.P.11(v): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.12: Conversation transcription Ex.P.12(a to d): Signatures of PW.3 Ex.P.13: Sanction order Ex.P.13(a): Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.14: FIR in Cr.No.72/2009 Ex.P.14(a & b): Signatures of PW.6 Ex.P.15: Service particulars of the accused Ex.P.16: Chemical examination report Ex.P.17: Sketch LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
MO.1: Sample solution bottle (Pre trap) MO.2: Hand wash of witness MO.3: Sample solution bottle (trap) MO.4: Right hand wash of accused MO.5: Left hand wash of accused MO.6: CD (pen camera + digital camera (trap) MO.7: Cover MO.8: CD Mobile recording data 45 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 MO.9: Cover MO.10: Metal seal 'Y' MO.11: One more solution bottle of R.H.W. MO.12: One more solution bottle of L.H.W. MO.13: Cover MO.14: CD Pre trap and trap video recording MO.15: Cover MO.16: One red colour paper box MO.17: Currency notes LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.1: Smt. H.V.Saraswathi LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1: Portion of Ex.P.3 Ex.D.2: A letter dt:23-09-2011 Ex.D.3: Copies of note sheet Ex.D.4: Work allotment order Ex.D.5: Letter dt:16-07-2010 Ex.D.6 to 9: Copies of the file of Nithish Granites Ex.D.10: Assessment records of the year 2005-06 Ex.D.10(a): Proceedings drawn by DW.1 at page-61 Ex.D.11: Assessment records for the year 2006-07 Ex.D.11(a): Proceedings drawn by DW.1 at page-52 Ex.D.12: Assessment records of the year 2007-08 Ex.D.12(a): Proceedings drawn by DW.1 at page-79 Ex.D.13: Assessment records of the year 2008-09 Ex.D.13(a): Proceedings drawn by DW.1 at page-64 46 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010 Ex.D.14: VAT form-100 filed by CW.1 Ex.D.15: Application given by accused Ex.D.16 to 18: Intelligence reports of CW.1 Ex.D.19: Cheque dishonoured particulars Ex.D.20: Nonpayment of entry tax particulars Ex.D.21: Arrears of VAT & GST from CW.1, calculation by DW.1 (MALLIKARJUNAGOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-78) 47 Spl. C.C. No.162/2010