Bangalore District Court
State By Jnanabharathi Ps vs A1: M.S.Kannan on 20 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. C.M.M AT BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2015
PRESENT
Ms.Vela D.K. B.A., L.L.B., (Hon's)
IV A.C.M.M. Bangalore
CC No. 12889/2004
Complainant : State by Jnanabharathi PS
V/s.
Accused : A1: M.S.Kannan, 57 Yrs.,
S/o Late Srinivasa Iyengar,
R/a. No.929, 2nd cross,
Jnanajyothinagara, Ullala Road,
Bengaluru.
A2: B.R.Manjunath, 49 Yrs.,
S/o Late K.B.Rangappa,
R/a. No.B-6, 1st floor, Behind hospital,
Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Jnanabharathi Police have charge sheeted the accused alleging the offences punishable u/s.468, 471, 420, 409 r/w 34 IPC.
2. Facts alleged by the prosecution against the accused has been that, the accused to be working at the Bangalore University Physical Education College, they are said to have collected fees from 87 students on 27.8.2002 and obtained the signature of the students but forged on the challans and produced them as genuine documents to the College Administration and further collected the admission fee
-2- CC 12889/2004 from 45 students with intention to cheat the college and forged, created the seals of Bank of Mysore, Nagarabhavi branch, Bangalore without crediting the amount to the account of the college and cheated the college administration and further accused being public servants misappropriated sum of Rs.45,270/- collected from the 45 students and committed criminal breach of trust to the college administration and during the same period i.e. 26.8.2002 to 27.8.2002 the accused with intention to dishonest cheated them by misappropriating the amount on creating the seals, forged challans and committed the said offences.
3. On filing of the charge sheet in the above said case, cognizance was taken for the said offences and summons was issued to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the mandatory provisions u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. Charge was framed, Plea recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the case the prosecution has got examined 15 witnesses out of 19 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.52. After the prosecution submitted its side closed, the statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused have denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 by way of defence in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
4. On hearing the merits of the case, the points that arise for consideration are as follows :
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused on
-3- CC 12889/2004 27.8.2002 being the public servants, collected admission fee from 87 students of the Bangalore University Physical Education College and got the signature of the students forged on the challans and produced them as genuine documents to the college administration and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.471 r/w 34 of IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused during the same time forged the signatures of the students and collected admission fee from 45 students with a intention to cheat the college and further forged, created the seals of state Bank of Mysore, Nagarabhavi branch without crediting the amount to the account of the college and cheated the college administration and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.420 r/w 34 of IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused being the public servants during the period from 26.8.2002 to 27.8.2002 misappropriated a sum of Rs.45,270/- collected from the 45 students as admission fee and committed criminal breach of trust to the college administration and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.409 r/w 34 of IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 and 2 during the same period forged the signatures of 45 students with the intention to dishonest cheating them by misappropriating the amount, created the seals of the State Bank of Mysore and produced forged challans to misappropriate the amount and produced the said forged challans for the purpose of cheating
-4- CC 12889/2004 the college administration and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.468 r/w 34 of IPC ?
5) What order ?
5. The findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 to 4 : In the negative.
Point No.5 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
6. Point Nos.1 to 4 : As these points are interlinked, are discussed and answered together in order to avoid repetition.
7. The complainant examined as PW1 is stated to be working as the Supervisor from 15 years. In 2002 he was said to be working as incharge Chairman and Principal of Physical Education Bangalore University. Accused No.1 was said to be the Superintendent of Physical Education and accused No.2 working as Junior Assistant in the Physical Education office. Specifically accused No.1 was said to be supervising the over all staff and responsible for maintaining the records, financial matters, affidavits, certificate of students, admission records. All the transactions were said to have been conducted through the SBM situated in the premises of the University. It was accused No.1 who was said to be collecting all the fees of the admission from the students and remitted to SBM and to keep the voucher in the office. During the admissions, fees was said to be collected by issuing provisional certificate and convocation certificate and remit the amount to the bank. Accused No.2 was said to be
-5- CC 12889/2004 assisting accused No.1 in all these transactions. Accused No.1 was said to be trusted as he was said to have shown the challans and therefore believed that he had remitted the amount to the bank. The copy of the challan was said to be paid to the students in accordance with the rule. According to PW2 this PW1 was said to be incharge Principal in the year 2002-03 of the said University. In the year 2002 August, there was said to be admission for B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed.
8. To show about the entrustment of the work to the accused, the copy of the service book of accused No.1 has been marked as Ex.P.5 and the signature of the then Principal as Ex.P.5(a). It is certified copy and it shows that accused No.1 to be appointed as Junior Assistant, temporarily as local candidate in the university vide order No.EST/APT/41/66 dated 20.5.1967. His services were continued until further order w.e.f. 24.11.1967. On 4.11.2000 there is mention that he has been transferred to the UCPE college, then transferred to the Physical Education College vide order dated 7.11.2000. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the service register of accused No.2 and the signature of the then Principal is Ex.P.6(a). It shows that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on regular scale w.e.f. 1.12.1981. There is mention about being posted to the college of Physical Education vide order dated 26.12.2000. The extract of the attendance register duly signed by the Principal of the college has been marked as Ex.P.7 and it has the names of accused No.1 and 2 along with others for the month of June to August 2002.
-6- CC 12889/2004
9. As per Ex.D.3 which is the office memo dated 8.1.2001 of University College of Physical Education, Bangalore University, the duties and responsibilities have been mentioned as follows :
1. Sri.M.S.Kannan, Office Superintendent He shall be responsible for the discipline among the officials working in the U.C.P.E. office and also efficient transaction of the office business at all stages in the office. He is also responsible for proper maintenance of arrears of statement, dispatch of incoming and outgoing papers and all other office Registers including movement registers. He shall supervise all the staff working in the U.C.P.E. office and directly responsible to the Principal, U.C.P.E.
2. Sri. B.R.Manjunatha, Assistant He shall work under the Superintendent, U.C.P.E. and do all the work entrusted to him by the Superintendent and Principal, U.C.P.E. He shall maintain the office dairy, Standing Guard file and proper disposal of the Freeship, Scholarship, Stifund, Office contingency, Tour accounts, General purchase, A.C. and D.C. bill.
Any other work entrusted by the Superintendent and Principal, U.C.P.E. from time to time.
The concerned portion of accused no.2 has been marked as Ex.D.3(a).
10. In the complaint it is mentioned that, accused No.1 and 2 to be dealing with cash transaction and other administrative matters of the department of Physical Education, Bangalore University. At the time of the admission of the students, the fees were said to have been collected from the students and were to remit the same to SBM,
-7- CC 12889/2004 Jnanabharathi branch located in the campus and maintained the cash book. On 19.9.2002, the officials of the SBM, Jnanabharathi are said to have visited the Department of Education and verified the bank challans and found that some challans to have fake seal of their bank and the number mentioned in the challans not to match their numbers and therefore opined that somebody to have forged the seal of the bank. On enquiry it is said to have been found that the accused to have not deposited the admission fee amount collected from the students to the university account at SBM located in the Jnanabharathi campus. They are said to have prepared the fake challans and enclosed the same to the accounts of the department. The bank officials found that approximately Rs.44,760/- to have been misused by using fake seal and signature of SBM and cheated the University as well as the bank. The complaint has been filed by the Bangalore University. So, there is said to be use of fake seal and signature of the SBM whereby the accused are said to have misappropriated the amount that was collected towards the admission of the students.
11. The bank official examined as PW3 has stated to be the Deputy Manager in the SBM, Nagarabhavi branch at Bangalore University campus. According to him on 19.9.2002 there were said to be two students of M.P.Ed. Department of Bangalore University and to have showed two challans of the Bangalore University. They are said to have enquired if the said amount to have been remitted to the university account. On verification of the records he is said to have
-8- CC 12889/2004 found that the amount shown in the said challan to be not remitted through the bank. Therefore, he is said to have brought it to the notice of the Branch Manager who instructed to visit M.P.Ed. Department and verify the document. The seal of the bank and signature of the officer in the challan are said to not appear to genuine. Emphasis is to be added to this evidence namely about the seal of the bank and the signature found in the challans to be fake. Therefore, this Manager is said to have visited the Department of Physical Education and met PW2 who is said to have summoned accused No.1 and asked him to show the challans. Accused no.1 is said to have replied that the challans to be in the custody of accused No.2. For two hours he is said to have waited for accused No.2 who is said to have not turned up. As per the directions of this PW2, accused No.1 is said to have opened the almirah with the second key and handed over the challans. From verification he is said to have found that 45 challans not to bear the seal, challan numbers and signature of the bank official. Those challans according to him are said to be Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.42 and it was said to have been brought to the notice of the university officials.
12. The normal procedure according to him is said to be that when the amount is deposited in the bank, there would be two counterfoils of the challans retained by them. The said amount is said to be entered in the scroll and one set of counterfoil along with the scroll copy is said to be sent to the Bangalore University. He is said to not know if the copy of the scroll to have been provided to the police. He
-9- CC 12889/2004 has clearly stated that, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.42 not to contain the signature of accused No.2. Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.42 has the seal of SBM, Nagarabhavi branch, Bangalore dated 28.7.2002. These challans mentioned college copy on one side and student copy on the other side. The crux is the nature of the modus operandi which is said to be used by the accused viz. fake seal and signature of the official to be forged.
13. The Manager, SBM, Nagarabhavi branch has been examined as PW5 and he has stated that Department of Physical Education, Bangalore University to have the account in that bank. According to him the certified copy of the statement of the accounts wherein the amount were not deposited are said to have been submitted by him marked as Ex.P.43. He has stated that, as per Ex.P.43, till 26.7.2002, the challan No.197 only was said to have been received. He admits that, there has been no entry of the names from Sl. No.36 to 46 in Ex.P.43. Particularly he has stated not to have seen the duplicate seal and that the extract of the ledger account is said to have been forwarded to the police. As per Ex.P.44 they are said to contain the seal of his bank SBM, Nagarabhavi branch, Bangalore. But he has also stated " ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¹Ã°£À ªÀiÁzÀjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. " As per Ex.P.45 which is submitted by the Manager of the SBM, Nagarabhavi branch dated 23.10.2002, it mentions about returning fake receipt challans using bank seal. In this regard the bank has confirmed that the seal appearing in the challans to be fake
- 10 - CC 12889/2004 and the culprits to have used the bank seal and defraud the university and to defame the bank name. The difference between the original and fake seal is mentioned as :
ORIGINAL SEAL FAKE SEAL
1) Capital letter 1) Small letters used
2) Red & Blue ink 2) Green Ink
3) Size of the seal small 3) Size of the seal is bigger
4) Signature of Cashier is
forged.
14. There has been seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.46 and it mentions that the seals to have been seized from the home of the accused but unfortunately those seals have not been produced before the court. Further PW1 has in the oral evidence stated that, the challans as per Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.45 tohave been kept bythe accused which are said to be fake challans by using duplicate seal of the bank and forging the signature of the officials of the bank. It is elicited from this witness that, whenever the students remit the fees to the university through the SBM, Jnanabharathi branch, he would keep one copy of the challan, another copy to the office and 3rd copy to the bank. The copy of the challan is said to be in reference to the office about the remit of the fees. He has identified the proforma about the Provisional Degree Certificate and Convocation application form marked during the confrontation Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. During the time of admission in the year 2002-03, he was said to be incharge Principal and Manjunatha to be the custodian of the challans. He has further stated as follows :
- 11 - CC 12889/2004 "It is true that we used to issue a circular describing nature of the duties of the staff. It is true that, in the circular, we have not mentioned the duties of Mr.Manjunath."
The relevant portion has been already noted above as Ex.D.3(a). He has stated not to have given all the challans pertaining to the year 2002-03. The challans are said to have been produced which he is said to have found at the time of verification. So it is only on verification conducted by PW1 the challans have been handed over to the police.
15. PW2, the Asst. Professor of the University Bangalore has stated that the 45 challans to be in the almirah of the second accused which is in contradiction to the evidence of PW1 that the duties of the accused Manjunath to be not mentioned in the circular issued. The complaint has been filed on 19.9.2002. Particularly from this witness the portion has been marked as Ex.D.4 of his statement which reads as follows :
"¢£ÁAPÀB19.2.2002 gÀAzÀÄ YõÁÕ£À¨sÁgÀw PÁåA¥À¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À qÉ¥ÀÇån ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï r.gÁdÄ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÀ®£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ F ZÀ®£ï£À°è PÀnÖgÀĪÀ ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÀiÁ DVzÉAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. "
16. PW4 and PW6 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in regard to the spot mahazar Ex.P.2 and the panchanama Ex.P.46. PW5 particularly with regard to the challan and seal has stated £Á£ÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¹Ã°£À §UÉÎ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÀ®£ïUÀ¼À ªÉÄïÉ
- 12 - CC 12889/2004 EzÀÝAvÀºÀ ªÀÄÄzÉæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¹Ã®£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ........ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £ÀPÀ° ¹Ã¯ï£À ªÀiÁzÀjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
17. PW7 has particularly stated that, PÁ¯ÉÃeï£À ±ÀĮ̪À£ÀÄß «zÁåyðAiÉÄà £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À°è ZÀ®£ï ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ C°èAiÉÄà ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ºËzÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ £ÀqÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÀqÉ¢zÉ JAzÀgÉ ºËzÀÄ. ....... D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 1£Éà DgÉÆæ PÀtÚ£ï PÀèPïð DVgÀ°®è CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉPÀà£ï D¦üøÀgï DVzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. In detail he has stated with regard to the challans that, when the college fees is paid, there ought to be signature of the Principal on the 4 copies of the challans and only then that would be accepted by the bank. The challan that was submitted by him is said to not contain the signature of the Principal. But interestingly he has also stated as follows :
"¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀ gÀÄdÄ ZÀ®£ï£À°è E®èzÉà EzÀÝgÉ ¨ÁåAPï£À°è ºÀt PÀnÖ¹PÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
He has also stated that "£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ ±ÀĮ̪À£ÀÄß PÁ¯ÉÃeï£À°è ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ, ¨ÁåAPï£À°è ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁr®è."
- 13 - CC 12889/2004
18. PW7 another teacher of the college has stated that, he is said to have handed over the filled challan of Rs.510/- to the second accused for which receipt was not issued. The evidence of PW7 and PW8 though mention about amount of Rs.510/- in the challan to have been filled up but the concerned challan has not been identified or marked form these witnesses. Similarly, PW9 has stated that sum of Rs.510/- through challans was said to have been paid to the second accused. It is similar to the evidence of PW7 and PW8 but the supporting documents in that regard has been not at all evidenced.
19. PW10 has stated that, on 28.2.2003 the second accused to have obtained the anticipatory bail and surrendered to the police station, therefore he was arrested and enquired. On the basis of his statement, the second accused is said to have produced the seal from his home i.e. said to contain the seal of State Bank of Mysore, Nagarabhavi branch and another had cash receipt. Those two seals were said to have been seized but unfortulately as above noted no such seals have been marked in the present case. The concerned portion of the statement has been marked as Ex.P.48(a) and the panchanama drawn as above noted is Ex.P.46.
20. Though the prosecution has attempted to evidence in terms of the Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act in regard to the seizure of the seals, firstly what was the information after any seizure in terms of that section is not evidenced. Secondly, no seals have been produced before the court. PW11 has stated that, the challan
- 14 - CC 12889/2004 towards Rs.930/- is said to be as per Ex.P.9 and the signature as per Ex.P.9(a) and (b). He has been treated hostile by the prosecution and particularly he has stated that, " ¤.¦.9(J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (©) gÀÄdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß gÀÄdÄUÀ¼Éà DVªÉ CAzÀgÉ ºËzÀÄ. " For any payment of the fees to the college he has stated there ought to be three challans, one copy is said to be retained in the bank, another copy to the student and one copy to the college. It is only in Ex.P.9 that the signature has been marked as Ex.P.9(a) and (b). But according to PW1 the use of fake challan by affixing duplicate seal of the bank and forging the signature of the bank officials are said to be contain in Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.42. This bank official as above noted has stated about his signature to appear on Ex.P.9(I). Such being the case, then how can there be forgery of the signature in terms of the allegation is not substantiated.
21. PW13 has particularly stated about investigation of the case to have been conducted and he has also stated that " ZÀ®£ï ¥sÁgÀAUÀ¼À°è PÁtô¹zÀ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀwAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÁåAPï£ÀªÀgÀÄ ZÀ®£ï ¥sÁgÀA UÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É mÉÆÃPÀ£ï £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ (¤.¦.8 jAzÀ ¤.¦.42, ¤.¦.49 jAzÀ ¤.¦.51) UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ ¨ÁåAPï ¯ÉqÀÓgï §ÄPï £Á£ÀÄ d¥ÀÅÛ ªÀiÁr®è. "
22. The witness CW8 examined as PW14 has stated about his signature to appear on the receipt marked as Ex.P.49 and he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Similarly has been the evidence of another witness PW15 with regard to the panchanama
- 15 - CC 12889/2004 Ex.P.46. The statement of the complainant, the numbers of the challans along with the names of the students as per Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.42 for which the corresponding challans are said to be as per Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.42. Among them Ex.P.32, 35 do not contain any name. With regard to the names that appear at Sl. No.38 to 41, 43 to 45 in that statement there is no corresponding challans produced. These documents have been marked as an entire document.
23. At this juncture it is necessary to apply the citation reported in L.Chandraiah V. State of A.P. 2004 Cri LJ 365 : 2003 (4) Crimes 479 : 2003 (9) SCALE 537 : 2003 (8) Supreme 89 (SC).
So far as the offence under Section 409, IPC is concerned it must be proved that a person entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, in his capacity as public servant commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, as defined in Section 405, IPC meaning thereby that he dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any others person so to do.
24. The alleged offences in the present case which emphasis to Sec.468 and 471 has been about forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine the forged document. Taking into consideration the modus operandi alleged against the accused, the prosecution is required to prove that,
- 16 - CC 12889/2004
i) the document in question to be forged
ii) the accused to have forged it and
iii) that in forging that document he intended to be used for cheating.
25. Forgery alleged in the present case has been by use of the seal of the bank and affixing the signature of the bank official. The non- production of the seal and that there has been no evidence with regard to the alleged forged signature of the bank official, it means that there is no sufficient material and evidence on record to prove these offences. With regard to the forgery of the signature, at least there ought to be the evidence of the handwriting expert. But in this present case there is no such evidence. Then how can forgery be proved. The use of the forged document as genuine document knowing by the accused that it is forged document and that the accused to have used that document fraudulently or dishonestly is thereby not forthcoming in the present case on account of the nature of the evidence adduced.
26. It is also necessary to refer the book - Bholeshwar Nath's of IPC, IV Edition 2012, Vol. 2, page No.2206 at Sl. No.7 & 10, page No.2207 at Sl.No.11 wherein it has been discussed as follows :
1) 1913 Cr LJ 183 Under this section actual forger cannot be punished both for forgery and using it as genuine.
2) AIR 1979 SC 1506 When the charge is of criminal breach of trust and forgery fails charge under Section 471 will also fail.
- 17 - CC 12889/2004
3) AIR 1979 SC 1342 - Accused must be knowing from before that he was using the forged receipt for collection of donation and other accused shared fraudulent intention in passing forged receipt as genuine and thereby obtaining money.
27. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged offence of cheating runs with forgery and the use of forgery document. The forgery itself is not proved, invariably the offences cannot arise. This being the nature of the evidence in the present case, invariably this court is constrained to give benefit of doubt to the accused and there is no convincing material to prove the said offences. Hence, the points for consideration are answered in the negative.
28. Point No.5 : In view of finding on the above points, the following :
ORDER Acting u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s.468, 471, 420, 409 r/w 34 IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused and their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of July 2015) (Ms. Vela D.K.) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
- 18 - CC 12889/2004
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW.1 : Dr. M.S.Thalawar PW.2: Dr. M.B.Keerthinarayana swamy PW.3: Raju PW.4: Rangaswamy PW.5: S.Ravindra PW.6: Shivaraj PW.7: Yogish B. PW.8: Mohammed Mateen PW.9: Lokesh M.S. PW.10: D.Ranganatha PW.11: Mamatha A. PW.12: Mallesh K. PW.13: H.Srinivasa Murthy PW.14: Sowbhagya B.S. PW.15: Kalaiah
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW1
Ex.P.4 : Admission register extract
Ex.P.5 &
Ex.P.6 : Extracts of service register of accused No.1 and 2
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of attendance register
Ex.P.8 to
Ex.P.42: Copies of challans
Ex.P.43: Statement of account
Ex.P.44: Sample seal
Ex.P.45: Letter of PW5
Ex.P.46: Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.47: Statement of PW6
Ex.P.48: Voluntary statement of accused No.2
Ex.P.49 to
Ex.P.51: Three challan forms
Ex.P.52: Statement of PW14
- 19 - CC 12889/2004
List of M.O.s marked for prosecution : NIL List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused : NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of accused :
Ex.D.1 : Provisional Degree Certificate Ex.D.2 : Convocation application form Ex.D.3 : Circular Ex.D.4 : Part of statement of PW2 (Ms. Vela D.K.) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
- 20 - CC 12889/2004
20.07.2015
State by Sr.APP
Accused
For judgment
ORDER
(pronounced in open court vide separate order) Acting u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s.468, 471, 420, 409 r/w 34 IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused and their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of July 2015) (Ms. Vela D.K.) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.