Bangalore District Court
H R Srinivas vs Raghu on 23 March, 2026
KABC030470012014 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 10-07-2014
Registered on : 10-07-2014
Decided on : 23-03-2026
Duration : 11 years, 8 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 23rd Day of March, 2026
C. C. No.18221/2014
(Crime No.173/2013)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Raghu,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri Late Marigowda,
R/at No.05, Sharadanagar,
Chunchanakatte Main Road,
Near Green Valley School,
Banashankari, Bengaluru-62.
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
2. Sri Mahesh - split up
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sri Chikkaiah,
R/at No.923, New housing Board,
Hasana Taluk and District.
3. Sri Sunil,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri Benjamin,
R/of Ramanathapura,
Arakalagudu Taluk,
Hasana District. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri K.P.Puttaraju, Advocate for
Accused No.1)
(Represented by Sri Hulegante Gowda Patil, Advocate
for Accused No.3)
1. Date of commission of 08-06-2013
offence
2. Date of FIR 08-06-2013
3. Date of Charge sheet 27-11-2013
4. Name of Complainant Sri H.R.Srinivas
5. Offences complained of Under Section 457, 380
of IPC
2
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
6. Date of framing charge 11-06-2018
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 30-07-2018
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 23-03-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 23-03-2026
11. Final order Accused No.1 and 3 are
acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 08-06-2013 at about 7.00 pm, the accused persons in order to commit theft, trespassed into the Canara Bank ATM Center situated near Nagashettihalli Bus Stand, within the limits of Sanjay Nagara PS, by cutting the safe Door 3 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 of said ATM center by using gas cutter and stolen Rs.19,86,700/- cash which was kept in the ATM Chest, belonged to FSS Company.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW30/PW5 Sri M.Gopala Krishne Gowda, PI of Sanjaya Nagara Police Station registered Crime No.173/2013 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 454, 457, 380 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P8 and drawn spot mahazar on 09-06-2013 at about 12 am to 1 am in the presence of CW2 and CW3 as per Ex.P2, at that time Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 photographs were taken.
4. Investigation: Thereafter, his staff produced accused No.1 to 3 before him and submitted the reports as per Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, in this regard statement of witnesses were recorded, as per voluntary statement of accused, cash of Rs.17,96,400/-, key, car bearing No.KA 05 MH 3205, smart card, Karur Vyshya bank and SBI cards, passbooks were seized through mahazar as per Ex.P11 and oxygen cylinder, gas gun, red and blue colour gas pipe, two sacks (ಗೋಣಿಚೀಲ) were seized through mahazar as per Ex.P7 and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P11 to 15 and handed over the case papers 4 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 to PW7 who on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.457, 380 of IPC.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No. 1 to 3.
6. At pre-cognizance stage, the accused No.1 to 3 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 19-06- 2013.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No. 1 to 3.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In view of continuous absence of accused No.2, the case against him was ordered to be split up by the order dated 18-12-2023.
5KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 31 witnesses and examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents and closed their side. The presence of CW2, CW3, CW5 to CW10, CW12, CW13, CW14 to 16 and CW17 and CW18 could not be secured despite due execution of proclamation and hence they were dropped out from examination by the order dated 18- 07-2019, 10-03-2025, 03-06-2025 and 04-03-2025. CW28 reported to be dead on 14-02-2024 and hence given up from examination by the order dated 04-07- 2025. On account of examination of CW29, the examination of CW24 to 27 were given up by the order dated 23-09-2025. The process against CW19 returned as unfound and hence given up from examination by the order dated 15-10-2025.
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 and 3 were examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
6KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that between on 08-06-
2013 at about 7 pm the accused No.1 and 3 along with split up accused No.2, in order to commit theft, trespassed into the Canara Bank ATM Center situated near Nagashettihalli Bus Stand, within the limits of Sanjay Nagara PS, by cutting the safe Door of said ATM center by using gas cutter thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.457 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above mentioned date, place and time, the accused No.1 and 3 along with split up accused No.2 stolen cash of Rs.19,86,700/- which 7 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 was kept in the ATM Chest box belonged to FSS Company thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC?
3. What order?
14. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
15. Point No.1 and 2: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 namely Sri Srinivasachar, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that, he was working as a Regional Manager in a financial software system company and was filling cash in Canara Bank 8 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 ATMs. On 23-06-2013, CW14 namely Ramesh, working in Checkmate Company, informed him that Rs.19,86,700/- was stolen from the Canara Bank ATM in Nagashettyhalli by cutting the machine with gas welding cutter. Later, he and CW13 went to the spot and filed a complaint as per Ex.P1, the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and took photographs as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. Later, the police called and showed him amount of Rs.18,16,400/- and the accused persons and told him that they had cut the ATM machine and stolen the money.
ii. CW4 namely Sri Virupaksha, employee of Checkmate Pvt. Limited, examined as PW2 and deposed that, accused No.1 was working in their company as ATM custodians and every day they were working to withdraw money from Canara Bank at Corporation Circle and deposit the same in Canara Bank ATMs in Bengaluru. On 08-06-2013, they deposited Rs.19 lakhs at Canara Bank ATM in Nagashettyhalli at 4.30 pm, on the same day, at 7.30 pm, they were informed that the ATM machine was down and hence, they informed to CW8 check the machine. Accordingly, CW8 checked and informed them about the theft. Later, he along with CW5 went to spot and found that the machine had been cut with a gas cutter and money was stolen. CW1 had complained to the police about the same and later 9 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 they came to know that the accused No.1 Raghu, who works in their company, had stolen the money from the ATM along with others.
iii. CW11 Sri Vasudevachari, mahazar witness examined as PW3 identified his signature on Ex.P7 panchanama as per Ex.P7(a) and deposed that 5-6 years ago he affixed his signature at police station regarding identification of stolen ornaments.
iv. CW22 namely Sri Naganna, HC examined as PW4 deposed that, he along with CW23 and CW25 apprehended the accused No.1 on the Chunchughatta main road and produced him before CW31 and CW25 submitted a report.
v. CW30 by name Sri M.Gopala Krishnegowda, PI examined as PW5 deposed that, on receipt of complaint, he registered FIR as per Ex.P8, conducted a spot panchanama as per Ex.P2, had taken photographs as per Ex.P3 to P6, CW23, CW24 and 28 produced the accused No.1 along with report as per Ex.P9, later CW29, CW24 to 27 produced the accused No.2 and 3 to along with report as per Ex.P10, recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.2 and 3, went to the house of the accused No.1 in Banashankari and seized total of Rs.17,96,400/-, ATM back door key and vehicle bearing KA 05 MH 10 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 3205 of a Hyundai car and its associated smart card, Karurvysya Bank and SBI cards, passbook were seized in the presence of CW9 and CW10 through Ex.P11 panchanama and subjected to PF No.49/2013. Later oxygen cylinder, gas gun, gas cylinder, two red and blue colour gas pipes, one Sack 444 written on it were seized from the railway track of Hebbal Ring Road from 11 am to 12.15 pm under Ex.P7 and subjected to PF No.50/2013. Further deposed that, on 15-06-2013, in front of House No.923, New Housing Board, Hassan District, in the presence of CW9 and CW10, from 8-45 am to 9-45 am, Rs.20,000/- denomination of of Rs.500/- 40 notes were seized from the house of the accused No.2 through a panchanama Ex.P12 and subjected to PF No.52/2013, silver colored KA 13 B1502 Tata Indica car was seized from the car garage of accused No.3 on Ramanathapura Konur Road from 10-30 am to 11-30 am in the presence of CW9 and 10 through panchanama as per Ex.P13 and the same was subjected to PF No.53/2013, statement of CW1 on identification of the properties was recorded, vehicle bearing No.KA-13-B-1502 Indica car was released to CW17 and Rs.18,16,400/- to CW14 under Ex.P14 and 15 mahazars and on 12-07-2013 released the car bearing No. KA-05-MH-3205 i10 car in favour of accused No.1 through mahazar as per Ex.P16 and handed over the case papers to CW31 for further investigation.
11KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 vi. CW29 namely Sri M.Gopal, PI examined as PW6 deposed that, the ACP of Sanjayanagar Police Station had deputed him, CW24 to 27 to trace out the accused, accordingly, accused No.1 was taken into police custody, based on the voluntary statement of the accused, accused No.1 and 3 were apprehended from Hassan and Arakalagudu and produced them before CW31 and submitted Ex.P10 report.
vii. CW31 namely Sri Parameshwara Hegde, PI, examined as PW7 deposed about the submission of final report.
16. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of the present case is under section 457 of IPC which reads as under
Whoever commits lurking house trespass by night in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, 12 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years Thus, the essential ingredients to prove an offence to constitute the offence of house breaking at night are:-
1. The accused should have entered into the property which is in possession of another.
2. There should be an intention to commit an offence on part of the accused.
3. Such property should be any building / tent/ vessel used for human dwelling on place for worship or for custody of property.
4. Entry into the house should have been effected by the accused in any one of the six ways as defined under Section 454 IPC wherein a person is said to have committed house breaking if he affects his entrance into the house or any part thereof or affect his exist in any of the six ways 13 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 described in the said section. The six ways given in the said Section are as follows:-
1. If he enters or quits through a passage by himself or by any abettor to commit house trespass
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person other than himself or the abettor for human entrance; or through any passage to which he had obtained by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor has opened which passage is not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock to commit house trespass.
5. If he effects his entrance by using criminal force or 14 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 committing assault or any by threatening a person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure and he had unfastened the same.
17. Section 380 of IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house which reads as under
Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The offence theft is defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows:-
1. Intention to take dishonestly
2. The property shall be movable property.15
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
3. The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person without his consent.
4. There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.
5. The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.
18. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
19. The identity of accused in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be inducted for criminal liability, unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt.
16KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
20. It is the case of prosecution that there are no eye witnesses who had seen the accused persons who had entered into the ATM of Canara bank to commit the offence of theft. However, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 through circumstantial evidence. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the Ex.P11 i.e., seizure mahazar dated 12/06/2013 at the residence of accused No.1 i.e., at No.5, Sharada Nagar, Chunchaghata Main Road, Near Green valleys school, Bangalore in the presence of CW9 namely Sri Santhosh, Aged about 26 years, S/o Basavaraj No.513, F Block, Sahakaranagar, Bangalore - 560092 and CW10 namely Sri H. N. Puttachaari, Aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Nanjudachari, resident of No.142, Nagashetty Halli, R. M. V. II Stage, Bangalore City from 7.30 am to 9.30 am drawn by PW5/IO however the PW5/Io did not make the local inhabitants as a witnesses for seizing the alleged amount for drawing up the Ex.P11 i.e., ಈ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಬಂದಿ ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ ಶಾರದಾನಗರದ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ಪ ಬಡಾವಣೆ ವಾಸದ ಮನೆಗಳು, ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ರಸ್ತೆ, ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ ಮನೆ ನಂ.55, ಭಗವತಿ ನಿಲಯ, ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ ಮಂಜುನಾಥ್ ರವರ ವಾಸದ ಮನೆಗಳಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
17KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 such being the case, none of the local inhabitants were not made as witnesses at the time of alleged seizure from the house of accused No.1. No signature of the accused No.1 was found from the alleged seizure as per Ex.P11. NO photographs or videograph were taken at the time of alleged seizure. The most significant thing from the prosecution that the alleged seizure of Rs.500X 100 notes totaling to 34 bundles, Rs 500 x 18 notes 1 bundle, Rs.100 x 100 notes 8 bundles, Rs.100 x 74 notes 1 bundle totaling to Rs. 17,96,400/-, one ATM key, KA05MH3205 red colour Honda i10 Car, KA-05 MH 3205 bearing smart card and car and pass of Karur vysya Bank and SBI Bank. However the alleged denomination of Rs. 17,96,400/-, recovered from the house of accused No.1 should tally with the cash register maintained by the complainant bank as such the particulars of cash movement to the ATM, including the date, time, amount loaded, and denomination details should be reflected in the ATM Cash Loading/Replenishment Register, Records the signatures of both authorized individuals responsible for authorizing the cash load in the Joint Custodian Register, Documents entry into the ATM site, including bank representatives, technicians, and CIT staff in the ATM Site Access/Visitor Register; Used for daily reconciliation of physical cash remaining in the machine versus the electronic journal/transactions in Cash-in-ATM Register (Physical Balance), specifically documents 18 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 any discrepancy between the expected cash balance (based on transaction logs) and the actual cash counted during replenishment in Excess/Short Cash Register: Records the verification of CCTV functionality and the retention of video footage in Security Surveillance Log; Manages the handing over and taking over of keys/passwords for the vault and ATM cassettes in Key Register and Number of pieces loaded per denomination in the PC Slip (Pieces Counter) and Records the value loaded, signed by joint custodians the in admin Slip. Such being the IO failed to secure all ATM Cash Loading/ Replenishment Register to know about the particulars of denomination seized from the house of accused No.1 was with the same denomination. Such being the case, how this court could infer that the alleged seizure of money of Rs.17,96,400/- was the one loaded in the ATM center and more over it is highly imperative to expect any prudent man to change the amount of Rs.17,96,400/- within three days to some other denominations. The voluntary statement of accused No.1 does not depict the timings when it was recorded to corroborate that the statement was leading to discovery as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
21. This apart, PW5/IO has relied upon the seizure mahazar dated 12/06/2025 as per Ex.P7 19 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 wherein he seized oxygen cylinder, gas gun, gas cylinder, two red and blue colour gas pipes, one Sack 444 written on the same were seized from the railway track of Hebbala Ring Road from 11 am to 12.15 pm in the presence of CW11/PW3 namely Sri Vasudeva Chari, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Late Nanjundappa Chari, resident of No. 142, Nagashetty Halli, RMV II stage, Bengaluru and CW12 namely Sri Sanjeev, Aged about 30 years, S/o Gopal Nayak, resident No.6, 5 th Cross, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Chamundeshwari Layout, Bengaluru and subjected to PF No.50/2013 on 15-06-2013, in front of House No.923, New Housing Board, Hassan District, in the presence of CW9 namely Sri Santhosh and CW10 namely Sri H N. Puttachari from 8-45 am to 9-45 am wherein Rs.20,000/- denomination of Rs.500/-x 40 notes were seized from the house of the accused No.2 through a panchanama as per Ex.P12 having bounded on the south by New KHB Colony, 34th Main Road, North by public road, East by Lalith Kumar's house and west by newly constructing building and subjected to PF No.52/2013, silver colored KA 13 B1502 Tata Indica car was seized from the car garage of accused No.3 on Ramanathapura Konur Road from 10-30 am to 11-30 am in the presence of CW9 and 10 through panchanama as per Ex.P13 having bounded on the south by road leading from Ramanathapuram to Konanur, north by Nagaraju's house, east by Govindaraj'a house and 20 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 west by Devaraj's house and the same was subjected to PF No.53/2013, however the PW5 and PW7 did not secure any documents to show that the alleged house as per Ex.P11 was belongs to accused No.1 and from the car garage situated on Ramanathapura Konur Road as per Ex.P13 belongs to the accused No.3.
22. It is relevant to mention S.100 of CRPC which reads as under
Persons in charge of closed place to allow search
1. Whenever any place liable to search of inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.
2. If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the 21 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 manner provided by Sub-Section (2) of section 47.
3. Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.
4. Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.22
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
5. The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
6. The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.
7. When any person is searched under Sub-Section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.
23KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
8. Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
However the PW5/IO did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the search and for drawing seizure mahazar for the alleged theft. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
23. None of the witnesses to seizure mahazar were secured by the prosecution to prove its authenticity. Added to which voluntary statement of accused No.1 to 3 does not seem to be found in the record to infer it was seized upon the confession of accused No.1 to 3.
24KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
24. Added to which, the best evidence i.e., CCTV footage was not secured by the IOs from ATM machines and no other pieces of evidence was produced by the prosecution that the CCTV footage was not working on the date of alleged incident.
25. If it was not found working at the ATM center, then naturally custodian of ATM center would be getting the alert and hence the version of prosecution was not believable version.
26. Added to which, security guard of Canara Bank ATM was not made as a witness to corroborate the alleged incident of cutting of ATM machine through cutter, where was the security guard at the time of alleged incident, no prudent man can reasonably expected that he could easily enter into the ATM center to cut the ATM Machines which requires the pre-plan and action before proceeding with the commission of theft.
27. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the IO has not joined any local inhabitants at the time of spot mahazar or seizure mahazar whilst completing the formalities despite availability of persons. Hence, the very recovery of the 25 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 from place which are alleged to be belongs to the accused No. 1 and 3 are doubtful.
28. From the above discussions, it is clear that the identity of this accused No.1 and 3 involved in this commission of offence has not been established. Though the PW1 deposed about the incident but no proper evidence collected as to the incident from other witnesses and the documentary evidence as to the seizure place mentioned in the Ex.P11, and Ex.P13 belongs to the accused No.1 and 3 and more so local inhabitants were not made as witnesses to the Ex.P11, 7, 12, 13 though there were available. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences punishable under section 457, 380 of IPC and accordingly, the benefit of doubt has to be accorded in favour of the accused No.1 and 3 thereby this court answer the above point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
29. Point No.3:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.26
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
(i) The accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 of IPC.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of accused No.1 and 3 shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Office to keep this file against split up accused No.2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd day of March, 2026) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Srinivasachar Informant PW2: Sri Virupaksha 27 KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 PW3: Sri Vasudevachari Pancha witness PW4: Sri Naganna HC PW5: Sri M.Gopalakrishnegowda PI PW6: Sri M.Gopal PI PW7: Sri Parameshwara Hegde PI Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1
Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar PW1
Ex.P3 to P6: Photographs PW1
Ex.P7: Seizure mahazar PW3
dtd: 12-06-2013
Ex.P8: FIR PW5
Ex.P9: Report PW5
Ex.P10: Report PW5
Ex.P11: Seizure mahazar ''
dtd: 12-06-2013
Ex.P12: Seizure mahazar
dtd: 15-06-2013
Ex.P13: Seizure mahazar ''
dtd: 15-06-2013
28
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014
Ex.P14: Mahazar dtd: 25-6-2013
Ex.P15: Mahazar dtd: 09-7-2013
Ex.P16: Mahazar dtd: 12-7-2013 ''
Material Objects marked on behalf of prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.29
KABC030470012014 CC No.18221/2014 23-03-2026 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 of IPC.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of accused No.1 and 3 shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Office to keep this file against split up accused No.2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru 30