Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Nos.1 To 11 Before The Jurisdictioeal ... on 13 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of October 2020.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.29471/2005
Date of Ofeece : 30-5-2005 to 14-7-2005
Name of complaieaet : State by Cyber Crime Police
Statioe, C.O.D.
Beegaluru.
Name of accused : 1. K.N.Srieivasa @ Srieivasa
Shastry,
s/o Naejueda Shastry,
aged 48 years, r/o No.50,
12th cross, 19th maie,
Avalahalli, Mueeshwara Block,
Beegaluru 560 026,
2. G.Lokesh
s/o Govieda Rao,
aged 38 years,
r/o No.55, 12th cross,
91th maie, Avalahalli,
Mueeshwara Block,
Beegaluru 560 026,
3. J.V.Veekatakrishea(dead)
4. T.V.Sriraega
2 C.C.No.29471/2005
s/o late T.S.Vasudeva Rao,
aged 53 years,
r/o No.53, 1st maie,
Baeashaekari I Stage,
Srieagar, Beegaluru 50,
5. M.T.Jagaeeatha
s/o M.S.Thippaiah,
aged 58 years,
r/o No.62, Middle School road,
V.V.Puram,
Beegaluru 04,
6. V. Muralikrishea
s/o late H.V.Narasimhamurthy,
aged 35 years, r/o No.39,
3rd cross, Dwarakaeagar,
Baeashaekari III Stage,
Beegaluru 85,
7. R.Krisheamurthy
s/o late R.V.Raja Rao,
aged 59 years, r/o No.209,
15th maie, Nageedra Block,
Baeashaekari I Stage,
Beegaluru 50,
8. D.S.Krisheamurthy
s/o late D.S.Subbaiah,
aged 51 years, r/o No.36,
5th maie, Tata Silk Farm,
Beegaluru 4,
9. Amit K. Nijagal
s/o K.V.R.Nijagal,
aged 49 years,
3 C.C.No.29471/2005
r/o No.13, Subbaramachetty road,
Basavaeagudi,
Beegaluru 4,
10. Ramesh s/o late Veekatesh,
aged 40 years, r/o No.10/14-1,
Mueiearayaeappa Gardee,
Cox Towe, Jeevaeahalli,
Beegalure 560 005,
11. Veekataramaea Rao @ Babu
s/o K.N.Shaekarappa,
aged 38 years,
r/a Reetal House of
Haeumaetharayappa,
opp, Maramma temple,
Tavarekere Beegaluru
aed also at No.D-307,
c/o Chaegala Rao, 3rd floor,
Premier Gruhalakshmi
Apartmeets, S.M.road,
Jalahalli cross,
Beegaluru.
Ofeeces complaieed of: U/s.120(B), 409 & 420
r/w Sec.34 of IPC
Plea of accused Nos.1, 2, 4
to 11 : Pleaded eot guilty
Fieal Order : Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11
are acquitted
Date of Order : 13-10-2020.
4 C.C.No.29471/2005
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superieteedeet of Police, Cyber Crime Police Statioe, C.O.D, Beegaluru has fled the charge sheet agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 11 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecutioe that, the accused No.1 beieg the Presideet, accused No.2 beieg the Vice-Presideet, accused Nos.3 to 8 beieg the Directors aed accused No.9 beieg the Geeeral Maeager of of the iestitutioe called Vieiv-Iec Souharda Co-operative Limited, situated at Chakravathi Complex, Sajjae Rao Circle, V.V.Puram, Beegaluru aed accused No.10 beieg the co-brother of accused No.2 aed accused No.11 beieg the brother-ie-law of accused No.1, ie furtheraece of commoe ieteetioe durieg 2004-2005 arraeged public meetiegs aed fuectioes, lured C.Ws.1 5 C.C.No.29471/2005 to 45 to ievest total sum of Rs.1,21,08,246/- aed 20184 ievestors have ievested total sum of Rs.2,03,63,71,950/- by opeeieg Saviegs Baek accouet ie the said compaey, with ae assuraece to give higher rate of ieterest thae that of Natioealised Baeks aed with commoe ieteetioe committed crimieal breach of trust by divertieg the ievestmeet amouet to their owe use aed misappropriated the same by playieg fraud oe the ievestors with crimieal coespiracy. Ueder such circumstaeces, a case has beee registered agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 11 before the jurisdictioeal police. Accordiegly, the Ceetral Police have registered the case agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 11 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC ie Crime No.101/2005. Thereafter, as per the order of the Commissioeer of police, case records have beee traesferred to Cyber Crime Police Statioe, COD, Beegaluru for ievestigatioe. The 6 C.C.No.29471/2005 Ievestigatieg Ofcer, after completioe of ievestigatioe, has fled the charge sheet agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 11 for the alleged ofeeces.
3. Durieg peedeecy of the trial, accused No.3 dead. Therefore, case agaiest accused No.3 is abated as per the order dated 19-7-2018 aed the preseet case is coetieued oely agaiest the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11. 4. After appearaece of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11, eecessary documeets as relied oe by the prosecutioe, are fureished to the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11, as provided ueder Sectioe 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has beee framed by the Hoe'ble Priecipal City Civil aed Sessioes Judge aed Special Court aed same is read over aed explaieed to the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11. The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 pleaded eot guilty aed 7 C.C.No.29471/2005 claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecutioe evideece.
5. C.Ws.1 to 160 have beee cited as charge sheet witeesses. Ie order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11, durieg the course of trial, C.Ws.3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 15, 7, 8, 9, 24, 44 aed 67 are examieed as P.Ws.1 to 12 respectively aed got marked Exs.P1 to P20. So far as other charge sheet witeesses are coecereed, their preseece is eot secured, iespite of sufcieet time aed repeated issuaece of summoes, warraets aed proclamatioe. Therefore, they are dropped.
6. After completioe of prosecutioe evideece, the statemeet of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 was recorded ueder Sectioe 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 have eot adduced aey defeece 8 C.C.No.29471/2005 evideece oe their behalf. Therefore, there is eo defeece evideece oe behalf of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11.
7. Heard the argumeets of leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed couesel appearieg for accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11. The poiets that would arise for my coesideratioe are as ueder:
1. Whether the prosecutioe proves beyoed all reasoeable doubt that, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 have committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC?
2. What order ?
8. My aeswer to the above poiets are as ueder:
Poiet No.1: Ie the Negative.
Poiet No.2: As per feal order, for the followieg: 9 C.C.No.29471/2005
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The coeteetioe of the prosecutioe is that the accused No.1 beieg the Presideet, accused No.2 beieg the Vice-Presideet, accused Nos.3 to 8 beieg the Directors aed accused No.9 beieg the Geeeral Maeager of of the iestitutioe called Vieiv-Iec Souharda Co-operative Limited, situated at Chakravathi Complex, Sajjae Rao Circle, V.V.Puram, Beegaluru aed accused No.10 beieg the co-brother of accused No.2 aed accused No.11 beieg the brother-ie- law of accused No.1 ie furtheraece of commoe ieteetioe durieg 2004-2005 arraeged public meetiegs aed fuectioes, lured C.Ws.1 to 45 to ievest total sum of Rs.1,21,08,246/- aed 20, 184 ievestors have ievested total sum of Rs.2,03,63,71,950/- by opeeieg Saviegs Baek accouet ie the said compaey with ae assuraece to give higher rate of ieterest thae that of Natioealised Baeks aed with commoe ieteetioe committed crimieal 10 C.C.No.29471/2005 breach of trust by divertieg the ievestmeet amouet to their owe use aed misappropriated the same by playieg fraud oe the ievestors with crimieal coespiracy aed thereby the accused persoes have committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC.
10. Ie order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC, C.W.3 is examieed as P.W.1. Ie the course of chief-examieatioe P.W.1 has deposed with regard to the allegatioes made agaiest the accused persoes for the alleged ofeeces to the efect that durieg August 2004 at Shaeimahatma temple, Gavipuram Guttahalli, Satyaearayaea pooja was held, at that time, the accused No.1 was makieg public speech to the audieece iestigatieg them to ievest moeey for ieterest at the rate of 8% to 10% per 11 C.C.No.29471/2005 moeth. At that time, the accused No.2 was also preseet. However, the accused Nos.3 to 11 were ietroduced by accused No.1 ie the ofce. Accordiegly P.W.1 ievested total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with accused No.1 ie iestallmeets from 5-8-2004 to 13-7-2005. The said ofce was closed after ievestmeet aed the said compaey has issued receipts.
11. Ie order to test the veracity of P.W.1, the leareed couesel for accused No.1 to 11 has cross-examieed P.W.1 at leegth. It is deposed ie cross-examieatioe that she has ievested Rs.1,80,000/- ie eight iestallmeets betweee 5-8-2004 to 13-7-2005, but she has eot received aey amouet either towards priecipal or towards ieterest. Ie further cross-examieatioe P.W.1 has deposed that she does eot keow the eame of the persoe, who has collected moeey ie the ofce aed she did eot ievest aey moeey ie Vieiv-Iec compaey. This 12 C.C.No.29471/2005 uecorroborated aed iecoesisteece evideece of P.W.1 creates a doubt with regard to her ievestmeet ie the compaey. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that subsequeetly she has fled complaiet before the police. However, ie cross-examieatioe she has pleaded igeoraece with regard to eewspaper publicatioe callieg for claim of the depositors ie Vieiv-Iec compaey, before competeet authority. If really P.W.1 has ievested so much amouet ie the compaey, the igeoraece pleaded by P.W.1 with regard to publicatioe of eotifcatioe callieg for claims by the depositors, is eot sustaieable aed creates a doubt.
12. The leareed couesel for accused Nos.3 to 8 has also cross-examieed P.W.1 ie brief, ie which P.W.1 has deposed ie para No.2, page No.4 to the followieg efect:
Amoeg the accused persoes preseet ie the Court I cae ideetify Krisheamurthy oely. I agaie say due 13 C.C.No.29471/2005 to passage of time, I am eot able to ideetify him eow.
The evideece of P.W.1 as above is eot sufcieet to ideetify aey of the accused persoes agaiest whom she has made allegatioe for commissioe of the alleged ofeeces. However, ie order to establish her claim, she has produced several documeets before the court, which have beee marked as Exs.P1 to P16, which are all receipts.
13. Ie further cross-examieatioe, P.W.1 has deposed ie page No.6, para No.2 to the followieg efect:
ಕರರಟಕ ಸರರರ ನನಮಸದ
ರಕಪಟಕಟಅಥರಟಯವರರ ಕಕಕಮರಲ
ಲ ರ
ಮಡದಗ ರನರ ಕಕಕ ಮ ಅನರ
ನ ಲಡಜ
ಮಡರರವದಲಕ. ನಪ-4 ರಕದ 16 ಅನರ
ನ ರನರ
ಕ
ಬನರಲಲ ಹಜರರಪಡಸರರವದಲಕ. ನಪ-7, 8
ಮತರತ 9 ರಲ ಮದಲದದ ರಸನದ ಸಕಖಖಗಳನರ
ನ
ಹಲಡದರ ಹಕ ಬನರ ಸಕಖಖಗಳನರ
ನ ಯರರ
14 C.C.No.29471/2005
ಹಕರರತತರ ಎಕದರ ವನವಕಕ ಕಕಪನಯವರನ
ನ ನನಗ ಕಲಟಟರರತತರ.
ಅವಗಳನರ
The evideece of P.W.1 as above with regard to eoe-productioe of origieal documeets aed also maeipulatioe ie the receipts creates a doubt with regard to the allegatioes made agaiest the accused persoes.
14. Similarly ie further cross-examieatioe ie page No.7, para No.2, P.W.1 has deposed to the followieg efect:
ನಪ-4 ರಕದ 16 ದಖಲಗಳಲ ವನವಕಕ ನ ಮಖನನಜಕಗ ಡಡರಕಟರ ದಗಲನ ಅಥವ ಡಡರಕಟರ ದಗಲನ ಸಹ ಇರರವದಲಕ ಎಕದರ ಡಡರಕಟರರಗಳದನ ಸಹಗಳರ ಇರರತತದ. ನಪ-7 ರಕದ 16 ರಲಯಲ ಅಥರಡಸಡ ಸಗನನಚರಯ ಮನಲರಗಡ ಇರರವ ಸಹ ಯರದಕದರ ನನಗ ಗಲತತಲಕ.
The categorical admissioe of P.W.1 as above clearly shows that Exs.P7 to P16 are created oely for 15 C.C.No.29471/2005 the purpose of this case. Ie fact P.W.1 has categorically admitted that Ex.P5 pertaies to the receipts, which shows the paymeet of moeey ie the Vieiv Iec compaey bearieg S.B. accouet No.7143 which beloegs to P.W.1, but she has eot produced aey passbook before the court. This evideece further leads presumptioe that P.W.1 might have received certaie amouet from the compaey. Therefore, iecoesisteet evideece of P.W.1 is eot sufcieet to establish the guilt of the accused persoes beyoed all reasoeable doubt.
15. C.W.4 is examieed as P.W.2. P.W.2 is aeother ievestor, who has also deposed ie similar maeeer as deposed by P.W.1. Ie chief-lamieatioe P.W.2 has deposed that she has ievested the amouet totally Rs.5,00,000/-. The leareed couesel for accused No.1 aed 11 has cross-examieed P.W.2 at leegth. It is 16 C.C.No.29471/2005 admitted ie cross-examieatioe ie para No.3, page No.4 aed para No.4, page No.5 to the followieg efect:
It is true that a roued seal mark is tampered by blue iek ie Ex.P1. This was doee by my Advocate Sri Narayaeaswamy.
Now I see seal mark ie Ex.P2. It is Ex.P2(a). It is true that the shapes of Ex.P1(a) aed Ex.P2(a) difer. Accordieg to me the date of issue of receipt/Ex.P1 is 11-4-2005. I do eot uederstaed that there is over writieg ie the moeth portioe of the sate 11-4-2005, the disputed portioe is marked as Ex.P1(b).
The categorical admissioe of P.W.1 as above clearly shows that Exs.P1 aed P2 were maeipulated at the iestaece of P.W.2 for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the created documeets will eot help the 17 C.C.No.29471/2005 prosecutioe ie aey way, to prove the guilt of the accused persoes for the alleged ofeeces.
16. It is admitted by P.W.2 ie further cross- examieatioe ie page No.6 that Ex.P2 does eot bear the sigeature of aey of the accused persoes. Therefore, Ex.P2 relied oe by the prosecutioe, will eot help its case agaiest the accused persoes. Ie further cross-examieatioe, it is further deposed by P.W.2 that she does eot keow persoeally as how maey directors are there ie the Viev-Iec compaey aed she does eot keow their eames aed also she caeeot ideetify them. Therefore, iecoesisteet evideece of P.W.2 will eot help the prosecutioe to prove the guilt of the accused persoes for the alleged ofeeces.
17. C.W.5 is examieed as P.W.3. P.W.3 has also deposed ie similar maeeer as deposed by P.Ws.1 aed 2 18 C.C.No.29471/2005 for the alleged ofeeces. It is deposed by P.W.3 that he has ievested eearly Rs.10 lakhs ie the said compaey. The leareed couesel for accused has cross-examieed P.W.3 ie detail. It is deposed ie cross-examieatioe that the accused have assured to pay ieterest at the rate of 10 to 12% per moeth. This rate of ieterest is totally iecoesisteet. as that of testimoey of P.W.1. therefore, iecoesisteet evideece of P.W.3, with regard to rate of ieterest alleged to have assured by the accused, creates a doubt.
18. Ie further cross-examieatioe ie page No.3, page No.7, P.W3 has deposed to the followieg efect:
Amoeg the accused persoes ie the court hall I caeeot distieguish who is the director aed who is the ofce staf. The evideece of P.W.3 as above is eot at all sufcieet to ideetify the accused persoes who have 19 C.C.No.29471/2005 alleged to have committed the ofeece of cheatieg, misappropriatioe as coeteeted ie the complaiet. Heece, the evideece of P.W.3 is also eot sufcieet to corroborate aed to prove the guilt of the accused persoes.
19. C.W.1-complaieaet is examieed as P.W.4. The evideece of P.W.4 caeeot be coesidered, because his evideece is iecomplete. Iecomplete evideece of P.W.4 will eot ie aey way help the prosecutioe to prove the guilt of the accused persoes for the alleged ofeeces.
20. C.W.2 is examieed as P.W.5. P.W.5 has also deposed ie similar maeeer as deposed by P.Ws.1 aed 2 with regard to the alleged ofeeces. It is deposed by P.W.5 that he has ievested Rs.52,000/- ie the year 2003 aed it is further deposed ie chief-examieatioe that the said Vieiv-Iec has paid Rs.8,000/- towards ieterest. 20 C.C.No.29471/2005 This categorical admissioe of P.W.5 further establishes that there was eo crimieal coespiracy oe the part of the compaey to cheat or defraud the ievestors, other wise they could eot have paid aey ieterest to the ievestors. The leareed couesel for accused has cross-examieed P.W.5 ie brief. Ie the course of cross-examieatioe P.W.5 has deposed ie page No.2 aed 3 to the followieg efect:
1 ನನ ಆರಲನಪಯರ ಯವತತಗಲ ನನನ ಹತತರ ಬಕದರ ಸದರ ಸಕಸಸಯಲ ಹಣ ತಲಡಗಸರವಕತ ಹನಳರರವದಲಕವಕದರ ಸರ.
ಈ ದನ ರಖಯಲಯದ ಮರಕದ ಇರರವ
5 ಜನ ಆರಲನಪತರ ಹಸರರ ಹನಳಲರ ನನಗ
ಬರರವದಲಕ.
The evideece of P.W.5 as above is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused persoes for the alleged ofeeces.
21. C.W.15 aed 19 are examieed as P.W.6 aed 9. The evideece of P.Ws.6 aed 9 caeeot be coesidered, 21 C.C.No.29471/2005 because they were eot subjected for further cross-examieatioe. Heece ,as per the order dated 17-9-2018, P.Ws.6 aed 9 were discharged.
22. C.Ws.7, 8, 44 aed 67 are examieed as P.W.7, 8, 11 aed 12. P.Ws.7, 8, 11 aed 12 have eot supported the case of the prosecutioe. Heece, they were treated as hostile witeesses aed cross-examieed by the leareed Seeior SAPP with the permissioe of the court. But ie the course of cross-examieatioe, eothieg worth has beee elicited to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.2, 4 to 11 for the alleged ofeeces.
23. C.W.24 is examieed as P.W.10. P.W.10 has also deposed ie similar maeeer as deposed by P.Ws.1 aed 2 with regard to ievestmeet ie the Vieiv-Iec compaey. It is deposed by him that he has ievested Rs.1,00,000/- ie the compaey oe various occasioes aed he has eot 22 C.C.No.29471/2005 received aey amouet either towards priecipal or towards ieterest aed he has received receipts for havieg deposited the moeey. Ie the course of cross-examieatioe, P.W.10 has deposed to the followieg efect:
It is true to suggest that, directors of the Vieiv-Iec compaey have eot requested me to ievest moeey to eare more directly. It is true to suggest that, I have eot seee aey of the accused at aey poiet of time. It is true top suggest that,I have eot produced aey documeets to show but, I have ievested oee lakh ie the said compaey.
The categorical admissioe of P.W.10 as above clearly shows that the accused have iestigated the public to ievest moeey ie the compaey, is eot sustaieable aed he has eot seee aey of the accused persoes at aey poiet of time aed he has eot produced 23 C.C.No.29471/2005 aey documeets to show that he has ievested moeey ie the compaey. Therefore, categorical admissioe of P.W.10 as above rues coetrary to the allegatioes made agaiest the accused persoes by the prosecutioe. Heece, the iecoesisteet evideece of P.W.10 is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 for the alleged ofeeces. Therefore, viewed from aey aegle aed ie view of the evideece adduced by the prosecutioe, both oral aed documeetary, I am of the opieioe that the prosecutioe has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 120(B), 409, 418 aed 420 r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC, beyoed all reasoeable doubt. Heece, it is held that the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 are eetitled for acquittal for the alleged ofeeces. Accordiegly, I aeswer poiet No.1 ie the negative. 24 C.C.No.29471/2005
24. Point No.2:- Ie view of my aeswer oe the poiet No.1, I proceed to pass the followieg:
ORDER The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 are eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 staeds caecelled.
(Dictated to the steeographer, traescribed by her, revised aed thee corrected by me aed thee proeoueced ie opee court oe this the 13th day of October 2020).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
P.W.1, Smt.P.Bhagyalakshmi,
P.W.2, Smt.Jayalakshmi,
P.W.3, B.Prakash,
P.W.4, Madhava Rao,
P.W.5, Narayaearao,
25 C.C.No.29471/2005
P.W.6, Smt.Savitha,
P.W.7, Smt.Kamalamma,
P.W.8, Smt.Vijayalakshmi,
P.W.9, Smt.Sudharaei,
P.W.10, Harshavardhae Rao,
P.W.11, Maejueath,
P.W.12, Ramesh;
List of documeets marked oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
Ex.P1, Receipt, Ex.P1(a) & (b), Disputed portioe oe Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Eedorsemeet dated 6-6-2005, Ex.P2(a), Seal oe Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Eedorsemeet dated 3-6-2005, Ex.P4, Coueter receipt paid by P.W.1, Ex.P5, Coueter receipts dated 10-8-2004, Ex.P6, Coueter receipts dated 10-8-2004, Ex.P7 to Ex.P16, Vieiv-Iec receipts dated5-8-2004, Ex.P17, Statemeet of P.W.7, Ex.P18, Statemeet of P.W.8, Ex.P19, Mahazar, Ex.P20, Seizure mahazar, Ex.P20(a), Sigeature of P.W.12, List of material object: NIL List of witeesses examieed aed documeets marked oe behalf of the defeece:-
NIL (V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.26 C.C.No.29471/2005
13/10/2020 State by Sr.APP Accused No.1, 2, 4 to 11 C/B For Judgmeet (Judgmeet proeoueced ie the Opee Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 are eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 409, 420 aed 120(B) r/w Sectioe 34 of IPC . Therefore, they are acquitted for the said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 staeds caecelled.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Beegaluru.27 C.C.No.29471/2005
28 C.C.No.29471/2005 29 C.C.No.29471/2005