Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka New Town vs 4-Smt.Parvathi on 10 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 10th day of March, 2022
:Present: Sri. I.P.Naik, B.A., LL.B.(Spl),
30th ACMM, Bengaluru
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.
C.C.No. 3055/2016
Date of Offence During 2013
Complainant State by Yelahanka New Town,
Police Station
V/s.
Accused 4-Smt.Parvathi,
S/o. Devendrappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R.at.No.1104/3A, 4th Cross,
Mathru Layout,
Yelahanka Upanagara,
Bengaluru.
5- Smt. Prema,
W/o.Nagaraj.K.V
R.at.No.763, LIG, 13 B Road,
2nd Stage, Yelahanka Upa
Nagara, Bengaluru.
1. D.Subramanya Naidu (Dead)
6. Smt. Bali Bai (Dead)
2- Rajesh Kumar Jain, (Split up)
2 C.C.No.3055/2016
3-Raja Reddy, (Split up)
Offences U/s.204, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420
r/w. 34 of IPC and U/s.192 (A) (5)
Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Plea Recorded on:31.12.2019 and
accused person Pleaded not guilty.
313 Statement On 25.02.2022
recorded on:
Final Order Accused No.4 & 5 are Acquitted
Date of Order 10/03/2022
*****
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka New Town, Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences punishable U/s.204, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and U/s.192 (A) (5) Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that:-
It is alleged that, the land bearing.Sy.No.5/1, situated at revenue limits of Attur Village, within the territorial limits of Yelahanka New town Police Station, CW1 Hanumantha 3 C.C.No.3055/2016 purchased 7.6 guntas of land from accused No.6-Smt. Bali Bai, through registered sale deed on 28.01.2003. Accused No.7 attesting witnesses to said sale deed. After Podi 7.6 guntas renumbered as Sy.No.5/5. Based on the said sale deed revenue records as well as Survey records are changed in the name of CW1 V-Hanumanthaiah. Further, CW1 was in actual and physical possession of the said land. Accused No.1 & 6 with criminal conspiracy forged layout map in Sy.No.5/1, measuring 1 acres 18 guntas including 7.8 guntas land purchased by the CW1 without obtaining permission from the competent authority ie., revenue Department as well as BDA.
3. After that, accused No.1 formed sites in the entire one acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1 and named it as Chitra Residential Layout. In order to cheat the complainant accused No.1 created GPA along with accused No.6. Inspite of having knowledge of execution of sale deed in favour of CW-1, accused No.7 has put his signature of on the said forged GPA which executed in favour of accused No.1 by accused No.6. Thereafter, accused No.1 executed sale deed site bearing.No.80 in favour of 4 C.C.No.3055/2016 accused No.2 on 9.3.2005. Accused No.2 is very well aware about the CW1 purchased the land in Sy.No.5/5. In order to cheat the complainant accused No.2 purchased the land. Thereafter, accused No.3 purchased the said land in turn he has soled the said site infavour of accused No.4 & 5 to higher value for wrongful gain. Hence, accused No.1 to 7 are charge sheeted.
4. Initially CW1-V.Hanumanthaiah directly approached the learned CMM on 26.08.2014 and filed private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. After that, the said case is registered as PCR No.13290/2014. As per the order dated 25.08.2014 this case is referred to SHO Yelahanka new Town for investigation and submission of final report as contemplated U/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
5. On 12.01.2015, CW13 PSI Jayananda has register the case in Cr.No.12/2015 and forwarded the FIR to earlier jurisdiction court. On 13.01.2015 he rushed to the spot and conducted the SO mahazar in the presence of witnesses as shown by CW1. On 16.01.2015 IO CW13 got issued notice to CW1 for production of the documents. Accordingly, CW1 5 C.C.No.3055/2016 produced the documents on 8.5.2015. Same is seized by drawing mahazar and reported to this court P.F.No.29/2015.
6. On 20.3.2015 IO interrogated CW4 and CW9 and recorded their statement on 05.2.2015. IO/CW-13 got issued notice to accused No.1 for production of documents. Accordingly, on 5.5.2015, accused No.1 was produced the documents same are recovered by drawing mahazar and reported to court under P.F.No.28/2015. On 21.10.2015 IO filed requested the Yelahanka, Tahsildar, for production of documents and other revenue records. Same are received on 6.4.2015. On 7.12.2015 got issued another requisition to Sub Registrar Yelahanka same are received certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.3.2008, 7.8.2009, 6.1.2011 again IO he got issued requisition to Assistant Director of BBMP for production of documents. They have issued endorsement. After completing other formalities IO filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 7. 6 C.C.No.3055/2016
7. As per the order dated 29.1.2016, the learned CMM considering the charge sheet and other records, taken cognizance and ordered to register the case and issued NBW against accused No.1 to 7. Accused No.1, 3, 4, 5 & 7 appeared through their counsel and got enlarged on regular bail. In the inquiry accused No.1 and 6 died. Hence, case against these accused is abated. Accused No.2 and accused No.3 and accused No.7 are remained absent before the court. Accordingly, ordered to split up this case against the accused No.2, 3 and 7.
8. A Copy of the charge sheet furnished to accused No.4 and 5. On 31.12.2019 charge framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused No.4 & 5 in the language known to him, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses ie., as PW1 to PW5 and got marked 28 documents as Ex.P.1. to P.28. ( Due to oversight 7 C.C.No.3055/2016 SO mahazar is marked two times as Ex.P.1 and P.2, through PW1 and PW2. In order to avoid confusion hereinafter SO mahazar is considered as Ex.P.1 and statement witnesses recorded by PW4, while conducting survey of land bearing No.5/5, on 10.1.2012. Ex.P.20 is totally blank. In the said place, requisition sent to Sub Registrar Yelahanka is placed and same is considered as Ex.P.20.) A Summons against CW1 is not served due to death and also CW12 not served due to death. In order to secure other remaining witnesses, this court issued Summons, NBW and Proclamation. The concerned police failed to secure these witnesses. Finally this court opined that, there is no meaning in reissuing Summons, NBW, Proclamation. Accordingly, prayer of the learned APP is rejected and other remaining witnesses are dropped.
10. Meanwhile, L.R's of CW-1 V-Hanumanthaiah appeared through their counsel and filed application U/s.302 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to prosecute this case. As per order dated 17.04.2021, this court granted permission to LR's to deceased CW1-V.Hanumanthaiah, to proceed in this case. But inspite of 8 C.C.No.3055/2016 that, they have not actively participated in prosecuting of this case. After this order, they are never present before this court. This attitude of the L.R.'s of deceased CW1 is caused certain delay in disposal of this case. It is nothing but defeat the object of Sec.302 of Cr.P.C.
11. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., accused are denied the incriminating evidence and not chosen to lead evidence and no documents are produced on behalf of them.
12. Heard arguments.
13. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 & 6 are sold agriculture land bearing No.5/3 and 5/5 for on agriculture purposes without converting non agriculture land in favour of accused No.2. Thereby accused has 9 C.C.No.3055/2016 committed the offence punishable U/s.192-
A(5) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act., 1964 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC., within my cognizance. ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, infurtherance of the common intention, accused No.7 being attesting witnesses for sale deed dated 28.01.2003 as executed by accused No.6 in fvour of deceased CW1 V. Hanumanthaiah, colluding with accused No.1 and 6 forged GPA infavour of accused No.1 in order to cheat the CW1, thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s.420 r/w. 34 of IPC., within my cognizance. ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, infurtherance of the common intention, accused No.1 & 6 forged layout sketch in the name and style of Chitra Residency Layout, including Sy.No.5/5, which is sold infvour of CW1, and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.465 r/w. 34 of IPC, within my cognizance. ?
10 C.C.No.3055/2016
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, infurtherance of the common intention, in order to cheat the CW1 accused No.1 & 6 forged Layout sketch and other documents and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.468 r/w. 34 of IPC, within my cognizance. ?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, infurtherance of the common intention, Accused No.1 used forged Chitra Residency Layout Sketch/map as genuine document for the purpose of registration of sale deed dated 9.3.2005, 27.8.2009 and dated 06.01.2012 and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.471 r/w. 34 of IPC, within my cognizance. ?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, infurtherance of the common intention, Accused No.1 sold site bearing No.80 in favour of accused No.2 in turn to have wrongfully gain and caused wrongfull loss to CW1, accused No.2 sold the said site infavour of accused No.3 in 11 C.C.No.3055/2016 turn sold to accused No.4 & 5 and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.420 r/w. 34 of IPC, within my cognizance. ?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, infurtherance of the common intention, accused No.1 with having knowledge, forged Chitra Residency Layout Plan without producing it before the Investigating Officer has with hold it and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.474, 204 r/w. 34 of IPC, within my cognizance. ?
8. What order.?
14. By considering oral, documentary evidence and hearing of the parties, my answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3: IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.4: IN THE NEGATIVE
12 C.C.No.3055/2016
Point No.5: IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.6: IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.7: IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.8: As per final order,
........................for the following, REASONS
15. The learned Sr.APP urged that, in this case, PW4 stated in respect of measurement and marking of boundaries in Sy.No.5/5 of Attur Village. IO deposed in detail inrespect of creation of documents withholding the documents and other aspects. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prays for convict the accused persons in accordance with law.
16. As against this, the learned counsel for the accused urged that, in this case no material witness and evidence is placed by the prosecution. CW1 is very important witnesses but this witnesses is not available before this court, as he dead. PW1 not supported in respect of boundaries of the mahazar and 13 C.C.No.3055/2016 other aspects. PW2 and PW3 have not supported the prosecution case.
17. PW4 conducted the survey without notice to the adjoining owners. In order to prove guilt of accused regarding created the documents. In the cross-examination of IO, he has admitted that, BBMP form the roads and drawn the electricity wire. Further, this clearly shows that, accused No.4 & 5 are purchased of the site. They have purchased the land with bonafide intention. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, prays to acquit the accused by granting benefit of doubt.
18. Point Nos.1 to 7 :- these 7 points are inter linked each other. In order to avoid repetition of facts and reasons, same are taken together for common discussion.
14 C.C.No.3055/2016
19. According to prosecution case, PW2 is witnesses to the mahazar dated 5.5.2015, said mahazar drawn seized of documents produced by the accused No.1 the learned Sr.APP is cross-examined this witness by treating hostile witnesses but no materials is brought from the mouth of this witnesses.
20. PW3 V Gangadhar was survey supervisor in Taluk Office from 2010 to 2016. during trial he has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Sr.APP has cross-examined PW3 by treating hostile witness. Despite of cross-examination, by prosecution nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW3.
21. According to prosecution case, PW1 Shashi is witnesses to the mahazar dated 13.1.2015 as per this Ex.P.1 IO conducted the SO mahazar after registration of the case. PW1 stated that in the year 2017 police have drawn the mahazar in respect of disputed land at Attur Village. In the cross- examination he stated that, the disputed property is belonged to Chitra layout. He is not aware about the Survey land, he has subscribed his signature on the spot. Further, he stated in 15 C.C.No.3055/2016 respect of boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.1 whether one and the same.
22. In the course of trial, PW5 he has stated on oath that after registration of the case on 12.1.2015, conducted the SO mahazar. In the course of cross-examination this fact is denied. By considering testimony of PW1 and PW5 it reflects that, after registration of the cae, I O conducted the spot mahazar Ex.P.1 on 13.01.2015. The Minor discrepancies will not affect on the core of the prosecution case. These are bound to happens in trial of the cases.
23. In this case, the oral testimony of PW4 and PW5 plays very important role in deciding this case. According to version of PW4, he has measured the land and fixed the boundaries on 10.01.2015 at Survey No.5/5 at Attur Village. He has preferred two documents got marked at Ex.P.3 & 4.
16 C.C.No.3055/2016
24. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined the PW4 in detail. In respect of issuance of notice prior notice to adjoining owners/cultivators. In this case, he admitted that, notice was not served on accused No.6 Smt.Bali Bai who died on 19.02.2006. According to his version he has conducted survey to land bg.No.5/5 on 10.01.2012. prior Notice not be served on the dead person. Further, he stated that, RTC of Sy.No.5/5 stands in the name of deceased CW1. So there is no clear evidence in respect of service of prior notice on adjoining owners. This reflects that PW4, he has conducted Survey of land bg.No.5/5 without prior notice to adjoining owners. This court being adjudicating Criminal cases, is not a proper forum to appreciate oral testimony of the PW4, with survey sketch and mahazar. By considering all over testimony of PW4 and PW5, it clearly shows that already one civil case is pending between the accused person and CW1 before the competent civil court, that court has to decide the subject matter raised between accused persons and CW1 or his L.R.'s.
17 C.C.No.3055/2016
25. In this case, there is specific allegations against the accused persons that, accused No.6 executed GPA infavour of the accused No.1 Accused No.1 formed the Layout in Sy.No.51/1 including land sold in favour of deceased CW1, thereafter, he has sold the properties in favour of accused No.2 to 5, accused No.7 signatory to sale deed executed in favour of CW1 by accused No.6. Further, it is specific allegations that, accused No.4 put his signature on the GPA executed by the accused No.6 infavour of accused No.3 First and foremost allegations against accused persons that, accused No.1 not produced the documents they have withhold the documents. In the course of investigation, IO got issued requisition to the Tahsildar Yelahanka. The Yelanka Tahsildar submitted endorsement and RTC. He has issued information respect of land bg.Sy.No.5/1, measuring one acre 18 guntas and another land Sy.No.5/5, measuring 7.6 guntas of land in agricultural land. The office of the Tahsildar is not competent authority to verify whether this land is formed sites with prior permission of local body. Another important documents issued by the BBMP on 17.6.2014 Ex.P.1 discloses that, town Municipal Yelahanka merged with BBMP. In this case 18 C.C.No.3055/2016 they have no records inrespect of approved plan to Sy.No.5/1, 5/5 of Attur Village. IO specifically stated that, firstly he has got issued notice to accused No.1 on 16.1.2015 for production of the following documents:-
1. Sale deed dated 28.1.2013 executed by Smt. Bali Bai.
2. Stay order copy passed in dated 17.05.2008.
3. Revenue survey sketch.
4. Layout Plan
5. layout Plan approved by the BBMP
6. GPA executed by the accused No.6 in favour of accused No.1.
7. Sale deed executed infavour of accused No.2.
8. Death Certificate of Bali Bai.
26. The sale deed executed by the accused No.2 in favor of accused No.3, sale deed executed by the accused No.3 infavour of accused No.4 & 5. RTC of Sy.No.5/1, RTC Sy.No.5/5, and certified copy of the documents and another two notices issued to accused No.1 on 4.2.2015 and on 20.04.2015 and directed or produced the following documents:-
19 C.C.No.3055/2016
1. GPA executed by the accused No.6 in fovour of accused No..
2. Land conversion order
3. Approved layout plan
4. Katha extract.
27. The IO has stated that, he has seized the documents produced by the accused no.1 before him on 5.5.2015 he has produced the original GPA and reported to this court under P.F.No.28/2015 on 8.5.2015. CW1 produced the documents in respect of sale deed executed by the accused No.6 in his favour and reported to this court under P.F.No.29/2015. The other documents are produced by the Sub Registrar of Yelahanka. On receipt of the notice which are marked at Ex.P.10 to P.18.
28. Another important document is Layout Plan. These are all xerox copies which are not accepted by this court relevant and genuine evidence. So it clearly shows that, CW1 and other 20 C.C.No.3055/2016 accused have produced the said documents. Therefore, the alleged offence Sec. 204 of IPC does not attracts to this court.
29. In this case, prosecution specifically alleged against the accused No.1 that, he has formed layout in land bg.Sy.No.5/1 and 5/5 without obtaining prior permission of land Revenue Department. As per the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar Yelahanka dated 5.2.2015, discloses that, land bg.Sy.No.5/5 which is agricultural land. According to prosecution case, accused No.6 and accused No.1 were formed layout plan both have died. Under these circumstances, accused No.4 has taken the contention that, she is a bonafide purchaser and no way connected to both purchaser. So there is no sufficient material /evidence to held that, accused converted agricultural land into sites without taking prior permission. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, accused has cheated the CW1 by creating GPA. The oral evidence of CW1 is very important in this case. Inspite of issuance of summons, to him he has not appeared as he is dead. In the absence of material and other substantive evidence prosecution unable to prove the 21 C.C.No.3055/2016 accusation of accused persons. Accused No.2 to 5 are purchaser of site. These accused are not parties to sale deed executed infavour of accused No.1 and GPA executed by accused No.6, layout Map and other documents.
30. Another important document ie., sale deed executed by accused No.1 in favour of deceased accused No.6, this documents is not produced before this court. Another documents is that, sale deed executed by the accused No.6 to accused No.1 on 9.3.2005. In respect of declaration of title of dispute land one civil suit is already pending before the competent civil court. So this court cannot take divergent view in respect of the title.
31. It is specific case of the prosecution that, in order to have wrongful gain accused No.2 to 5 purchased the site No.80. But there is lot of time gap in execution of the disputed documents and sale deed in favour of accused No.2 to 5. At this stage, this court has relied on the Judgment of Honb'le Apex Court in respect of common intention as under:- 22 C.C.No.3055/2016
Cr.A.No.1584/2021 dated 7.1.2022 Jas deep Singh @ Jassu Vs. State of Punjab. Section 34 of IPC:
18:- We shall first go back into the history to understand Section 34 of IPC as it stood at the inception and as it exists now.
Old Section 34 of IPC New Section 34 of IPC "When a criminal act is done by several "When a criminal act is done by several persons each of such persons is liable for persons, in furtherance of the common that act in the same manner as if the act intention of all, each of such persons is was done by him alone" liable for that act in the same manner as if it were by him alone"
19. On a comparison, one could decipher that the phrase' infurtherance of the common intention" was added into the statute book subsequently. It was first coined by Chief Justice Barnes Peacock presiding over a Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while delivering its decision in Queen Vs. Gorachand Gope, (1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16) which would have probably inspired and hastened the amendment to Section 34 of IPC, made in 1870. The following passage may lend credence to the aforesaid possible view:
"It does not follow that, because they were present with the intention of taking him away, that they assisted by their presence in the beating of him to such as to cause death, if the object and design of those who seized Amordi was merely to take him to the Thannah on a charge of theft, and it was no part of the common design to bet him, they would not all be liable for the consequence of the beating merely because they were present. It is laid down that, when several persons are in company together engaged in one common purpose, lawful or unlawful and one of them, without the knowledge or consent of the others, commits an offence, the others will not be involved in the guilt, unless the act done was in some manner in furtherance of the common intention. It is also said , although a man is present when a felony is committed, if he take no part in it, and do not act in concert with those who commit it, he will not be a principal merely because he did not endeavour to prevent it or to apprehend the felon. But if several persons go out together for purpose of apprehending a man and taking him to the 23 C.C.No.3055/2016 thannah on a charge of theft, and some of the party in the presence of the other beatand ill-treat the man in cruel and violent manner, and the other stand by and look on without endeavoring to dissuade them from their cruel and violent conduct, it appears to me that those who have to deal with the facts might very properly infer that they were all assenting parties and action in concert, and that the bearing was in furtherance of common design. I do not know what the evidence was, all that I wish to point out is, that all who are present do not necessarily assist by their presence every act that is done in their presence, not are consequently liable to be punished as principals."
20. Before we deal further with Section 34 of IPC, a peep at Section 33 IPC may give a better understanding. Section 33IPC brings into its fold a series of acts as that of a single one. Therefore, in order to attract Section 34 to 39 IPC, a series of acts done by several persons would be related to a single act which constitutes a criminal offense. A similar meaning is also given to the word 'omission', meaning thereby, a series of omissions would also mean a single omission. This provision would thus make it clear that an act would mean and include other acts along with it.
21. Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by one, into others, in pursuance to a common intention. Onus is on the prosecution to prove the common intention to the satisfaction of the court. The quality of evidence will have to be substantial, concrete, definite and clear. When a part of evidene produced by the prosecution to bring the accused within the fold of Section 34 IPC is disbelieved the remaining part will have to be examined with adequate care and caution, as we are dealing with a case of vicarious liability fastened on the accused by treating him at par with the one who actually committed the offence.
22. What is required is proof of common intention. Thus, there may be an offence without common intention, in which case Section 34 of IPC does not get attracted.
32. In this case, main culprit ie., accused No.1 & accused No.6 have died during trial. Under these circumstances it is difficult to fix the vicarious liability on the purchaser of the land 24 C.C.No.3055/2016 ie., accused No.4 & 5. By considering entire oral testimony of all witnesses and prosecution case, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons by producing prima-facie and substantiative evidence before this court. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, guilt of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 to 7 is answered in the Negative.
33. Point No.8: In view of the above findings on the above point Nos.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Powers conferred upon me U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.4 & 5 are is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s.204, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and U/s.192 (A) (5) Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
The bail bond of accused person and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled. 25 C.C.No.3055/2016
The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. is declined. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, same was corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of March, 2022).
( I.P NAIK) th 30 A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Sathish
P.W.2 : Ramanaiah
P.W.3 : Y.Gangadhar
P.W.4 : Chandra Kanth
P.W.5 : Jayanand
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : SO Mahazar
Ex.P.2 : Statement recorded by PW4 while
conducting survey
Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW3
Ex.P.4 : survey sketch
Ex.P.5 : Complaint
Ex.P.6 : FIR
26 C.C.No.3055/2016
Ex.P.7 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.9 : A copy of Notice
Ex.P.10 : sketch
Ex.P.11 : Mahazar
Ex.P.12 : Order copy in O.S.No.22/2012
Ex.P.13 : Interim Orders copy
Ex.P.14 : Agreement Letter
Ex.P.15 : Layout Map
Ex.P.16 to 18 : Sale deeds
Ex.P.19 : endorsement issued by BBMP
Ex.P.20 : Requisition
Ex.P.21 : requisition letter
Ex.P.22 to 27 ; 6 RTC.,
Ex.P.28 : Cc of the Plaint.
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL ( I.P NAIK) 30th A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
27 C.C.No.3055/2016Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.4 & 5 is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s.204, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and U/s.192 (A) (5) Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
The bail bond of accused person and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. is declined.
( I.P NAIK) th 30 A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
28 C.C.No.3055/2016( Due to oversight SO mahazar is marked two times as Ex.P.1 and P.2, through PW1 and PW2.
In order to avoid confusion hereinafter SO mahazar is considered as Ex.P.1 and statement witnesses recorded by PW4, while conducting survey of land bearing No.5/5, on 10.1.2012) 30th ACMM, Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.4 & 5 is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s.204, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and U/s.192 (A) (5) Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
The bail bond of accused person and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. is declined.
( I.P NAIK) th 30 A.C.M.M., Bangalore.