Bangalore District Court
Or It Is Created On The Letter Head Of The ... vs No.2 Is None Other Than Husband Of The ... on 4 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of June 2018
Present: Sri. Laxman R. Kurane., B.Com., LL.B (Spl),
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 22206/2010
2. Date of offence : 10.2.2010
3. Complainant : State by Rajagopalanagara Police Station
4. Accused : 1. Dr. L. Prashanth
S/o V.Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No. 11, 1st Main,
1st Cross, Prashanthinagara Layout,
ISRO Layout, Bangalore.
2. V. Lakshminarayana
S/o late Venkataramanappa,
Residing at No. 515, 10th cross,
Padmanabhanagara,
Kadirenahalli, Bangalore.
3. B.V.Sowmya W/o L. Prashanth,
28 years, r/at No. 11,
1st Main, 1st Cross,
Prashanthinagara Layout,
ISRO Layout, Bangalore.
4. Venkatesh S/o Muniyappa,
65 years, r/at No. 603, 11th B Cross,
Girinagara, 2nd Stage, Bangalore.
5. Shivaramaiah- SPLIT UP
2
6. Nagaraju S/o Thammegowda,
r/at No. 657, 4th Main, Srinagara,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained of : Sec. 468, 471, 419, 420, 120 (B) r/w 34
IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (2) Cr.P.C.Accused No.1 to
3 are convicted.
Acting U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Accused No.4
and 6 are acquitted.
The PSI of Rajagopalanagara Police Station has filed the final report
as against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 468,
471, 419, 420, 120 (B) r/w 34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the accused
No.1 was former trustee of Sushruthi Education Trust and came to know that
accused No.2 and C.W.1 are joint owners of certain properties and C.W.1 in
order to obtain approval from AICTE to start MBA degree college on
18.8.2007 sent accused No.1 to Delhi after putting his signature on two
blank letter heads, but the accused No.1 without using the said letter heads
for the said purpose kept it in his custody and on 8.7.2009 created GPA in
favour of accused No.3 for 17 properties situated at Nelamangala, Magadi
and Anekal, Bangalore North Taluk, and produced the same before C.W.4
3
G.K.Purushothama as if it is genuine document and got certified the said
GPA from C.W.5 B.V.Srinivas and registered the said certified GPA in the
office of the Sub Registrar, Kanakapura, on 8.7.2009 and made criminal
conspiracy and out of the said created GPA registered the properties
belonging to C.W.1 on to the name names of accused in different Sub
Registrar offices and thereby cheated C.W.1 and thereby committed the
aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 to 4 and 6 appeared through their counsel and
were enlarged on bail. As accused No.5 remained absconding, case against
him is split up and registered separate case. Prosecution papers are
furnished to the accused persons in compliance of 207 of Cr.P.C and after
hearing before charge, since no grounds were made out for their discharge,
charges were framed, read over to the accused persons in the language
known to them. The accused persons having understood the same, denied
it to be false and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter was set down for
trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons
had cited C.W.1 to 15 as its charge sheet witnesses, among whom C.W.1,
8,13, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 6 and 15 are examined as P.W.1 to 11 and got
4
marked Ex.P.1 to P.63 and M.O.1 and 2. The accused were questioned
under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material available in the case
of the prosecution. They denied the same and produced Ex.D.1 to D.34.
documents. As such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the learned Sr. APP for the prosecution and the learned
counsel for the accused persons. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Following point arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused No.1 used the blank signed letter heads issued by
C.W.1 to accused No.1 to be used to get approval from AICTE,
Delhi, to start MBA degree college, kept the same with him
and used the said document and forged GPA in favour of
accused No.3 on 8.7.2009 for the purpose of cheating as if
C.W.1 has given GPA in favour of accused No.1 to deal with
17 properties worth Rs 70 crores situated at Nelamangala,
Magadi and Anekal, Bangalore North Taluk, and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Sec.468 r/w 34 IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused No.1 used the blank signed letter heads issued by
C.W.1 to accused No.1 to be used to get approval from AICTE,
Delhi, to start MBA degree college, forged GPA and used as
genuine a forged document and produced before C.W.4 G.K.
Purushothama and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Sec.471 r/w 34 IPC ?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused No.1 used the blank signed letter heads issued by
C.W.1 to accused No.1 to be used to get approval from AICTE,
Delhi, to start MBA degree college, forged the GPA cheating
5
by personation and produced before C.W.4 G.K Purushothama
and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.419
r/w 34 IPC ?
(4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence to take over the properties of C.W.1 and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Sec.120 (B) r/w 34
IPC ?
(5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused persons created the GPA and got registered the
properties belonging to C.W.1 on to the name of accused
persons in different Sub Registrar's office and thereby cheating
and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property and
thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w
34 IPC ?
(6) What order ?
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 to 5 : In the affirmative.
Point No.6 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1 to 5 :
8. Since point No.1 to 5 are interconnected with each other, they are
taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
6
9. P.W.1 is the complainant in this case. He has stated in his
evidence that he has established the Sushruthi Education Trust and accused
No.1 is his sister's son, 2nd accused is the husband of his sister and in the
trust himself, his wife Raginidevi, his daughter Mokshathara.S. and accused
No.2 and 1 and his sister's son Somashekhar.L. were there and the object of
the trust was to provide education. On 7.8.2009 at 8 p.m. accused No.1
sent one Manjunath to his house and he has stated that P.W.1 has tendered
his resignation which has been accepted and that he should not come to the
trust on the next day onwards. P.W.1 has stated that he has not resigned and
the said Manjunath called accused No.1 over phone and the accused No.1
told him to see tomorrow's newspaper and the accused No.1 threatened him
with dire consequences if he comes to the trust. Then he went to Police
Station and lodged complaint.
10. P.W.1 has further stated that on 26.8.2009 accused No.1 and 2
brought 7-8 persons to his trust, broken the lock of the door, pushed the
women staff, dragged his wife who was the Director and created scene and
taken out the documents and cheque book kept on his table. His wife
informed the said incident to him and he went to the office of Asst.
Commissioner of Police and lodged complaint and immediately the ACP
sent him with escort and the accused ran away. Then he went to
7
Rajagopalanagara Police Station where they have declined to take his
complaint stating that the dispute is civil in nature. On 27.8.2009 he has
lodged complaint to the Commissioner of Police. Then he had sent show-
cause notice to the accused No.1 and 2 and as the reply tendered by them is
not satisfactory, he dismissed accused No.1 and 2 from the trust.
11. On 26.1.2010 he received an anonymous call and came to know
that all his properties situated at Anekal have been registered on to the name
of accused No.1 on the basis of Ex.P.1 GPA and he has to go to the office of
Sub Registrar to enquire. Then immediately he went to the office of Sub
Registrar and enquired and came to know that 4 properties i.e. Sy. No. 243,
244, 245 and 246 of Indlawadi Village, Anekal, got registered on to the
name of accused No.1 through gift deed by accused No.3. When he
enquired he came to know that on two letter heads of Sushruthi Education
Trust, his own 17 properties were shown, GPA has been made on the letter
head and Rs 500/- stamping done in Kanakapura.
12. P.W.1 has further stated that on 19.8.2007 he has signed the said
blank letter heads and handed over the same to accused No.1 to get approval
from AICTE, New Delhi to start MBA College from Sushruthi Education
Trust and sent accused No.1 along with two staff - Sathyanarayana and
8
Narayanarao to Delhi by putting signature and seal on the two blank letter
heads with instructions to use the same if necessary. He has further stated
that the same has been entered by one Mamatha and C.W.8 in a register and
handed over two signed letter heads to accused No.1 along with cash of Rs
19,000/- and sent them to Delhi. All these accused spoke to Minister
Muniyappa, went to his office and met his Personal Asst. and got the
approval letter. Then the P.A. called P.W.1 and informed that the approval
letter has been issued. On 25.8.2007 accused No.1 handed over approval
letter to him and stated that the letter heads were used. Then when he saw
the said letter head in Anekal and came to know that accused No.1 without
handing over the said letter heads cheated him by creating GPA as if he has
executed GPA conveying all the properties to accused No.3. The letter head
of the trust is marked as Ex.P.1 which contains two pages and his signature
is marked as Ex.P.1 (a) and (b). P.W.1 has further stated that he has taken
out all the documents of said 17 properties and on 7.2.2010 a paper
publication has been given in Kannada Prabha and Indian Express stating
that duplicate GPA has been created for his properties by accused No.1 and
through accused No.3 - 9 properties were registered on to the name of
accused No.1 and he sent notices to all the Sub Registrars not to create third
party interest on the said properties and he obtained encumbrance, certified
9
documents and pahanies of the said properties and on 10.2.2010 he has
lodged complaint to Rajagopalanagara Police station as per Ex.P.2.
13. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that after GPA on
20.7.2009, accused No.3 executed gift deed in favour of accused No.2 with
respect to property bearing Sy. No.22/2 measuring 2-acres 35 guntas
situated at Narayanapura, Nelamangala Taluk, belonging to him and thereby
cheated him. The property bearing No. 33/2 - 2 acres 35-guntas situated at
Narayanapura, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala, has been registered in the
office of the Sub Registrar, Nelamangala as accused No.3 has executed gift
deed in favour of accused No.1 and Nagaraju and Eshwar have signed as
witnesses for the same. Though the said document is gift deed, full stamp
duty has been paid. The said document is marked as Ex.P.3.
14. With respect to property bearing Sy. No. 32 - 3 acres 20-guntas in
the duplicate GPA, accused No.1, 2, 4 and 6 together have executed gift
deed in favour of accused No.1 and produced the same before Sub Registrar,
Nelamangala, where it was kept under suspension for want of documents
and the same has been registered in the month of December. On 8.8.2009 he
has lodged complaint to Rajagopalangara Police station and again on
26.8.2009 he has lodged another complaint. On 5.9.2009 accused No.1 and
10
2 were dismissed from his Sushruthi Education Trust which has been
published in the paper.
15. P.W.1 has further stated that the property bearing Sy. No. 38 - 20
guntas situated at Somashettihalli, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk, was in his name and on 20.7.2009 by using the said duplicate GPA as
if he is a attorney executed the said GPA, accused No.3 has executed gift
deed in favour of accused No.1 which has been registered in the office of
Sub Registrar, Peenya, by paying full stamp duty vide document No.
2073/2009-10 and the said document is marked as Ex.P.5 which has been
kept pending due to non availability of service sketch.
16. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that on 25.7.2009
accused No.2 has made equitable mortgage of two properties bearing Sy.
No. 62/8 and 68, ward No. 35, totally measuring 8025 feet to SLV
Souhardha Credit Co-Operative Bank and obtained Rs 80 lakhs loan which
has been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Laggere, in Document No.
1267/2009-2010 and the accused No.3 made P.W.1 as attorney in the
fabricated GPA and accused No.6 has signed the said document marked as
Ex.P.6.
11
17. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that from the fabricated
GPA marked as Ex.P.1 accused No.3 has executed gift deed in favour of
accused No.1 with respect to Sy. No. 243 - 2 acres 3 guntas, Sy. No. 244 - 2
acres 5 guntas, Sy. No. 245 - 2 acres 10 guntas and Sy. No. 246 - 2 acres 7
guntas making P.W.1 as attorney in Document No. 1243/2009-10 which has
been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Anekal and the said document
is marked as Ex.P.7. Out of the said fabricated GPA marked as Ex.P.1
accused No. 3 has executed gift deed in favour of accused No.1 with respect
to Sy. No. 156, 2-acres situated at Indlawadi Village, Anekal Taluk. Then
he has lodged complaint to Rajagopalanagara Police as per Ex.P.2. Further
P.W.1 has produced documents marked as Ex.P.8 to 53 pertaining to the 17
properties as mentioned in the fabricated GPA. He has further stated that he
has also filed civil suit in O.S. NO. 5248/10 with respect to the said 17
properties.
18. P.W.2 Jyothi.T., Accountant, Sushruthi Trust, has stated in her
evidence that C.W.1 is the trustee of the said trust called her at 5.30 p.m. and
informed that he is sending accused No.1 to New Delhi to obtain permission
to start MBA/AICTE and for letter correspondence asked her to bring the
letter head. Then she has obtained two letter heads from Mamatha, Junior
Assistant and handed over the same to C.W.1. C.W.1 signed the empty
12
letter heads and asked her to put seal on it and she obtained the seal of
Managing Trustee and put seal on to the blank signed letter heads signed by
C.W.1, put them on to a cover and also handed over cash of Rs 19,000/- and
accused No.1 took them to AICTE. After 4-5 days when accused No.1
returned, she asked about the letters for which the accused No.1 informed
her that the letters were used for AICTE work. Then after C.W.1 came to
know that by using the blank signed letters accused No.1 has fabricated GPA
and executed 17 properties in favour of accused No.3 and registered the
same in the office of Sub Registrars of Anekal, Nelamangala, Peenya and
Laggere and accused No.3 has executed gift deed in favour of accused No.1
based on the said fabricated GPA. Then after coming to know of these facts,
C.W.1 has lodged complaint to Rajagopalanagara Police and they called her
during February 2010 and enquired her and she narrated the facts. The letter
heads are marked as Ex.P.1.
19. P.W.3 Gopalakrishna has stated in his evidence that he knows
C.W.1 for 20 years and also knows accused No.1 and 2. On 26.1.2010 as
usual he went for walking at Pipeline, ISRO at 5.30-6 a.m. and accused No.2
informed him that accused No.1 has taken GPA of the properties from
C.W.1 and registered the properties in favour of accused No.1. Then he
informed the same to C.W.1 as his properties were registered at Anekal and
13
then C.W.1 confirmed the same and has lodged complaint. The
Rajagopalanagara Police called him after one week and he informed the
same to the police.
20. P.W.4 G.J.Purushotham, Accounts Department, has stated in his
evidence that he is witness to Ex.P.1 GPA and he has signed the same during
2009.
21. P.W.5 B.V.Srinivasan, Notary work, has stated in his evidence
that on 8.7.2009 one G.K.Purushothaman has brought two persons with a
GPA for notary and he perused and notarized and attested it. Then C.W.4
came to him stating that Rajagopalanagara Police made him as party. Then
he obtained anticipatory bail and produced before station. He has admitted
his signature to Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.1 (e), P.1 (f) and P.1 (g).
22. P.W.6 C.G. Raykar, Sr. Sub Registrar, Bommanahalli, has stated
in his evidence that he has worked as Sub Registrar at Nelamangala from
1.4.2009 to 30.6.2011 and the Rajagopalanagara Police asked him one
registered gift deed and after attesting it he has handed over the same
marked as Ex.P.4, his signature at Ex.P.4 (d). The said document pertains to
Sy. No. 32 - 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Narayanapura Village, Somapura
Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The said document shows the names of
14
Lakshminarayana.V. and Srinivasamurthy's GPA holder Sowmya to Dr.
Prashanth.L. and he has given his statement to SHO.
23. P.W.7 Devaraju has stated in his evidence that from 24.6.2009 to
24.4.2014 he was working as First Division Assistant and the
Rajagopalanagara Police asked him copy of gift deed and he has handed
over the same on 24.5.2010 marked as Ex.P.5 and his signature Ex.P.5 (d).
The said document is dated 20.7.2009 mentioning the name of
Srinivasamurthy's GPA holder Sowmya.B.V. to Dr. Prashanth.L. with
respect to Sy. No. 38 - 28 guntas, Somashettihalli, and he has given his
statement to the Police.
24. P.W.8 Chikkapeddanna, Senior Sub Registrar, Mahadevapura, has
stated in his evidence that the Rajagopalanagara police had asked some
documents. He has further stated that on 25.7.2009 Smt. Sowmya, accused
No.3 was the GPA holder on behalf of Sri Lakshmi Narayana.V. and
Srinivasamurthy had executed a document and given to SLE Souhardha Co-
Operative Society that a site No. 68, measuring 60 x 85, Assessment No.
63/2, Hegganahalli village for Rs 80 lakhs and another item No. 2 measuring
65 x 45, totally measuring 8025 square feet and he has registered the said
document and put his signature on Ex.P.6 as Ex.P.6 (e) and also issued
15
certified copy which is also signed by him as Ex.P.6 (f). The said document
has been produced by accused No.3 for registration and two witnesses have
signed the said document and he has registered the same and given
endorsement as per Ex.P.6 (e) and he has given his statement to the Police.
25. P.W.9 Kamala.B.G., Retired Sub Registrar, BSK 2nd Stage,
Bangalore, has stated in her evidence that on 28.7.2009 accused No.3 came
to her office as GPA holder of Lakshminarayana.V. and Srinivasamurthy.N.
and produced the gift deed to be executed in favour of accused No.1 Dr. L.
Prashanth along with witnesses Nagaraj and Shivaram. She has taken
Government fees and registered the said gift deed as per Ex.P.17 and she
has signed the same as Ex.P.17 (a) to (c) and the signatures, photos and
fingers prints of accused No.3 and 1 are identified as Ex.P.17 (d) to (e). She
has further stated that on the same day i.e. on 28.7.2009 the same party has
produced another gift deed and she has registered the said document also as
per Ex.P.47 and her signature is at Ex.P.47 (a) to (c) and the signatures,
photos and finger prints of accused No.3 and 1 are identified as Ex.P.47 (d)
to (e).
26. P.W.10 K.S.Shanthaiah, Sub Registrar, Honnawara has stated in
his evidence that during the year 2009 he was working as Sub Registrar at
16
Kanakapura Sub Registrar's office and on 7.7.2009 as the Sub Registrars Sri
Ramesh and Sri Shivaputhra Thanga have gone to annual meeting to
Ramanagara, he was working as Incharge Sub Registrar. At that time
Lakshminarayan and Srinivasamurthy came to his office and told that they
have to do Sushruthi Education trust and something is typed on the letter
head of Sushruthi Education Trust and asked him to do franking of Rs
1,000/- and he has done franking on Ex.P.1 and his signature is marked as
Ex.P.1 (h) and (j). He has further stated that he has not read the contents of
Ex.P.1. Thereafter Rajagopalanagara police came to his office on 20.2.2010
and shown Xerox copy of Ex.P.1 and he told them that he has done franking
and signed it and he has given his statements to the Police. The learned Sr.
APP requested to treat this witness partially hostile and permitted
accordingly.
27. P.W.11 S.Narasimhaiah, P.I. Hebbala has stated in his evidence
that on 10.2.2010 at 5 p.m. complainant has submitted typewritten Ex.P.2
and he registered the same in Crime No. 53/2010 which is marked as
Ex.P.59. On 18.2.2010 at 10.15 p.m. accused No.1 was produced before
him and he arrested him and recorded his statement. On 19.2.2010 as
accused No.1 was required for investigation he was produced before the
Court and taken police custody up to 23.2.2010. On 19.2.2010 as per the
17
statement of accused No.1 he went to his house and taken out GPA for 17
properties from the almirah and seized in the presence of Prakash and Suresh
and subjected the same to P.F. No. 24/2010. He has further stated that on
20.2.2010 along with accused No.1 visited the office of Sub Registrar,
Kanakapura, and given requisition and obtained registered document of
GPA pertaining to 17 properties and on 22.2.2010 along with accused No.1
visited the chamber of accused No.1 at Sushruthi Education Organization
and seized Intel Pentium mercury company CPU, Linova Company laptop in
the presence of Suresh and K.Suresh and subjected the same to P.F. 25/2010
by drawing mahazar Ex.P.62. He has further stated that he has recorded
statement of C.W.5, C.W.4, C.W.9, C.w.10, C.W.11, C.W.6, C.W.14, C.W.8
and also obtained document with regard to payment of Rs 19,000/- to
accused by the complainant and recorded further statement of complainant
and after completing investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused
persons.
28. Except the evidence of these 11 witnesses, the prosecution has not
examined any other witnesses. The case of the complainant is that on
19.8.2007 he has signed two blank letters with seal and issued the same to
the accused No.1 and sent him along with Sathyanarayana and Narayanarao
to Delhi with instructions to use the said signed blank letters if necessary to
18
get AICTE, New Delhi approval to run MBA College from Sushruthi
Education Trust. But the accused No.1 without using the signed letter heads
for the purpose of getting approval from AICTE, New Delhi, retained the
signed letters with them and by criminally conspiring with other accused had
created a GPA in the name of accused No.3 on 8.7.2009 with an intention to
possess the properties valuing about Rs 70 crores, got the same registered in
the office of Sub Registrar at Kanakapura. On 20.7.2009 accused No.3 by
virtue of the GPA dated 8.7.2009 had registered gift deeds in respect of the
lands in Sy. No. 32, 33/2 of Narayanapura Village in Nelamangala, Sy. No.
38 of Somashetty halli village and on 25.7.2009 a deposit of title deeds in
respect of the property khatha No.245 sitauted at Ward No. 35, assessment
No. 63/2 and 68 for Rs 80 lakhs and on 28.7.2009 a gift deed was executed
in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 243, 244, 245 and 246 of Indlawadi Village
of Anekal Taluk in favour of accused No.1 in collusion with the other
accused and thereby deceived P.W.1, the complainant.
29. Now it is to be seen whether the GPA has been executed by the
complainant or it is created on the letter head of the complainant's Sushruthi
Education Trust. Ex.P.1 is the General Power of Attorney, alleged to have
been executed by the complainant in favour of accused No.3. If we peruse
the General Power of Attorney marked as Ex.P.1, nowhere it is stated for
19
what specific reason/purpose the said General Power of Attorney has been
executed by the complainant. If any person executes General Power of
Attorney there should be some specific reason i.e. whether the person who
executes such GPA is suffering from any disease and cannot move, he is too
busy or he might go abroad and under such circumstances only normally
General Power of Attorney will be executed to his trusted person.
Moreover, P.W.1, the complainant Srinivasamurthy who is well educated
and had experience of working as Senior Manager in public limited
company BEL might know the repercussion of GPA if executed without any
specific purpose or reason. Therefore, it is presumed that he has not
executed Ex.P.1 but only he has issued the signed blank letters to accused
No.1 to use the same for the purpose of obtaining AICTE approval to run
MBA College from his Sushruthi Education Trust, but the accused No. 1 to
3 have created GPA for their illegal acts.
30. Moreover, the font size of the letters printed on Ex.P.1 GPA is
small and not normal size font, no sufficient space is left out for left and
right side margin and usually the Sub Registrar on most of the registered
documents puts his signature after the contents of words at the bottom of the
document. If he signs the documents on top, he will also put his signature
with seal on bottom of the document. In Ex.P.1, the Sub Registrar has only
20
affixed his signature with seal on right side top of the document only on both
pages of Ex.P.1 with his seal and date, but he has not signed at the bottom of
the document. One more important thing to be noted that Ex.P.1 GPA is
dated 8.7.2009 and the Advocate and notary has also attested and signed and
put the date as 8.7.2009, but the Sub Registrar who has signed Ex.P.1 has
put the date as 7.7.2009. The Sub Registrar who is examined as P.W.10
has also stated in his evidence that he has registered Ex.P.1 on 7.7.2009.
Normally if any document is registered, the date on the document and the
Sub Registrar who signs the document also on the same date or on
subsequent dates, but the date written by Sub Registrar is one day prior to
the date written on the document which clearly shows that Ex.P.1 is created
by the accused persons according to their convenience.
31. The learned counsel for the accused persons has cross-examined
P.W.1 at length on various aspects. But the crux of the matter is whether
GPA has been genuine or not. As stated above, the complainant has clearly
stated that he has issued blank signed letter heads marked as Ex.P.1 to use
the same to get AICTE approval from New Delhi to start MBA College. But
the accused No.1 and 2 without using the same kept it and later on created
GPA and based on the alleged GPA, the accused No.3, wife of accused
No.1, executed gift deed in favour of accused No.1. Hence, the accused
21
persons have clearly cheated the complainant and mis-used the trust reposed
by him. If we peruse Ex.P.1, it can be presumed that Ex.P.1 is created as in
normal circumstances if any person executes such important document as
GPA, in the office of Sub Registrar, the person who executes the document
in favour of his trusted person, shall appear before the office of Sub
Registrar and in the office of Sub Registrar, the photos of the Executants and
also the photo of GPA holder will be taken along with their signatures with
left hand thumb impressions. If the witnesses who signs the GPA shall also
have to appear before the Sub Registrar along with the Executants and GPA
holder and their photo with signature and left hand thumb impressions will
be taken in the office of Sub Registrar on such important document.
Whereas, if we peruse Ex.P.1, except the signatures of the Sub Registrar that
too on right side top of the document with one day previous date and seal
affixed, the photos of Executants, GPA holder and the witnesses who have
signed GPA is not at all taken on such very important document. Even
prior to the year 2009 the procedure of taking photos along with left hand
thumb impression was the practice in the office of Sub-Registrar. Ex.P.1 is
registered on 7.7.2009. Hence, it clearly proves the case of the complainant
that Ex.P.1 is created by the accused according to their convenience on the
blank letter heads signed by him not for the purpose of executing GPA but
22
for the purpose of getting AICTE approval from New Delhi to start MBA
College from his Sushruthi Education Trust.
32. The prosecution has argued and filed written arguments. The
learned counsel for the accused has also argued in detail and also produced
written arguments. I have perused the both the written arguments.
33. In the written arguments the prosecution stated that the main
allegation of the complainant N. Srinivasamurthy is that the accused No.1
who is none other then son of his sister had been associated with him right
from the childhood of accused No.1 and he was nominated as a trustee
during 1998-99 of the Trust and he was a most confidant lieutenant who
used to personally assist and take the responsibilities of N. Srinivasamurthy,
P.W.1, in regard to the functions of the Trust and other personal matters. He
misused that confidence reposed by him by P.W.1 and fabricated a General
Power of Attorney on a pre-signed but blank letterhead of the Trust which
had been given to him to collect permission from the AICTE, Delhi in 2007.
Accused No.2 is none other than husband of the sister of C.W.1 and father of
accused No.1. Accused No.3 is wife of accused No.1 and other accused are
close associates of accused No.1, 2 and 3. It is not in dispute that 5 gift
deeds have been executed by accused No.3 in favour of accused No.1 using
23
the fabricated GPA, thus conveying eight of the properties through 5 gift
deeds and in respect of two properties for an alleged loan of Rs 80,00,000/-.
This has been clearly admitted by way of suggestion, when they cross-
examined the C.W.1 at page No. 108, but attribute the making of the GPA
which is marked as Ex.P.1, on C.W.1 himself.
34. The prosecution in his written arguments stated that by very
appearance of Ex.P.1, it is abundantly manifest that no sane person would
execute GPA on such a letter head of a Trust as in the present instance.
Prima facie the letter head is from individuals in respect of the properties
totally unconnected with the Trust. The main clause which is mandatory as
to the accounting of consideration so obtained by the attorney in transacting
the so called properties is absent. The font size of the entire document
appears to be about 6 or 8 which is very much abnormal and no GPA or no
document either is printed with such a small font size. Normal size for
General power of attorney would not be less than 14 and sometimes it may
go up to 16. The blank signed letter head has been converted into printed
GPA subsequently by manipulating DTP typing to appear as though same
has been typed or made earlier to signature. Unfortunately, accused have
failed in their attempts. The schedule has been squeezed with the particulars
of the properties which is very much obvious. If C.W.1 was to execute such
24
a GPA genuinely, there was no dearth of paper for him. He would definitely
have used a pre-stamped paper with perfect drafting and explaining each
items of the schedule clearly and in detail. Notary himself has deposed that
executants were never there when he notarized. The Advocate Sri
Purushothaman has not identified the signatures, particularly that of C.W.1
as per his own version. Further, if we peruse the evidence of P.W.10 Sri
Shanthaiah admits in his cross-examination by the defense itself that Sri
Srinivasamurthy was never visible in the office. It was only Sri
Lakshminarayana who represented that Sri. N. Srinivasamurthy had come to
the office but the said P.W.10 never saw him in the office and he denied the
identification of N. Srinivasamurthy. This amply proves that P.W.10 who
was in-charge of the SRO at that time has been shown with some typed letter
heads to convince him and sought embossment with stamp duty. But it is
apparently clear that while embossing the stamp duty, the accused have
replaced the said typed letterhead with the blank letterheads on which Ex.P.1
has been made to get embossed with the stamp duty. This accused have
cheated even the Government servant P.W.10. If it is for GPA as a pre-
written/printed GPA, the statutory authorities would certainly demand stamp
duty as per Article 41 (eb) which is stipulated as Article 20 (1) on the market
value of the property which is the subject matter of the power of attorney.
25
The GPA holder can never be permitted or delegated with power to gift.
Gift is always extremely personal prerogative of the executant/owner of a
property.
35. Further the prosecution stated that if the Sub-Registrars had been
shown the so called GPA in its original at the time of presenting the gift
deeds for registration, the SROs would have certainly refused to accept the
same and would have refused to register the same as the so called GPA is
contrary to the very Section 33 and 34 of the Indian Registration Act and the
SROs would not get jurisdiction to accept the documents for registration.
The law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
KISHORE CHANDRA VS GANESH PRASAD reported in AIR 1954
SC 316. Thus, the accused have cheated very Officers of the Government
by their own ingenious methods. The prosecution has also relied on the
decision reported in 1963 (2) Criminal Law Journal 36 - Ranjit Sinha Vs.
State and Laws (DLH) 1985 123-High Court of Delhi, Criminal Misc.
(Main) 444 of 1984-Narain Singh Vs. State of Delhi and prays to punish
the accused under Sec. 409, 468, 471, 419, 420, 120 (B) r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
Judicial note may kindly be taken that though no charge has been framed
under Sec. 409 as against accused No.1, the evidence before the Court is
abundant enough to bring home charge under Sec. 409 as against accused
26
No.1. The Hon'ble Court cannot ignore the other criminal cases in which
accused No.1 is very much involved which clearly demonstrates his criminal
personality. His offence is not only against C.W.1 but also against the
society itself. Judicial note will have to be taken that he has also fabricated
resignation of very C.W.1 to the Trust by using latest computer technology
of scanner and printer. This has been proved by the FSL itself on referring
the said alleged resignation to the FSL by the Court itself. Hence prayed to
convict the accused persons.
36. The counsel for the accused No.2 has filed written arguments
which has been adopted by accused No.1, 3 and 4. The counsel for the
accused No.1 to 4 has also argued in length. In the written arguments it is
stated that due to the proximity of relationship between accused No.1 and
P.W.1, both had acquired large number of properties in their joint names and
subsequently in the year 1999 they established a trust in the name and style
of Shushruti Education Trust. Besides accused No.2 and P.W.1, their
family members i.e. P.W.1's wife and daughter and accused No.2's sons are
the permanent trustee's of the said trust. Accused No.1 is the son of accused
No.2, accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.1, accused No.4 is the father
of accused No.3, accused No.5 and 6 are not related to him.
27
37. The counsel for accused has further stated in his written arguments
that accused No.2 and P.W.1 were intending to expand the activities of the
trust by establishing Dental, Pharmacy, Hotel Management colleges and they
were in dire need of lands to establish. Since the trust cannot acquire lands
directly in its name in view of restrictions imposed under the Land laws,
both accused No.2 and P.W.1 have acquired several lands. It is the decision
of P.W.1 that all the lands should be transferred in the name of Dr. Prashanth
who is his close confidant and thereafter, obtain conversion orders of the
lands in his name and after getting the same converted, the lands should be
transferred to the trust. It is his decision that a GPA should be executed in
the name of the wife of Dr. Prashanth i.e. in the name of accused No.3 and
thereafter all the agricultural lands should be transferred in to the name of
accused No.1 Dr. Prashanth by gift deeds. According to P.W.1, this would
save huge amounts of stamp duty payable to the Government at the time of
registration of the deeds and as well get over the consequences of the effect
of Sec. 79 (A) and (b) of the Lands Reforms Act. Pursuant to the decision of
P.W.1, it is he who took accused No.2 to Kanakapura Sub Registrar's office
when they had gone together to oversee some work in his land at
Kanakapura, got the GPA embossed by passing necessary stamp duty.
After the death of the wife of accused No.2 i.e. the younger sister of P.W.1,
28
the attitude of P.W.1 towards accused No.2 and his family had slowly
changed and he had started treating the accused No.2 and his sons who are
the trustee's of the trust very badly. After 25.8.2009 cases and counter
cases were filed by P.W.1 against accused No.1 and 2 and on 5.9.2009
P.W.1 had clandestinely removed accused No.1 and 2 from the trust. It is
the definite case of accused that they have not created Ex.P.1 GPA. P.W.1
by suppressing material facts and colluding with the Rajgopalanagara Police
in general and ACP Ajjappa, P.I. Poornachandra Tejaswi and Narasimhaiah
in particular, created a story and registered a case through Ex.P.2, knowing
fully well that the dispute even if accepted as true, it only gives raise to a
civil cause of action. In order to bring home the charges against the accused,
the prosecution must prove the delivery of the alleged blank signed, sealed
letter heads, allegedly given to accused No.1 for the purpose of utilizing the
same in connection with dealing with AICTE, New Delhi and thereafter they
should prove that the very same letter heads were misused by falsely making
a document, using the same as genuine and thereby deceived P.W.1. The
prosecution had failed to establish the delivery of the alleged two blank
signed letter heads to accused No.1 and further failed to prove that the
accused have conspired to deceive by P.W.1 by allegedly using the very
same letter heads created GPA and thereby deceived the complainant P.W.1.
29
The alleged recovery of Ex.P.1 at the instance of accused No.1 is shrouded
with suspicion because no inmates of the house were taken as panch
witnesses. The prosecution had failed to prove the recovery in accordance
with law to bring home the same within the ambit of recovery under Sec. 27
of Indian Evidence Act. On these and other grounds the counsel for the
accused prays to acquit the accused persons.
38. I have gone through the entire arguments of both the learned Sr.
APP and learned counsel for accused. As stated above in the discussion of
earlier paragraphs, the prosecution has proved its case that the accused
persons have created/fabricated GPA on the blank signed letter heads of
P.W.1 issued by him to the accused for the purpose of getting permission
from AICTE, New Delhi, to start MBA College from his Sushruthi
Education Trust. But the accused persons by misusing the trust reposed by
P.W.1 have created GPA and submitted the same before the office of Sub
Registrars for execution of gift deeds based on the alleged GPA.
39. The learned counsel for accused No.1 to 4 has relied on the
following decisions in support of their case:
(a) Md. Ibrahim & ors. Vs. State of Bihar - Crl. Appeal No. 1695 of
2009, dt. 4.9.2009.
(b) AIR 1972 SC 464.
30
(c) AIR 1955 SC 585.
(d) AIR SC 1309.
(e) AIR 1957 SC 637 Head Note-E.
(f) AIR 1985 SC 1224 para 14.
(g) AIR 1983 SC 906 Head Note-C.
(h) AIR 1975 SC 1387.
(i) (1980) 1 SCC 530.
(j) (1972) 3 SCC 759.
(k) AIR 1990 SC 2140 Head Note-C.
(l) 1996 (8) Supreme 581.
(m)AIR 1973 SC 501.
(n) AIR 1993 SC 2644 Head Note-B.
(o) AIR 1959 Calcutta 342 Head Note-B.
(p) 1980 Cri. L.J.264.
(q) LAWS (SC) 1988 7 Page 67.
(r) CRM-A-345-MA-of 2013 (O & M).
(s) Appeal (Cri) 518 of 2006 Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case
D.D.11.01.2008 (AIR 2008 SC 1325).
(t) AIR 1974 (SC) 778.
(u) 2006 (12) SCC 306.
31
With respect to the above cited decisions, the decisions relied on by the
counsel for the accused will not be helpful to the accused persons under the
facts and circumstances of the present case in hand. In the written
arguments the learned counsel for the accused taken a contention that in
order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution must
prove the delivery of the alleged blank signed, sealed letter heads, allegedly
given to the accused No.1 for the alleged purpose of utilizing the same in
connection with dealing with AICTE, New Delhi. Thereafter they should
prove that the very same letter heads were misused by falsely making a
document, using the same as genuine and thereby deceived P.W.1. As
discussed above in earlier paragraphs, the complainant has clearly stated in
his evidence that he has not executed GPA Ex.P.1 but he has only signed
blank letter heads with seal and handed over to accused No.1 for getting
AICTE approval for starting MBA College from his Sushruthi Education
Trust. No prudent man executes the GPA without any specific reason for a
single bit of property. If we peruse Ex.P.1 no specific reason is mentioned
for executing such important document. Here in this case out of the
fabricated GPA, the accused No.1 to 3 have deceived P.W.1 and misused the
trust reposed by the complainant and executed gift deed of the properties by
accused No.3 in favour of accused No.1. Moreover, except the signature of
32
Sub Registrar that too on right hand side top on two pages with seal, the Sub
Registrar has not signed the GPA at the bottom of registered document as it
is the practice by most of the Sub Registrars to sign the registered document
at the top as well at the bottom or at the end of the document.
40. The learned counsel for the accused argued that in order to bring
home the charges against the accused, the prosecution must prove the
delivery of the alleged blank signed, sealed letter heads, allegedly given to
accused No.1 for the purpose of utilizing the same in connection with
dealing with AICTE, New Delhi and thereafter they should prove that the
very same letter heads were misused by falsely making a document, using
the same as genuine and thereby deceived P.W.1. As stated above in
earlier paragraphs, if we peruse Ex.P.1, there is no specific reason for
executing GPA by the complainant. Moreover, complainant/P.W.1 is well
educated and had experience of working Senior Manager in BEL and also
when he is running the Trust has not executed Ex.P.1 in such a fashion
without any reason, except he put his signature on the letter heads of the
Trust for the purpose of getting approval from AICTE and the accused No.1
to 3 colluded together have fabricated the blank signed letter heads and
converted it as GPA and out of the said fabricated GPA accused No.3 as the
GPA holder of Ex.P.1 has executed gift deeds in favour of accused No.1.
33
41. The Advocate for accused No.2 argued that the then ACP Ajjappa
and P.I. were attended the school function of P.W.1 and the P.W.11 I.O. has
carried out investigation as per the instructions and direction of ACP
Ajjappa and submitted that the ACP Ajjappa, P.I. and I.O. by colluding with
P.W.1 have filed false charge sheet against the accused. It is true that ACP
Ajjappa and the then P.I. attended the college function of P.W.1, but it
cannot be said that the said persons directed the P.W.11 to investigate the
matter as per their direction and to file charge sheet against the accused.
42. The Advocate for accused further submitted that the character of
P.W.1 very important as he made allegations against this Court stating that
this Court is not disposing the matter quickly. It is true that the P.W.1 has
filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and
sought direction to this Court to dispose the matter as early as possible.
Every affected person from the acts of another person has right to get the
relief quickly, therefore the P.W.1 has approached the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka to dispose this matter as early as possible. Therefore, the said
act of P.W.1 does not come in the way of the case of the prosecution.
43. The Advocate for accused further argued that there is delay in
filing the complaint as P.W.1 knew the said fact in the year 2009 and the
34
said fact reveals from Ex.D.3. The Advocate for accused argued that in
Ex.D.3 the complainant, P.W.1 has not stated regarding issuance of blank
signed letter heads and payment of Rs 19,000/- cash to meet the expenses to
go to Delhi to get perform from AICTE to start MBA College. But in para-
13 he has stated that he was shocked about the transfer of properties on to
the name of accused No.1, therefore the argument of the accused counsel
cannot be accepted. P.W.1 after knowing the fact of transfer of property in
the name of accused No.1 after verifying by going to the office of Sub
Registrar, Anekal, has filed the complaint against the accused. The accused
have not explained how they came in possession of letter heads of P.W.1.
44. P.W.10 K.S.Shanthaiah who has registered the Ex.P.1 in his cross-
examination has stated that he cannot identify Srinivas Murthy due to lapse
of 7 to 8 years. If really P.W.1 went to the office of P.W.10 along with
accused No.2, P.W.10 should have identified P.W.1. P.W.10 has further
stated that the accused No.2 who came to his chamber and stated that he
identified Srinivas Murthy as the Chairman of Trust and requested him to
register the document, therefore, he has identified the accused No.2. It
shows that P.W.1 was not present at the time of registration of Ex.P.1. He
denied that in Ex.P.58 it is stated that the said GPA has been created for
education trust. It reveals that the accused No.1 to 3 forged letter heads of
35
Ex.P.1. The Ex.P.1 was attended on 8.7.2009 and it was registered on
7.7.2009. If it has been really executed by PW.1 on 8.7.2009 it should have
been registered on the same day. It shows that P.W.10 has registered the
Ex.P.1 before attestation of Ex.P.1. It clearly goes to show that Ex.P.1 GPA
has been created and fabricated document.
45. The Advocate for accused argued that handing over of letter head
and payment of Rs 19,000/- cash was not proved by the prosecution and
stated that PW.1 himself has executed Ex.P.1. P.W.1 has specifically denied
the execution of Ex.P.1. Moreover, the accused No.2 in his 313 Cr.P.C.
statement nowhere stated that P.W.1 accompanied with him to the office of
the Sub Registrar and executed Ex.P.1 GPA in the name of accused No.3.
Therefore, the argument of accused counsel is not accepted.
46. The Advocate for accused drawn my attention towards recovery of
Ex.P.1 and submitted that the panchas have turned out hostile and recovery
was not proved. The advocate for accused drawn my attention towards
Ex.P.60 statement of accused and Ex.P.61 seizure mahazar. The accused
No.1 in his statement admitted that P.W.1 has issued two letter heads to get
permission to start MBA College. It is sufficient to hold that P.W.1 has
handed over letter heads to accused No.1. The advocate for accused
36
submitted that there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 and 2
regarding issuance of blank signed letter heads. Every witness cannot
depose which tallies with each other, but there may be some contradictions
and it will not affect the entire case of the prosecution. The advocate for
accused has not explained for what purpose P.W.1 along with accused No.2
has executed Ex.P.1 GPA in favour of accused No.3. P.W.1 being well
educated, if he really intends to avoid stamp duty, he should have executed
gift deed in favour of accused No.1 directly and he should not have executed
Ex.P.1 in the name of accused No.3, the wife of accused No.1. The
contents of Ex.P.1 is very important and it has been typed to suit the pages.
It clearly shows that the accused No.1 to 3 have created Ex.P.1 GPA to
knock off the properties of P.W.1.
47. The advocate for accused further argued that the notary's register
was not seized by the I.O. and not produced to prove that Ex.P.1 was forged
and argued that if notary has committed illegality, P.W.1 should have
complained before the Hon'ble Principal District Judge. The I.O has not
seized the register and this irregularity and illegality does not come in the
way of the case of the prosecution.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in SCC 2004 (3) 653
held that :
37
"defective investigation not fatal to the case of the
prosecution, if the ocular testimony found credible
and cogent and Court has to be circumspect while
evaluating the evidence in a case of such type.
Thus accused cannot be acquitted solely on
account of defective investigation."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in State of
Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (SCC p.720, para 19) held that :
"19..... even if the investigation is illegal or even
suspicious the rest of the evidence must be
scrutinized independently of the impact of it.
Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the
level of the investigating officers ruling the
roost.....Criminal justice should not be made a
casualty for the wrongs committed by the
investigating officers in the case. In other words,
if the court is convinced that the testimony of a
witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to
act on it albeit the investigating officer's
suspicious role in the case."
In this case, the accused who are relatives of PW.1 and if the P.W.1
really intends to transfer the property in the name of accused No.1, he should
have directly executed gift deed and not by executing Ex.P.1 in the name of
accused No.3. Therefore, the defect of I.O. in investigation is not fatal to the
case of the prosecution and it cannot be brushed aside the entire case of the
prosecution.
48. The advocate for accused stated that P.W.11 in his cross-
examination at page No.22 stated that he has not seen M.O.1 and 2, whether
38
the letter heads were typed on the said M.O.1 and 2 and he did not know
whether M.O.1 and 2 are in good condition. The advocate for accused
further argued that P.W.1 I.O. in his cross-examination at page No.22 stated
that he has not investigated regarding whether the accused No.1 goes to
Delhi to take permission to start MBA College and stated that except oral
evidence of P.W.1 and his co-associates, the complainant has not produced
any document to show that the accused No.1 went to Delhi to get MBA
permission.
49. The advocate for accused further argued that the I.O. P.W.11 has
not seized original gift deeds and other documents. The advocate for
accused argued that the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused on the
influence of ACP Ajjappa and by colluding with P.W.1. It is already
observed supra that the defective investigation is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution where testimony of witnesses found credible and cogent. P.W.1
is none other than the relative of accused No.1 to 3. If he intends to avoid
stamp duty, he should have directly executed gift deeds in the name of
accused No.1. Therefore, it creates about genuineness of Ex.P.1 and it is a
forged document by the accused No.1 to 3. The seizure of original gift
deeds or the execution of gift deeds are the subsequent events after Ex.P.1
39
and non seizure of original gift deeds does not affect the case of the
prosecution.
50. The advocate for accused argued that Ex.D.12 is very important
document which was filed by P.W.1 to Police Station on 8.8.2009 and
Ex.P.2 was lodged on 10.2.2009. P.W.1 has knowledge about Ex.P.1 on
8.8.2009 but he has lodged complaint after 6 months and the P.W.1 has not
explained delay in filing the complaint. P.W.1 has received telephonic call
on 26.1.2010 from unknown person that the properties of Anekal was
transferred in the name of accused No.1 through GPA and it means that on
8.8.2009 P.W.1 has no knowledge of Ex.P.1. So the argument of accused
counsel that P.W.1 has not explained the delay in filing the complaint is not
tenable when the P.W.1 has knowledge about Ex.P.1 has filed complaint on
10.2.2010 after verifying in the office of Sub Registrar at Anekal.
51. The advocate for accused argued that Ex.D.30 and D.31 are the
'B' report filed by the I.O. on the complaint lodged by accused No.1 against
P.W.1 and submitted that the I.O. has filed 'B' report by colluding with
P.W.1 and ACP Ajjappa. If that is so, then the accused No.1 has right to
challenge the same in the Court of law to proceed against P.W.1. The
advocate for accused submitted that the I.O. has not followed the guidelines
40
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jyothi Basu's case and it reveals that the I.O. has
colluded with P.W.1 to fit the case against the accused. The said argument
is also not come in the way of disposal of case of the prosecution.
52. The Advocate for accused submitted that the case of prosecution is
civil in nature and the P.W.1 by colluding with police has filed the criminal
case and relied upon the ruling reported in Crl. Appeal No. 1695/2009 -
Mohammed Ibrahim and others v/s State of Bihar and another.
I have gone through the above said ruling and the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The above said ruing is totally different
from the present case in hand. In this case, accused No.1 to 3 have forged
the letter heads of P.W.1 and transferred the lands on to the name of accused
No.1. The PW.1 who is relative to accused No.1 to 3 and accused No.2 who
is the father of accused No.1 and father-in-law of accused No.3, if really
PW.1 has executed Ex.P.1 in favour of accused No.3, he should have
executed the same on proper stamp paper and he should have executed gift
deed in name of accused No.1 instead of executing Ex.P.1 GPA. Therefore,
it shows that the accused No.1 to 3 mis-used and forged the letter heads of
P.W.1 and created Ex.P.1 GPA.
Therefore, there are prima facie materials against accused No.1 to 3
only that they have committed the offences punishable under Secs. 468, 471,
41
419, 420, 120 (B) r/w 34 IPC, but there is no case against accused No.4 and
6 as they have only signed certain registered documents as witnesses and
their role is limited only to that extent. P.W.1 has established his case that
he has not executed Ex.P.1, but it has been fabricated by accused persons to
deceive him. Hence, I answer the above points No.1 to 5 in the affirmative.
Point No. 6 :
53. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 468, 471, 419, 420, 120 (B) r/w 34 IPC.
Acting under Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.4 and 6 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 468, 471, 419, 420, 120 (B) r/w 34 IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3 shall be heard regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 4th day of June 2018) (LAXMAN R. KURANE), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
42ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard both learned Sr. APP and the learned counsel for accused on sentence.
The learned Sr. APP argued that the accused No.1 to 3 have cheated and got transferred the properties of P.W.1 through GPA Ex.P.1 which is worth Rs 70 to 80 crores. The advocate for accused submitted that accused No.2 is aged 70 years and he has equal right in the properties of P.W.1 which is alleged to have been cheated by the accused. The advocate for accused submitted that the accused No.1 is a Doctor by profession and accused No.3 is wife of accused No.1, who came from respectable family and prays for taking lenient view in acquitting the accused.
The accused No.1 to 3 are the relatives of complainant/P.W.1 and they have cheated the complainant.
Heard both sides.
The offence committed by the accused No.1 to 3 are serious in nature and hence they are not entitle for any lenient view. Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/s. 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs 25,000/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days.43
Acting U/s. 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs 25,000/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days.
Acting U/s. 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 419 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs 15,000/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days.
Acting U/s. 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs 25,000/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days.
Acting U/s. 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 120 (B) IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 months and fine of Rs 5,000/- each, in default S.I. for 15 days.
The period undergone in J.C. if any, shall be given set off. All the above sentences shall run concurrently. Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
VII ACMM, BENGALURU 44 ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Srinivasamurthy P.W.2 : Jyothi P.W.3 : Gopalakrishna P.W.4 : Purushothama P.W.5 : Srinivasan P.W.6 : Raykar P.W.7 : H.Devaraju P.W.8 : Chikkapeddanna P.W.9 : Kamala P.W.10 : K.S.Shanthaiah P..W.11 : Narasimhaiah
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : GPA dt: 08.07.2009 ( In Two Pages) Ex.P.1(a) & 1(b) : Signatures of P.W.1 Srinivasa Murthy on Ex.P.1 Ex.P.1(c) & (d) : Signatures of P.W.4 Purshothaman on Ex.P.1 Ex.P.1(e), (f) & (g): Signatures of P.W.5 B.V.Srinivasan on Ex.P.1 Ex.P.1(h) & (j) : Signatures of P.W.10 Shanthiah on Ex.P.1 Ex.P.2. : Complaint Ex.P.2(a) to (c) : Signatures of P.W.1 Srinivasa Murthy on Ex.P.2 Ex.P.2(d) : Signature of P.W.11 Narashimhiah S Ex.P.3. : Gift Deed dt:20.07.2009 in respect of Sy.No.22/2 of Narayanapura Village Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Accused No.3 on Ex.P.3 Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of Accused No.1 on Ex.P.3 Ex.P.3(c)&(d) : Signatures of PW-11 Narasimhaiah Ex.P.4. : Gift Deed dt:20.07.2009 in respect of Sy.No.32 of Narayanapura Village Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of Accused No.3 on Ex.P.4 Ex.P. 4(b) : Signature of Accused No.1 on Ex.P.4 Ex.P.4( c ) : Signature of PW-11 Narasimhaiah Ex.P.5. : Gift Deed dt:20.07.2009 in respect of Sy.No.38 of Somashetty Halli Village Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of Accused No.1 on Ex.P.5 Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of Accused No.3 on Ex.P.5 45 Ex.P.5(c) : Signature of Accused No.6 on Ex.P.5 Ex.P.6. : Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dt:23.07.2009 in respect of the property bearing Assessment No.63/2 & 68, Hegganahalli Village Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of Accused No.1 on Ex.P.6 Ex.P.6(b) : Signature of Accused No.3 on Ex.P.6 Ex.P.6(c) : Signature of Accused No.2 on Ex.P.6 Ex.P.7. : Gift Deed dt:28.07.2009 in respect of lands bearing Sy No.s' 243/244/245 and 246 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of Accused No.3 on Ex.P.7 Ex.P.7(b) : Signature of Accused No.1 on Ex.P.7 Ex.P.7(c) : Signature of Accused No.5 on Ex.P.7 Ex.P.7(d) : Signature of Accused No.6 on Ex.P.7 Ex.P.8. : Certified Copy of Trust Deed dt:10.09.1999 of Shushruti Education Trust Ex.P.9. : Certified Copy Amended Trust Deed dt:17.11.2001 of Shushruti Education Trust Ex.P.10. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:07.10.1983 in respect of Sy.No.244 of Indlawadi village Ex.P.11. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.244 of Indlawadi village Ex.P.12. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:14.07.1983 in respect of Sy.No.243 of Indlawadi village Ex.P.13. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.243 of Indlawadi village Ex.P.14. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:25.07.1983 in respect of Sy.No.93/8 New No.159 of Indlawadipura village Ex.P.15. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:19.09.1984 in respect of Sy.No.156 New No.286 of Indlawadipura village Ex.P.16. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.156 of Indlawadipura village Ex.P.17. : Certified copy of the Gift Deed dt:28.07.2009 in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.s' 156 of Indlavadipura Village Ex.P.18. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:19.11.2003 in respect of land in Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village 46 Ex.P.19. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.20. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:19.11.2003 in respect of land in Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.21. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.22. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:19.11.2003 in respect of land in Sy.No.52 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.23. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.52 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.24. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:19.11.2003 in respect of land in Sy.No.52 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.25. : Mutation in respect of Sy.No.52 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.26. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.52 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.27. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:1.10.2004 in respect of Sy.No.32 of Narayanapura village Ex.P.28. : Gift Deed dt:28.07.2009 in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.s' 243/244/245 and 246 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.29. : Mutation in respect of Sy.No.32 of Narayanapura village Ex.P.30. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.32 of Narayanapura village Ex.P.31. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:25.10.2004 in respect of land in Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.32. : Mutation in respect of Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.33. : RTC for the year 2016-17 in respect of Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.34. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:25.10.2004 in respect of land in Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.35. : RTC in respect of Sy.No.51 of Mylanahalli village Ex.P.36. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:04.03.2005in respect of land in Sy.No.33/2 of Narayanapura village Ex.P.37. : Certified Copy of Gift Deed dt: 20.07.2009 in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 33/2 of Narayanapura Village 47 Ex.P.38. : Mutation in respect of Sy.No. 33/2 of Narayanapura Village Ex.P.39. : RTC in respect of Sy.No. 33/2 of Narayanapura Village Ex.P.40. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:27.09.2005 in respect of land in Sy.No.38 of Somashetty Halli Village Ex.P.41. : Certified Copy of Gift Deed dt:20.07.2009 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.38 of Somashetty Halli Village Ex.P.42. : Mutation in respect of Sy.No.38 of Somashetty Halli Village Ex.P.43. : RTC in respect of Sy.No.38 of Somashetty Halli Village Ex.P.44. : Certified Copy of the sale deed dt:22.02.2006 of the property in No.63/2 & 68 of Hegganahalli Village Ex.P.45. : Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dt:23.07.2009 in respect of the property bearing Assessment No.63/2 & 68, Hegganahalli Village Ex.P.46. : RTC in respect of Sy.No.38 of property at Hegganahalli Village Ex.P.47. : Gift Deed dt:28.07.2009 in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.s' 243/244/245 and 246 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.48. : Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dt:
07.10.1993 in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.s' 243/244/245 and 246 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.49. : Mutation in respect of in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.s' 243/244/245 and 246 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.50. : RTC in respect of Sy.No.246 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.51. : Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dt:
30.07.1983 in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 245 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.52. : RTC in respect of Sy.No.245 of Indlavadi Village Ex.P.53. : Certified Copy of Plaint in O.S.No.5248/2010 Ex.P.53.(a)& (b) : Prayer Columns at Pages 13 & 14 in Ex.P.53.(c) : Schedule 9 of Ex.P.53 at Page 20 Ex.P.54. : Certified Copy of Written Statement of Defendants No.1 to 3 (i.e, Accused No.1 to 3) in 48 O.S.No.5248/2010 Ex.P.55. : Certified Copy of W.S of Defendant No.4 Ex.P.56. : Public Notice taken out on behalf of PW.1 Ex.P.57. : Order Dt: 09.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.5248/2010 by the civil court Ex.P.58. : 161 statement of PW-10 Shanthaiah Ex.P.59. : FIR Ex.P.59(a). : Signature of PW-11 Narasimhaiah.
Ex.P.60. : Portion of Voluntary statement of Accused. Ex.P.61. : Seizure Mahazer of Ex.P-1. The GPA. Ex.P.61(a). : Signature of PW-11 Narasimhaiah. Ex.P.62. : Seizure Mahazer of Lap-Top & CPU. Ex.P.62(a). : Signature of PW-11 Narasimhaiah. Ex.P.63. : Xerox Copy of GPA registration book.(marked subject to objections) Ex.P.63(a) (b). : Signatures of PW-11 Narasimhaiah List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
M.O.1 : Laptop M.O.2 : CPU
List of documents marked on behalf of the Defence:
Ex.D1. : Memo dt:07.02.2013 filed by PW.1, in O.S.No.5248/2010 Seeking permission of the court to withdraw the Prayer - C Ex.D2. : Memo of Valuation Dt:26.3.13 filed by PW.1 in O.S.NO.5248/2010 admitting that interest of the PW-1 in schedule 1 to 7 of the plaint is limited to 50% only.
Ex. D3. : PCR No.4330/2010 filed on 08.2.2010 before the 4th ACMM Bangalore by PW.1 Ex.D4. : (No document has been marked as Ex.D.4) Ex.D5. : Affidavit dt:11.05.2007 executed by PW.1 in the presence of PW's 4 & 5 Ex.D5(a) : Signature of PW.4 G.K.Purushothama on Ex.D.5 Ex.D5(b) : Signature of PW.1 Srinivasamurhty on Ex.D.5 Ex.D5(c) : Signature of PW.5 B.V.Srinivasan on Ex.D.5 Ex.D6. : Affidavit dt:11.05.2007 executed by PW.1 in the presence of PW's 4 & 5 49 Ex.D6(a) : Signature of PW.4 G.K.Purushothama on Ex.D.6 Ex.D6(b) : Signature of PW.1 Srinivasamurhty on Ex.D.6 Ex.D6(c) : Signature of PW.5 B.V.Srinivasan on Ex.D.6 Ex.D.7 : Photo copy Financial statement for the year 2007- 2008 of Shushruti Education Trust(Balance Sheet) Ex.D.7A : Certified copy of Financial statement for the year 2007-2008 of Shushruti Education Trust obtained from Income Tax Department (Balance Sheet) Ex.D.8. : Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1106/2008(New O.S.No.1249/09) filed by PW-1 seeking declaration from the civil court directing the defendants to transfer the title of the lands in favour of the trust.
Ex.D.8A. : Certified copy of Verifying Affidavit of PW-1 in Ex.D.8 Ex.D.9. : Certified copy of Absolute sale deed executed jointly by PW-1 and Accused No.2 in favour of Shushruti Education Trust.
Ex.D.10. : Certified copy of Absolute sale deed executed jointly by PW-1 and Accused No.2 in favour of Shushruti Education Trust® Ex.D.11. : Photocopy of the Sale deed dt:23.10.2002 received jointly by PW-1 and Accused No.2 in respect of site No.1 and Khata No.63/2 and 68 Ex.D.11(a). : Certified Copy of Ex.D.11, sale deed dt:23.10.2002 received jointly by PW-1 and Accused No.2 in respect of site No.1 and Khata No.63/2 and 68 Ex.D.12. : Complaint dt:08.08.2009 Ex.D.13. : Complaint dt:05.09.2009 to Wilson Garden Police Ex.D.14. : FIR in Crime No.266/2009 of Wilson Garden Police Ex.D.15. : B-Final Report submitted by Wilson Garden Police in Crime No.266/2009 Ex.D.16. : Form No.159 served on PW.1 by Wilson Garden Police in Crime No.266/2009 Ex.D.17. : C.C. of the petition filed by PW-1 in Crl.P.No.4097/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions for early disposal of this case.50
Ex.D.18. : Order Dt:18.12.2014 by Hon'ble High Court in Crl.P.No.6678/2014 directing PW.1 to approach this Hon'ble court and appraise the need to take up the case out of turn Ex.D.19. : Order Dt:24.07.2015 by Hon'ble High Court in Crl.P.No.3605/2015 in disposing of the case filed by PW-1 seeking directions to this Hon'ble court for early disposal of this case.
Ex.D.20. : Certified copy of the petition filed by PW-1 in Crl.P.No.3605/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions for early disposal of this case Ex.D.20(a) & (b) : The averments in Paragraphs in 16 and 17 mentioned by PW-1 in support of his prayer Ex.D.21. : Order Sheet dt:19.2.2015 maintained in this case by this Hon'ble court which does not disclose that PW-1 pursuant to the order mentioned at Ex.D.18 no application was filed.
Ex.D.22. : Sale Deed dt:10.11.2008 Ex.D.23. : Sale Deed dt:16.10.2008 Ex.D.24. : Sale Deed dt:14.10.2008 Ex.D.25. : Sale Deed dt:16.10.2008 Ex.D.26. : School Annual Day Celebration Invitation Ex.D.27. : Conversion Order of Sy.No.51 (Ex.P.20) Ex.D.28. : Affidavit filed by P.W.1 before AC for obtaining Ex.D.27 Ex.D.28(a) : Signature of P.W.1 on Ex.D.28 Ex.D.29. : Balance Sheet of Shushruti Education Trust for the Financial year 2006-07 Ex.D.30. : FIR in Cr.No.348/2009 filed by Accused No.1 against P.W.1 Srinivasamurthy & Ors. Ex.D.31. : B-report filed in Cr.No.348/2009 by P.W.11 Ex.D.32. : Arrest Intimation Memo dt:19.2.2010 Ex.D.32(a). : Signature of PW.11 Narasimhiah on Ex.D.32 Ex.D.33. : Remand Application dt:19.2.2010 Ex.D.33(a). : Portion of Remand Application dt:19.2.2010 Ex.D.34. : F.I.R. in Crime No.264/2010(Ex.D.3 complaint) VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
51