Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch vs Nos.1 To 22 Before The Jurisdictional ... on 2 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of December 2019.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.4380/2013
Date of Ofence : 1-10-2009 to 12-7-2011
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch
(F and M Squad) N.T. pet,
Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Mohammed Nayeem Lone
2. Rameej Ashraf Vani
3. Ranjith
4. Satish Kavri
5. Umesh
6. Mohammed Ayub
7. Suher
8. Vikas
9. Deepak
10. Shankar
2 C.C.No.4380/2013
11. Ameeth
12. Manpreeth Singh
13. Kum. Farah
14. Kum.Umraj
15. Kum.Akshatha
16. Kum.Monika
17. Dinesh Kumar
18. Tarun Trika
19. Sakshi
20. Varun Trika
21. Siju @ Arun s/o Varki,
aged 34 years, r/o No.206,
Sri Annapurneshwari
Residency,
Mangammanapalya,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru 68,
22. Naresh Kumar.
Ofences complained of: U/s.420 of PCC and 4 5 of
The Crize Chit and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning)
Act, 1978.
3 C.C.No.4380/2013
Clea of accused No.21 : Cleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused No.21 is acquitted
Date of Order : 2-12-2019.
JUDGMENT
The Pnspector of Colice, Central Crime Branch (F and M Squad), N.T. Cet, Bengaluru has fled the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 22 for the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
2. Pt is the case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 22 have established a frm called TVP Express Holidays Crivate Limited in house No.1 Hara House, 1st foor, house road, near Anjaneya temple of Wilson Garden in the month of April 2010 and in order to cheat the public, they they have advertised Money Circulation chain Linking business, inspired the public 4 C.C.No.4380/2013 to invest money in their company to C.W.2 to 16 and as such they have contributed the total sum of Rs.35,00,000/- and failed to repay the said amount and played a fraud on them. Under such circumstances, the complainant has fled a complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 22 before the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, the Siddapura Colice have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 to 22 for the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 in Crime No.217/2011. Thereafter, as per the order of the Commissioner of police, case records have been transferred to C.C.B.(F and M), Bengaluru for investigation. The Pnvestigating Ofcer, after completion of investigation, has fled the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 22 for the alleged ofences.
5 C.C.No.4380/2013
3. During pendency of the trial, proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 16 were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.Misc. No.4573/2011 and 4575/2011 as per order dated 16-12-2011. Therefore, case against accused Nos.3 to 16 was quashed and accused Nos.17 to 20 were not sent for trial. Therefore, present case is continued only against the accused Nos.1, 2, 21 and
22. As per order dated 28-1-2016 case against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 22 was split up and split up C.C.No.2450/2016 was registered. Therefore, the present case is continued only against the accused No.21.
4. After appearance of the accused No.21, necessary documents as relied on by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused No.21, as provided under Section 207 of Cr.C.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused No.21. 6 C.C.No.4380/2013 The accused No.21 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. C.Ws.1 to 44 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. Pn order to prove the guilt of the accused No.21, during the course of trial, C.Ws.4, 3, 5, 10, 6, 1, 8, 9, 21, 29, 30, 25 and 44 are examined as C.Ws.1 to 13 respectively and got marked Exs.C1 to C81. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufcient time and repeated issuance of summons and warrants and proclamation. Therefore, they are dropped.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused No.21 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.C.C. The accused No.21 has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf. 7 C.C.No.4380/2013 Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused No.21.
7. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.C.C. and counsel appearing for accused No.21. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.21 has committed the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chitand Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978?
2. What order ?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Coint No.1: Pn the Negative.
Coint No.2: As per fnal order, for the following:8 C.C.No.4380/2013
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 22 have established a frm called TVP Express Holidays Crivate Limited in house No.1 Hara House, 1st foor, house road, near Anjaneya temple of Wilson Garden in the month of April 2010 and in order to cheat the public, they they have advertised Money Circulation chain Linking business, inspired the public to invest money in their company to C.W.2 to 16 and as such they have contributed the total sum of Rs.35,00,000/- and failed to repay the said amount and played a fraud on them and thereby the accused persons have committed the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chitand Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
9 C.C.No.4380/2013
10. Pn order to prove the guilt of the accused No.21 for the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, the C.W.4 is examined as C.W.1, C.W.3 is examined as C.W.2, C.W.5 is examined as C.W.3, C.W.10 is examined as C.W.4 and C.W.6 is examined as C.W.5. C.Ws.1 to 5 have deposed in similar manner and reiterated the allegations made in the course of complaint with regard to the alleged ofences committed by the accused persons. Therefore, the evidence adduced by C.Ws.1 to 5 is taken into consideration for common discussion. Pn the course of their evidence, C.Ws.1 to 5 have deposed in page No.1 to the following efect:
£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ EzÀÝ JA.eÉ.ªÀiÁåxÀÆå J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÉÃß»vÀgÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ lÆgï ¥ÁåPÉÃeï §UÉÎ w½¹ 21£ÉÃAiÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §½ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÄÁÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.10 C.C.No.4380/2013
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄrªÁ¼ÀzÀ MAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃmɯï£À°è ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ n«L JPïì¥Éæ¸ï ºÁ°qÉà ¥ÉçʪÉÃmï °«ÄmÉqï JA§ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½¹ CzÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À «®ì£ï UÁqÀð£ï ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ©¸ï£É¸ï JAzÀgÉ £Émï ªÀQðAUï ªÀiÁPÉðnAUï DVzÀÄÝ M§â ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ 15,500-00 gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr MAzÀÄ lÆgï¥ÁåPÉÃeï£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀgÉ 2 ºÀUÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ 3 gÁwæAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÉ ¥Àæ¥ÀAZÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn PÉÆlÖ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ wæ¸ÁÖgï ºÉÆÃl¯ï£À CPÁ«ÄqÉñÀ£ï ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FjÃw lÆgï ¥ÁåPÉÃeï ¥ÀqÉzÀ M§â ªÀåQÛ E§âgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ CªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ lÆgï ¥ÁåPÉÃeï£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀgÉ ¸ÉÃj¹zÀAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÀ«ÄõÀ£ï DV 31,000-00gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ 21£Éà CgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.11 C.C.No.4380/2013
The evidence of C.Ws.1 to 5 as above is nothing but reiteration of the allegations made in the course of complaint with regard to modus operandi adopted by the accused persons to inspire the public to invest money in their company. Therefore, P need not recapitulate the same at this stage. Pn further chief- examination C.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed that in the year 2011 they have invested money towards tour package from accused No.21. Pt is further deposed by them that the accused persons have to pay the amount towards commission as agreed by them, since they have introduced their friends to invest money in the Money Circulation Scheme run by the accused persons in their company and got produced certain documents in support of their evidence.
11. Pn order to disprove the case of the prosecution and to test the veracity of C.Ws.1 to 5, the learned 12 C.C.No.4380/2013 counsel for accused has cross-examined them in detail. Pn the course of cross-examination, C.Ws.1 to 5 have deposed to the following efect:
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ªÉÄA§gï DVgÀÄwÛÃgÁ ºÁUÀÆ
£Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ªÉÄA§gï CVgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ DgÉÆæ ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw ªÉÄA§gï DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä vÁªÀÅ ¸ÉãjzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁåxÀÆå J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¤ÃªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤ÉUÉÀ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄwÛÃj JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQë ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. The evidence of C.Ws.1 to 5 as above clearly shows that they are not aware whether the accused No.21 is the member of the said company and he is also one of the victim of the conduct of the other 13 C.C.No.4380/2013 accused. Therefore, the suggestion made by the learned counsel for accused No.21 in cross-examination of C.Ws.1 to 5 clearly shows that the accused No.21 is also one such victim as that of C.Ws.1 to 5. Pt is also pertinent to note in the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 5 that there is no whisper whether under what capacity the accused No.21 has collected money from them on behalf of the company. Therefore, the vague evidence of C.Ws.1 to 5 in this regard creates a doubt, whether they have paid money to accused No.21 on behalf of the alleged company.
12. Pn further cross-examination C.Ws.1 to 5 have deposed to the following efect:
DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw ªÉÆøÀ ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÉà jÃwAiÀÆV £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆøÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉJAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÀÉÌ ¸ÁQë CzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ 14 C.C.No.4380/2013 The ignorance pleaded by C.Ws.1 to 5 as above clearly establishes that the accused No.21 is not only concerned with the said company so as to play a fraud on the public, in inspiring them to invest money. When that being the case, the question of playing a fraud by the accused No.21 is not sustainable. Therefore, the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 5 is not sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21 for the alleged ofences.
13. The complainant/C.W.1 is examined as C.W.6. C.W.6 has deposed in chief-examination and reiterated the allegations made in the course of complaint with regard to commission of alleged ofences by the accused. Therefore, P need not recapitulate those facts again at this stage. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined C.W.6 in brief. Pn the course of cross-examination, C.W.6 has deposed in para No.2, page No.4 to the following efect:
15 C.C.No.4380/2013
¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ jf¸ÀÖgï CVgÀÄvÀÛzÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ RÄzÁÝV ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj JPïì¥Éæ¸ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå PÀZÉÃj J¯Éè°è EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of C.W.6 who is the Pnvestigating ofcer has deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him.
14. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined C.W.6 in brief. Pn the course of cross-examination, C.W.6 has deposed to the following efect:
¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ jf¸ÀÖgï CVgÀÄvÀÛzÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ RÄzÁÝV ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj JPïì¥Éæ¸ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå 16 C.C.No.4380/2013 PÀZÉÃj J¯Éè°è EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The categorical admission of C.W.6 as above is not sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21, because his evidence is not sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21 in the alleged transaction.
15. C.Ws.8 and 9 are examined as C.Ws.7 and 8. C.Ws.7 and 8 have also deposed in similar manner as deposed by C.Ws.1 to 5, as they are also the victims of the alleged ofences. Pn the course of their chief- examination they have reiterated the allegations made in the course of complaint. Hence, P need not recapitulate the same.
16. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined C.Ws.7 and 8 in detail. Pn the course of 17 C.C.No.4380/2013 cross-examination C.Ws.7 and 8 have deposed to the following efect:
£À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ EgÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀÅ ZÉÊ£ï°AQAUï ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ಎಎದರÉ ¸Àj.
¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÁÌUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÁUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦-4 £ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ RÄzÁÝV PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¹Ã̪Àiï£À ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ¥ÁvÀæ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.18 C.C.No.4380/2013
£Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀiÁV ¸ÀzÀj ¹Ã̪Àiï£À ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÃÛ£ÉÆà CzÉà jÃwAiÀiÁV DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÀÆqÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¹Ã̪Àiï£À ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß vÀgÀºÀªÉà ªÉÆøÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The categorical admission of C.Ws.7 and 8 as above is more than sufcient to disprove the case of the prosecution as against the accused No.21. As already discussed above, the accused No.21 is also one of the victims of the alleged transactions.
17. C.W.21 is examined as C.W.9. C.W.9 has deposed that he was a Manager of the Axis Bank and he has freezing the accounts standing in the name of Tarun Trika and also Sakshi Magod and got marked the letter and statement as Exs.C71 and C72. The evidence of 19 C.C.No.4380/2013 C.W.9 will not be sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused, because his evidence is pertains to freezing of the accounts.
18. C.W.29 is examined as C.W.10. C.W.10 is a Telephone operator in customers service. Since C.W.10 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior ACC with the permission of the court. But in the course of cross-examination, C.W.10 has admitted that the alleged company was engaged in business of conducting tours all over the worlds, which is not in dispute. So far as other ofences are concerned, C.W.10 has pleaded ignorance.
19. Similarly the learned counsel for accused No.21 has also cross-examined C.W.10 in brief, in which C.W.10 has deposed to the following efect: 20 C.C.No.4380/2013
P do not know about the accused. Pt is true to suggest that, accused is not an employee of our company.
The evidence of C.W.10 as above is not at all sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21 for the alleged ofences, because accused No.21 is not working in the said company at any point of time.
20. C.W.30 is examined as C.W.11. C.W.11 has deposed that he was working as a ofce boy in the accused company and he has deposed with regard to nature of business of the said company. But in chief- examination itself C.W.11 has deposed that he does not know who was the owner of the said company. The evidence of C.W.11 is with regard to his avocation in 21 C.C.No.4380/2013 the company. Hence, his evidence is not sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21.
21. C.W.25 is examined as C.W.12. The evidence of C.W.12 is incomplete as he was not subjected for cross-examination. Therefore, incomplete evidence of C.W.12 cannot be considered in the present case. Pn this regard this court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sannarevanappa Bharamajappa Kalal Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in PLR 1990 KAR 1205, wherein their lordship has held that, "CRPMPNAL CROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (Central Act No.2 of 1974)-Section 319-Complete 'evidence' calls for cross-examination not examination-in-chief alone-Pf witness does not submit to cross-examination after 22 C.C.No.4380/2013 examination-in-chief Court precluded from acting on such incomplete evidence".
Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above said judgment, the evidence of C.W.12 cannot be considered to prove the guilt of the accused.
22. C.W.44 is examined as C.W.13. C.W.13 has deposed with regard to registration of a case, recording of statement of witnesses and collecting certain documents from the concerned authorities. Though C.W.13 was not cross-examined, his evidence is also not sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21, because he has recorded the statement of witnesses, who are not turned up to adduce the evidence. Therefore, in the absence of material evidence on behalf of the prosecution, any amount of oral evidence 23 C.C.No.4380/2013 of C.Ws.1 to 13 is not at all sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21 for the alleged ofences.
23. As already discussed above, the defence taken by the accused No.21 is that he is also one of the investor and he was the victim of the alleged transactions and he is placed in the same footing as that of C.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 to 8. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary is not sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused No.21 for the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused No.21 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged ofences. Accordingly, P answer point No.1 in the negative.
24. Point No.2:- Pn view of my answer on the point No.1, P proceed to pass the following: 24 C.C.No.4380/2013
ORDER The accused No.21 is not found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said ofences under Section 248(1) Cr.C.C. The bail bond of the accused No.21 stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 2nd day of December 2019).
(V.Jagadeesh) P Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
C.W.1, Cramodkumar,
C.W.2, Calaksha,
C.W.3, Beslan Vargees,
C.W.4, Manikantan,
C.W.5, Wilson,
C.W.6, Udaybhaskar G.V,
C.W.7, C.T.Mathew,
C.W.8, Gopinath,
C.W.9, Srinivasalu A.R.,
25 C.C.No.4380/2013
C.W.10, Vikas,
C.W.11, Shankar,
C.W.12, D.S.Angadi,
C.W.13, Deepak;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.C1, Advertisement brochure,
Ex.C1(a) to
Ex.C1(h), Crint outs of certifcates,
Ex.C2, Certifcate of membership,
Ex.C2(a), to
Ex.C2(x), Certifcates,
Ex.C3, Original certifcate,
Ex.C3(a) (b), Certifcates,
Ex.C4 to
Ex.C11, Crint out of online certifcates,
Ex.C12, Report,
Ex.C12(a), Signature of C.W.6,
Ex.C13 to
Ex.C28, Crint outs of online certifcates,
Ex.C13(a) to
Ex.C28(a), Membership certifcates,
Ex.C29 to
Ex.C69, Crintouts of membership,
Ex.C29(a) to
Ex.C69(a), Crofles of membership certifcates,
Ex.C70, Letter,
Ex.C71, Statement of bank account of Tarun
Trika,
Ex.C72, Statement of bank account of Sakshi,
Ex.C73, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.C73(a), Signature of C.W.12,
Ex.C74, Letter given by Registrar of Companies,
Ex.C74(a), Signature of C.W.12,
26 C.C.No.4380/2013
Ex.C75 to
Ex.C79, Memorandum of association, articles
of association and certifcate of
incorporation,
Ex.C80, Covering letter,
Ex.C81, Mahazar,
Ex.C81(a), Signature of C.W.13;
List of material object: NPL
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:-
NPL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:-
NPL (V.Jagadeesh) P Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.27 C.C.No.4380/2013
2/12/2019 State by Sr.ACC Accused No.21 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused No.21 is not found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 420 of PCC and 4 and 5 of The Crize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said ofences under Section 248(1) Cr.C.C. The bail bond of the accused No.21 stands cancelled.
(V.Jagadeesh), P ACMM, Bengaluru.28 C.C.No.4380/2013 29 C.C.No.4380/2013 30 C.C.No.4380/2013