Bangalore District Court
Ramanna Rhj S/O Late Hussainappa vs Dr. Shivaraj Patil S/O Veeranagouda on 23 March, 2020
1 Spl.C.C.814/2018
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH82)
:Present :
Sri RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, B.Com., LLM.,
LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)
Dated: This the 23rd day of March, 2020
Spl. CC No. 814 / 2018
COMPLAINANT:- Ramanna Rhj S/o Late Hussainappa,
Age 65 years,
Occupation: State Working president
of Republician party of India (Secular)
R/at: H.No. 01-04-849/107
Ambedkar Nagar I.B. Road,
Raichur - 584 101.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED:- Dr. Shivaraj Patil S/o Veeranagouda,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation: MLA
R/at: H.N.1-11-37/58 KCHS ,
Colony near Lions School
Raichur - 584101.
2 Spl.C.C.814/2018
Date of offence 20-04-2018
Date of report of offence 06-08-2018
Name of the complainant Ramanna Rhj
Date of commencement of 31-10-2018
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 22-01-2020
Offences complained of 177 of I.P.C and 125A of
Representation of People's Act.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found not guilty
State represented by Sri. S.K.K, Adv for complainant
Accused defended by Sri .B.P., Adv for accused
JUDGMENT
This Special CC arises out of the private complaint filed by the complainant by name Ramanna Rhaj in PCR No.43/2018. Filed u/s 200 of Cr.P.C alleging the offences against the accused u/s 177 of IPC and 125A of the Representation of People's Act.
2. The brief and relevant facts leading to the case of the complainant are as under:-
3 Spl.C.C.814/2018 That the complainant contested for 054 Raichur Assembly constituency during the year 2013 on behalf of Lokasatta Party. He also contested in the year 2018 from the same constituency as an independent candidate.
It is stated by the complainant that, during the year 2013 accused contested for the post of MLA from Raichur Constituency, for and on behalf of the JDS party. He won the election.
It is alleged by the complainant that, while submitting the nomination to the Returning officer, accused filed his affidavit not showing his assets and Liabilities. Following are the immovable properties owned by the accused, but not shown in his affidavit at the time of filing nomination to contest 2018 Vidhan Sabha election:-
i) Land Sy.No.19/2B meg.13 guntas of Rampur village, Tq.
Raichur.
ii) Land Sy.No.19/14 meg. 10 guntas of Rampur village, Tq.Raichur.
Iii) Land Sy.No.19/11 meg.09 guntas of Rampur village, Tq. Raichur.
iv) Land Sy.No.19/12 meg. 03 guntas of Rampur village, Tq. Raichur.
4 Spl.C.C.814/2018 After filing the complaint, a detailed order came to be passed by the learned Predecessor of this court on 18-08- 2018. By virtue of the said order, the cognizance of the offence was taken. Case was posted for recording sworn statement.
Accordingly, complainant entered the witness box and furnished his sworn statement. On behalf of the complaint Ex.P-1 to P-9 are marked, closed the sworn statement of the complainant.
3. After hearing the complainant, a detailed order came to be passed by this court on 14-11-2018 and summons came to be issued against the accused with a direction to office to register a Special Criminal case against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. Pursuant to the summons issued by this court, accused appeared before the court and was enlarged on bail. He has furnished cash security of Rs.5000/-. It is accepted by the court.
5 Spl.C.C.814/2018
5. The learned Predecessor of this court recorded the plea of the accused on 7-01-2019 by reading over substance of accusation u/s 177 of Indian Penal Code and u/s 125A of Representation of People Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, complainant himself entered the witness box as PW-1. On behalf of the complainant Exs.P-1 to P-9 are marked. Complainant closed his evidence.
7. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, accused is questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C, so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied his complicity in the crime. He prayed to lead his defence evidence.
8. To substantiate the defence, accused himself entered the witness box as DW-1, got marked Ex.D-1 to D-6.
9. The records of this case do reveal that, as the complainant did not appear before the court, therefore to prosecute the case against the accused, one S.K.K Advocate 6 Spl.C.C.814/2018 appeared before the court on behalf of the complainant appointed by the DLSA, Bengaluru City. DW.1 is thoroughly cross-examined.
10. When the case was posted for arguments, either the complainant or the counsel for accused appeared before the court. Sufficient time is granted to the complainant and his counsel to advance the arguments. Besides giving sufficient time, complainant remained absent. So also his counsel remained absent before the court. Therefore, as sufficient time is granted to the complainant to advance the arguments, hence the arguments of the complainant is taken as heard. The case is posted for arguments of the accused before the court.
11. Counsel for the accused advanced his arguments. As the complainant has not turned up for advancing the arguments, the case is posted today for judgment.
12. Meticulously, perused the records.
13. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:-
7 Spl.C.C.814/2018
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused herein while contesting Assembly Elections for Raichur Constituency during the year 2018 filed Form No.26 in the form of affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities held by himself and his family members, though he is possessing landed properties bearing Sy.No.19/2B, 19/14, 19/11 and 19/12 of Rampur Village in Raichur Taluk of which is legally bound to furnish the information of such assets held by him, failed to furnish the said information in Form No.26 submitted to the Returning Officer before the Returning Officer, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 177 IPC and also under section 125(A) of Representation of Peoples Act?
2. What order or sentence?
8 Spl.C.C.814/2018
14. My answer to the above point is as under:-
Point No.1:- In the negative Point No.2:- As per final order for the following.
REASONS
15. Point No.1 :- As could be seen from the records of this case, a specific allegation has been made by the complainant through out the complaint that, this accused contested the MLA election from Raichur Constituency in the year 2013. There he had showed his assets and liabilities especially immovable properties in the complaint ie., Sy.No.19/2B meauring 13 guntas, Sy.No.19/14 measuring 10 guntas, Sy.No.19/11 measuring 09 guntas, land Sy.No.19/12 measuring 03 guntas all situated at Rampur village, Tq. Raichur. It is alleged that, accused also contested the similar MLA Election in the year 2018 but while submitting his affidavit as required under Form No.26 to be submitted to the returning officer, he has not mentioned the aforesaid landed properties in his affidavit.
9 Spl.C.C.814/2018 Therefore, this accused has committed the aforesaid offences.
16. In a case of present nature, it is the bounden duty of the complainant or the prosecution, as the case may be, to prove that accused has not furnished such information and there is a real suppression of this information by the accused to get the benefit of it. So to say, complainant is under obligation to prove the ingredients of offence u/s 177 of the IPC.
17. This section 177 of Indian Penal Code speaks of furnishing false information. The said section reads as under:-Section 177 of IPC reads as follows:-
177. Furnishing false information.- Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both;
or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of 10 Spl.C.C.814/2018 an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in orer to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
18. To prove the said offence, the complainant has to prove
a) Accused is legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant as such.
b) He furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he-
i) knows to be false, or
ii)has reason to believe to be false.
Thus accused being the candidate for the MLA election to furnish the true information before the Returning Officer. Complainant has to prove that, accused has furnished false information. Then only the offences under Indian Penal Code and Representation of People's Act are attracted.
19. PW-1 being the complainant in this case has re- iterated the allegations made in the complaint in his evidence on oath. He states in is evidence that, when 11 Spl.C.C.814/2018 accused submitted the affidavit as required under Form No.26 has not mentioned about the Sy.Nos.19/2B, Sy.No.19/14, Sy.No.19/11, Sy.No.19/12. Thus, he alleges that accused has committed the aforesaid offences. It is not in dispute that, the aforesaid landed properties are situated at Rampur village in Raichur Taluk. He says in his evidence that, purposely accused has submitted a false affidavit before the Returning Officer. He says that he issued a lawyers notice to the accused but it is not replied. He further states that, he submitted an application to the Election Returning officer, but it was informed to him, to approach the court of law. Therefore, he has filed this complaint. He has produced 9 documents in this case.
20. Amongst the documents so produced by the complainant, Ex.P-1 is Form No.2B, nomination papers submitted by the accused, accompanied with affidavit in Form No.26. Ex.P-2 is the another Form No.26 submitted by the accused. In this affidavit, accused has mentioned his agricultural land as Sy.No.296, Attanoor Ta. Manvi District of Raichur Taluk. He also has mentioned his landed property 12 Spl.C.C.814/2018 standing in the name of his wife in Sy.No.22 village Malla Tq. Surpur District, Yadgir, so also Sy.No.209/2E of Askihal, Raichur. Thus, accused has mentioned the details of immovable properties so owned by himself and his wife in the affidavit.
21. Ex.P-3 and P-4 are the mutation entries. According to the case of the complainant, these landed properties are standing in the name of accused till in the year 2018, but they have not been mentioned. These mutation entries are of the year 2011. As per the mutation register, on 21-06- 2018, these mutation extracts are obtained by the complainant. Notice so issued was served on accused. PW-1 says that accused has not replied to the said notice. Ex.P-6 is the acknowledgment to show that accused has received the said notice. Ex.P-7 is the representation of the complainant submitted before the Returning Officer, Raichur Constituency. Ex.P-8 and 9 are the endorsement directing the complainant to approach the court of law.
22. According to complainant, on reading of all these documents, they do suggest that, these assets have not 13 Spl.C.C.814/2018 been mentioned by the accused in his affidavit. Therefore, complainant alleges that accused has committed the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as Representation of People's Act.
23. This PW-1 has been severely cross-examined. In the cross-examination at page No.3, he deposes as under:-
" ನನನ ಮಮಖಖ ವಚರಣಯಲ ಹಹಳದ ರಮಪರ ಗಗಮದ ಸರರ ನನ.19-2 ಬ 13 ಗಮನಟ , 19-14 10 ಗಮನಟ , 19-11 9 ಗಮನಟ , 19-12 3 ಗಮನಟ ಜಮಹನಮಗಳನನ ಆರರಹಪ ಮತಮತ ಅವರ ಸಹರಹದರರರಮ ದನನಕ 9-2-2018 ರನದಮ ಮರಟ ಮಡದ ಬಗಗ ನನಗ ಗರತತಲಲ. ಆ ಬಗಗ ಕನದಯ ಇಲಖ ಕಡತಗಳಲ ಮಮ ಖ ಟಹಷನರ ಎನಟಗ ಆಗದದ ಬಗಗ ಈಗ ನನಗ ತರಹರಸದ ದಖಲತಯಲ ಕನಡಮ ಬರಮತತದ. ಆ ದಖಲಯನಮ ನ ನ.ಡ.1 ಎನದಮ ಗಮರಮತಸಲಯತಮ.
ನ.ಡ.1 ರ ಆಧರದ ಮಹಲ ಹಹಳದ ಜಮಹನಮಗಳ ಪಹಣ
ಲ
ಪತಗಕಯಲರ ಸಹ ಹಸರಮ ಬದಲವಣಯಗದ ಎನದರ ಸರ ಇದ. ಆ
ನ ಈಗ ನರಹಡಮತತದದ ಮ ಅದಮ ನ .ಡ .2 ರನದ 5 ಆಗದ.
ಪಹಣ ಪತ ತಗಳನಮ
ಕನರಟಕ ರಜಖದ ವಧನ ಸಭಗ ಚಮನವಣ ದ
ನಡದದಮ
ಮಹ2018 ನಹ ಇಸವಯಲ ಎನದರ ಸರ ಇದ. ಸದರ ದಖಲತಗಳ
ಪ ಗಕರ ಮಹಲ ಹಹಳದ ಜಮಹನಮಗಳನನ ಆರರಹಪಯಮ ತನನ
14 Spl.C.C.814/2018
ಸಹರಹದರರರನದಗ ವಧನ ಸಭಯ ಚಮನವಣಗ ಮದಲಹ
ಮರಟ ಮಡದರ ಎನದರ ನನಗ ಗರತತಲಲ.
24. Ex.P-3 is confronted to this PW-1. It was certified in the year 2011. But says that, he obtained the same on 21- 06-2018. He says that, at Ramapur Village at Sy.No.19/12 is situated, measuring 3 acres of land. He has shown the same as 3 guntas. Thus, he is not definite according to his evidence that what was the exact extent of Sy.No.19/12 situated at Rampur village. According to him, as he was directed to approach the court of law, therefore he has filed the complaint. He admits that in the year 2018, accused has been elected as an MLA from Raichur Constituency on behalf of the Bharathiya Janatha Party. He denied a suggestion that, as accused is a People's Representative, therefore, a false complaint is filed. He denied other suggestions.
25. Except the self serving testimony of PW-1, no acceptable evidence has been adduced by the complainant in this case.
15 Spl.C.C.814/2018
26. As against the evidence of this complainant, accused entered the witness box as DW-1. He admits that, though these survey Numbers stated supra were standing in the name of his family in the year 2011, but when he submitted his nomination and affidavit before the Returning Officer to contest the MLA Election from Raichur constituency in the year 2018, the said landed properties were not standing either in the name of himself or his family members. He states that, these landed properties were sold by him in the month of February 2018 to one Siddana Gowda Sharma.
27. He has produced certified copy of the sale deed as per Ex.D-6. To that effect, the mutation has been certified by the Revenue Authorities. He says that, there is no substance in the allegations made in the complaint.
28. This accused being DW-1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant. Though a severe and searching cross-examination is directed to this DW-1, he is consistent through out his cross- examination that, as on the date of submitting his 16 Spl.C.C.814/2018 nomination for 2018 MLA Election to contest the same from Raichur Constituency, he was not the owner of the said landed properties. He says that, those properties were sold jointly along with one Dr.Ravi and Dr.Malleshagowda.
29. Ex.D1 is the mutation entry to show that, these landed properties have been sold by the accused. To that effect, on 26-03-2018 the revenue authorities have certified the mutation Entry. Ex.D-2 to D-5 are the RTC extracts. They show that, one Siddana Gowda has purchased the said properties and his name is appearing in column 9 of the said RTC extracts ie., ownership column. Ex.D-6 is the sale deed dated 9-02-2018 registered before the office of the Sub- Registrar, wherein we find that, accused Dr.Shivaraj Patil, one G.S.Mallesh Gowda and Dr. Ravi S/o. Bampanna have sold the aforesaid properties. This sale deed is not disputed. The schedule of the said agricultural lands so stated in the sale deed show that, these landed properties shown in the complaint are sold by the accused person along with others as stated above. Thus, when on 9-02-2018 the said properties are sold by the accused, the elections were 17 Spl.C.C.814/2018 conducted in the month of May 2018 as per the submission of the accused, accused was no more the owner of the said landed properties as on the date of filing nomination. He has already parted with the possession and ownership of the landed properties. Therefore, one cannot expect that, these sold out properties have to be mentioned in the affidavit by the accused while contesting 2018 May Vidhana Sabha Election. When such an evidence is placed on record by the complainant, it is hard to believe the story of the complainant that, the accused has really committed the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Representation of People's Act in the manner stated by the prosecution.
30. Therefore, if all these factual features coupled with the evidence spoken to PW-1 and DW1 and the documents so produced by the accused are read meticulously, it can be stated that, complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consistent evidence have been spoken to by the accused for having sold the said properties. When this fact is being proved, it 18 Spl.C.C.814/2018 can be stated that very offence alleged against the accused is not proved by the complainant with Legal and acceptable evidence. Hence, I record my findings on point no.1 in the negative.
31. POINT NO.2: In view of my discussions made above on point No.1 and reasons stated there on, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Resultantly, acting 255(1)of Cr.P.C, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER Accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him for the offence punishable U/s. 177 of IPC and section 125A of the Representation of People's Act.
His bail bond stands canceled.
He is set at liberty.
19 Spl.C.C.814/2018 Office to refund the cash security of the accused with due acknowledgment receipt, after the appeal period is over and in case of appeal, after the disposal of the appeal, whichever is later.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, same is revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 23 rd day of March, 2020) (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with Criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) 20 Spl.C.C.814/2018 ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined by the defence.
PW1 Ramanna Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of Form No.2B
Ex.P-2 Certified copy of affidavit of Form No.-26
Ex.P-3 Mutation entry
Ex.P-4 Mutation entry
Ex.P-5 Lawyer Notice
Ex.P-6 Xerox copy of acknowledgment
Ex.P-7 Certified copy of letter needed to Election
Officer
Ex.P-8 Endorsement
Ex.P-9 Certified copy of letter submitted to
Election Officer/Commissioner and
Endorsement.
Witnesses examined by the defence.
DW1 Dr. Shivaraj Patil
Documents exhibited by the defence.
Ex.D.1 Mutations
Ex.D.2 to R.T.C Extracts
D.5
Ex.D-6 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt:9-02-2018
LXXXI ACC & SJ,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
21 Spl.C.C.814/2018
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXThis accused being DW-1 has been thoroughly c-e by the counsel for the compl. Though a severe and searching cross-examines that this PW-1 is consistent throught out the c-e that as on the date of submitting the nomination for 2018 MLA Election to contest the same from Raichur Constituency he was not the owner of the said landed properties. He says that those properties were purchased jointly along one Dr.Ravi and Dr..Malleshwgowda. The nomination about the selling of the propert have been stated by him.
Ex.D1 is the murtation enty to show that these landed properties ave been sold by the accused and to that effect on 2 ........ D2 D5 are the RTC extracts to show that one Siddana Gowda has purchased the said property and his name is appearing in column 9 of the said RTC being the ownership column. Ex.D-6 is the sale deed raj dated 9-02-2018 registered before the office of the Sub-/registrar wherein we find that accused Dr.Shivaraj Patil, one G.S.Malleshe gowda and /dr.Ravi S/o. Bampanna have sold the aforesaid properties. The sale deed is not disputed. The schedule of the said sschedule to the agri. land so stated in the sale deed show that these landed properties shown in the complaint are sold by the accused person along with others as stated above. So when on 9-02-2018 the said properties are sold by the accused the elections were conducted in the May 2-18 as per the submission of the accused, when accused was no more the owner of the said landed properties and he has already parted with the possession of ownership of the property one cannot expect that these solded properties which are already to be mentioned in the affidavit in Form 26 by the accused persons while contesting the said assembly election from Raichur Const. Therefore, the documentary evidence is proved in the case of the complainant. His oral evidence is not helpful to the case of the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable. When such an evidence is placed on record by the complainant, it is hard to believe the story of the complainant that the accused has really committed the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Reprentation of Peoples Act in the manner stated by the prosecution.
Therefore, if all these factual features are coupled together with the evidence put by DW in cross-examination and the documents so produced by the accused and his evidence are read meticulously, it can be stated that complainant as utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consistent evidence have been spoken to by the accused, for having sold the said properties. When this is a fact being proved, the very offence alleged against the accused is not proved by the complainant being Legal, acceptable evidence. Hence, I record my finding on point no.1 in the negative. In view of my discusssions made above on point No.1 Is entitled for acquittal. Resutanlty acting 255(1) if pass the following order.
SplCC.814/2019 This special C.C arises out of the private complaint filed by the Complainant by name Ramanna Raj in PCR NO.43/2008 filed u/s 200 of Cr.P.C alleging offences against the accused persons u/s 171 0f IPC and also u/s 125 (A) of Representation of People 's Act.
The brief and relevant facts leading to the case of the complainant are as under:
That the complainant contested for 054 Raichur Assembly Constituency during the year 2018 on behalf of Loka Satta Party. He also contested in the year 2008 from the same constituency as an independent candidate.
It is stated by the complainant that during the year 2013 accused contested for the post of MLA for the post of MLA from Raichur Constituency, for and on behalf of JDS party. He won the election.
It is alleged by the complainant that, while submitting the nomination form to the Returning Officer, accused filed his affidavit showing his assets and Liabilities. Following are the immovable properties mentioned by the accused in his affidavit.
..............
It is specifically alleged by the complainant that accused during 2018, also contested for the said MLA Election from Raichur Constituency. But failed to mention about his holding of the aforesaid lands in assets and Liabilities. Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that accused has violated the rules governed under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act. He has submitted a false affidavit.
It is further alleged by the complainant that because of this submission of false affidavit by the accused to the Returning Officer by the accused, he also has committed the offence punishable under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, on getting knowledge about this false affidavit being filed by the accused, the complainant has filed this complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C.
After filing the complaint, a detailed order came to be passed by the learned predecessor of this court on the 18-08-2018. By virtue of the said order cognizance of the offence was taken.
Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order and the operative portion of the same is as under:-
ORDER Accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him for the offence punishable U/s. 177 of IPC and section 125A of the Representation of People's Act.
His bail bond stands canceled. He is set at liberty.
Office to refund the cash security of the accused with due acknowledgment receipt, after the appeal period is over and in case of appeal, disposal of the appeal, whichever is later.
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with Criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)