Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Gali Hanumanthaiah on 6 July, 2022
KABC030601442020
Presented on : 01.12.2020
Registered on : 01.12.2020
Decided on : 06.07.2022
Duration : 01y/07m/05days
IN THE COURT OF
XLI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 6th day of July 2022
C.C.No.16947/2020
COMPLAINANT : The State by
Bengaluru City Railway Police
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Gali Hanumanthaiah,
S/o T.Narasimhaiah,
Aged 57 years,
Police Head Constable,
R/at No.194, 11th Cross,
4th Block, Peenya, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of 01.04.2017
offence
Date of report 05.04.2017
Date of arrest On 28.04.2017 the accused
2 C.C.No.16947/2020
got enlarged himself on bail.
Name of the complainant M.N.Nagaraj
Date of commencement of 02.02.2021
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 05.05.2022
Offences complained of U/Sec.468 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.M.K.Venkatesh -Advocate.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 06.07.2022] The Circle Inspector of Police, Cantonment Railway Circle has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
The accused was working as head constable in police department. He was deputed as a writer in M.T.O Section. He used to maintain log books with respect to the vehicles related to the department. He was in possession of seal, records and the properties of that section. On 01.04.2017 at 6.30 p.m., while perusing the log book of KA.03.G.746 motorcycle, the CW.1 3 C.C.No.16947/2020 noticed that, there was forgery with respect to his seal and signature in the entry of June-2016. In order to cheat him and to trouble him, the accused had forged his signature in the log book and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 468 of IPC.
On the basis of typed complaint given by Sri.M.N.Nagaraj on 05.04.2017, the Bengaluru City Railway police have registered this case against the accused in Cr.No.123/2017.
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused for the O/P/U/Sec.468 of IPC. This Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC.
4. On 28.04.2017, the accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged him on bail. After taking cognizance of the offence, this Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. He claimed to be tried.
4 C.C.No.16947/2020
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 8 documents and MO.1. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence led against him. He did not choose to lead his defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. M.K.V Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused forged the seal and signature of CW.1 in the log book of KA.03.G.746 motor cycle with respect to the entry of June 2016 to cheat him and thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC?
2. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
5 C.C.No.16947/2020
Point No.1 : In Negative Point No.2 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS Point No.1 :
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused has forged the seal and signature of CW.1 to cheat him and cause trouble to him. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the Head constable CW.2 as PW.1, Mahazar witnesses CW.5 as PW.2, CW.6 as PW.3, CW.7 as PW.4, CW.9 as PW.5, Complainant/CW.1 as PW.6, Police officers -CW.12 as PW.7, CW.13 as PW.8, CW.15 as PW.10, CW.16 as PW.11, IO CW.17 as PW.12, hand writing expert CW.11 as PW.9, mahazar witnesses CW.10 as PW.13 and CW.4 as PW.14 and got marked spot cum seizure mahazar as Ex.P.1, complaint as Ex.P.2, FSL Report as Ex.P.3, Copies of Station house diaries as Ex.P.4 and 5, Digitally compared questioned signature and standard signatures as Ex.P.6, endorsement issued by PW.8 as Ex.P.7 and FIR as Ex.P.8.
6 C.C.No.16947/2020
11. CW.1/PW.6, the Complainant by name Nagaraj M.N in his evidence has stated that, he was working as police inspector in Bengaluru City Railway Police station. At that time, he was in- charge of M.T.O Section. The accused was working as his Assistant. On 01.04.2017 he was verifying the log books with respect to the vehicles coming to the Railway Station from other districts. By perusing one of the log books, he noticed that, his signature has been forged. That forgery was made with respect to Fiero Vehicle bearing No.KA.03.G.746. His signature was forged in the entries of May and June-2016. Subsequently, he handed over the log book to CW.15 as, he intended to go on leave. He has given complaint in this regard, which is marked as Ex.P.2. On 15.04.2017, he showed the spot to the investigating officer. His signature found on Ex.P.1 Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.1[e]. The Log Book was seized in the presence of panch witnesses, which is marked as MO.1. Page No.41 of the log book is marked as MO.1[a]. On 30.06.2017, he had given his specimen signatures to the IO on 7 sheets. Those sheets are marked as Ex.P.1[f] to Ex.P.1[l]. The 7 C.C.No.16947/2020 accused is the person, who was assisting him in maintaining the log books.
12. CW.12/PW.7 - Chandrashekar J.N., in his evidence has stated that, he was working in C.B Section of Bengaluru City Railway Police Station. KA.02.G.746 vehicle was provided from their department. It was required to mention the ingress and egress details of that vehicle in the log book. Every month a new log book was given to them. That log book was to be produced before M.T.O for the signature. On 10th day of every month they used to return the log books to them. After the month of January, it was ordered to enter such details in the police software. As per the request of the Dy.S.P, he had handed over the log book to Rama Murthy. He informed him that, there is a forgery of the signature of M.T.O in the log book of June-2016. Subsequently, he learnt that the accused had forged the signature. That log book was in the custody of the accused, which is marked as M.O.1. He has identified the accused, who is before the court. 8 C.C.No.16947/2020
13. CW.15/PW.10 Bailanjaneya, in his evidence has stated that, on 05.04.2014 at 10.30 a.m., when he was working as PSI at Bengaluru City Railway P.S., the CW.2 handed over the complaint to him, which was given by CW.1, which is marked as Ex.P.2. On the basis of Ex.P.2, he registered Ex.P.8 FIR. On 15.04.2017 at 12p.m he visited the spot and drawn Ex.P.1 mahazer till 1p.m in the presence of panch witnesses and seized MO.1 log book. He has identified his signature found on Ex.P.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1[f]. As himself and accused were working in the same station, he sent a requisition to the SP on 13.04.2017 to transfer the case to some other station. On 19.04.2017, the SP ordered to handover the case file to CW.16. Accordingly, he has handed over the case file to CW.16 on 24.05.2017.
14. CW.16/PW.11 Lakshmi Narayana Prasad H, in his evidence has stated that, as per the orders of SP, he has received the case file from CW.15. On 30.05.2017, he has taken specimen signatures of CW.1. On 06.06.2017, he has taken specimen signatures of Chandrashekharaiah. On 15.06.2017, he has recorded the 9 C.C.No.16947/2020 statement of CW.2. On 24.06.2017, he issued notice to the accused to appear for investigation. On 27.06.2017, he has taken specimen signatures of the accused in the presence of panchas witnesses. On 06.07.2017, he sent the documents and specimen signatures to FSL. The specimen signatures taken by him are affixed to Ex.P.1. He had received SHD copies from the complainant, which are marked as Ex.P.4 and 5 respectively. He has identified the specimen signatures of complainant, accused and CW.12, which are collectively marked as Ex.P.1[e]. He has identified the accused.
15. CW.13/PW.8 Nataraj, in his evidence has stated that, he was working as head constable at Bengaluru City Railway Police station. On 05.07.2017, the Sub-Inspector sent him to Cantonment Railway Police Station, where the inspector gave him certain sealed covers to produce them before the handwriting expert at FSL. Accordingly, he handed over those covers to the FSL on 06.07.2017 and received the endorsement, which is marked as Ex.P.7.
10 C.C.No.16947/2020
16. CW.11/PW.9 Dr.Arvind Barad is the Handwriting expert. The PW.9 in his evidence he has stated that, on 06.07.2017 his office had received certain documents in a sealed cover from RHC-424 of Bengaluru City Railway Police Station with respect to crime No.123/2017. That cover contained a log book, form No.286 of Karnataka State Police, Page No.41 and 44 with respect to the vehicle bearing No.KA.03.G.746 TVS fiero vehicle along with the signatures of Chandrashekar J.N- RHC-149, which was marked as D.1 and D.2. The enclosures were related to form No.23, Order No.214 of M.N.Nagaraj's Diary dated 31.05.2016 to 01.06.2016 & 09.06.2016 to 10.06.2016, which was marked as Property No.2. He had marked those signatures as A.1 to A.9. Those specimen signatures and the handwriting samples were also annexed with the specimen signatures of the accused, which were in 8 sheets, which was marked as Property No.3, to which he had assigned B.1 to B.8 numbers. The signatures of Chandrashekar was obtained on 4 sheets, which was referred as property No.4, to which he had assigned numbers as C.1 to C.4 marks. He has examined those 11 C.C.No.16947/2020 signatures and handwritings from 11.07.2017 to 19.08.2020. Accordingly, he has opined that those are imitation forgeries. The signatures found in the log book, which is treated as A.1 to A.9 has not been made by the person, who has made D.1. The signature in Ex.D.1 is the imitation forgery. However, he cannot say, who has made imitation forgery. But that signature has not been made by the person, who has made D.1 Signature. D.2 Signature appears to be erased as the strokes in D.2 signature are not properly visible and hence no specific opinion can be given. His report is marked as Ex.P.3 and his signature found thereon is marked as Ex.P.3[a].The log book is marked as MO.1. The entries made in page No.41 and 44 of MO.1 is marked as MO.1[a]. The copies of the diaries dated 31.05.2016 to 01.06.2016 and 09.06.2016 to 10.06.2016 are marked as Ex.P.4 and 5 respectively. The specimen signatures of the complainant are taken as A.1 to 9. The disputed signatures are treated as D.1 and D.2. The digitally compared signatures are marked as Ex.P.6. According to him, he has 12 C.C.No.16947/2020 examined B.1 to B.8, C.1 to C.4 signatures. Those are disputed signatures.
17. CW.2/PW.1-S.Hanumaiah in his evidence has stated that, the CW.1 by making a telephonic call on 05.04.2017 asked him to hand over a letter to CW.15 and accordingly, he has handed over the letter to CW.15. The CW.1 had told him that, the said letter is with respect to the forgery made by the accused.
18. CW.5/PW.2 Mehaboob Pasha, CW.6/PW.3 Syed Isaq, CW.7/PW.4 Ravi Manjunatha and CW.9/PW.5 Govind Raj, in their evidence have identified theirs signatures found on Ex.P.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1[a] to Ex.P.1[d] respectively. They stated that, they are not acquainted with the accused. They are not aware of the contents of Ex.P.1. As per the sayings of the police, they have affixed their signatures at Cantonment Railway police station.
19. CW.10/PW.13 Kaleem in his evidence has stated that, he has signed a document at Cantonment Railway Police Station as per the sayings of the police. They have not read over the contents of 13 C.C.No.16947/2020 that document, while taking his signature. No other person has signed that document in his presence.
20. CW.4/PW.14 Sathish in his evidence has stated that, he has signed certain documents as per the sayings of RPF police. He does not know the number of documents, to which he has signed. The police have not read over the contents of those documents, while taking his signatures. He has identified his signature found on ex.P.1, which is marked as Ex.P.[g].
21. CW.17/PW.12 Dr.Sudhakar B.S., in his evidence has stated that, he has recorded the re-statement of the complainant on 14.10.2020 and received the FSL report on 02.09.2017 and by completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
22. In the present case the prosecution has to prove that, the accused being the Head Constable working in Bengaluru City Railway police station has forged the seal and signature of CW.1 in MO.1 Log Book with respect to TVS fiero motor cycle bearing No.KA.03.G.746, to cheat him.
14 C.C.No.16947/2020
23. As per the contents of MO.1, PW.7/CW-17 Chandrashekaraiah was the driver of that vehicle.The alleged forgedd signature of the CW.1 found in the log book is described as D.1, which is marked as MO.1[a]. Likewise, the alleged forged seal is marked as D.2. The prosecution has to prove that the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant and cause trouble to him has forged the seal and signature of the complainant.
24. In order to consider the allegations made in Ex.P.2, it is necessary to know the report given by the Hand Writing Expert, the PW.9. Ex.P.3 is the report of Handwriting expert. In Ex.P.3, at the opinion portion, the PW.9 has opined that "the person who wrote the standard signatures marked as A.1 to A.9, did not write the questioned signature markedas D1. The questioned signature marked as D1 is produced by means of imitation forgery. It has not been possible to fix up the authorship of questioned signature marked as D1 since, it is produced by means of imitation forgery. Authorship of questioned signature 15 C.C.No.16947/2020 marked as D2 could not be expressed since, the strokes are not legible."
25. It is pertinent to note here that A.1 to A.9 are specimen signatures of the complainant. D.1 Signature which is marked as MO.1[a] is said to be forged signature. Specimen signatures i.e., B.1 to B.7 signatures are the specimen signatures of the accused. C.1 to C.3 signatures are the specimen signatures of Chandrashekar J.N/PW.7, the rider of the TVS Fiero Motor cycle bearing No.KA.03.G.746.
26. The PW.9 being the Handwriting expert did not say that, the disputed signature and seal/ D.1, D.2, which is marked as MO.1[a] tallies with the style and strokes of B.1 to B.7 signatures made by the accused. Ex.D.3 is the copy of the orders passed by Superintendent of Police, Railways, Bengaluru on 29.04.2020 in order No.15/DE/R/6/2016-2017. From the contents of this document, it appears that, the Railway police department had initiated Departmental enquiry against the accused and on enquiry he was acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 16 C.C.No.16947/2020
27. From the contents of Ex.P.2 complaint, it appears that the complainant suspected that the accused has forged his signature with respect to entry of June-2016 in the log book of the year 2016 and another forged signature has been deleted by applying whitener in the entry of July-2017.
28. It is pertinent to note here that, Ex.P.2 complaint came to be sent to the police station on 05.04.2017 through HC.90. Ex.P.1 Mahazar came to be drawn on 15.04.2017. Neither the complainant nor the investigating officer explained the reasons as to why there was delay of 10 days in drawing spot mahazar and seizure mahazar. The PW.10 in his chief examination has stated that he had sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police on 13.04.2017 requesting to transfer the case to some other officer/ station as himself and accused were working in the same department/station. Further, he stated that he had drawn spot mahazar on 15.04.2017 in the presence of the Panch witnesses as per Ex.P.1 and seized MO.1 Log Book.
17 C.C.No.16947/2020
29. As stated by PW.10, if he had sent a requisition to the SP on 13.04.2017 for transferring the case to some other officer/station, then what was the necessity for him to draw Ex.P.1 mahazar on 15.04.2017 , i.e., after sending the requisition to the SP for the transfer of the case. This aspect has not been clarified by PW.10.
30. According to PW.7 he learnt that, the accused has forged MO.1-log book. According to PW.7, he has handed over the log Book to HC Ram Murthy as per the directions of Dy.SP. As stated by PW.7, if he had given the log book to HC Ram Murthy, as per the directions of Dy.SP, then how PW.10 seized MO.1 Log Book at the time of drawing mahazar? This aspect appears to be suspicious. Because, the PW.7 in his cross examination has stated that " ನನನ ಸದರ ಪಸಸಕವನನ ನ ರಮಮಮರರ ರವರಗ ಹಸಸಸತರ ಮಡನವ ಮನನನ ನನನ ಗಮನಕಕ ಯವದದ ನಕಲನ ಸಹಗಳನ ಕಸಡನ ಬರಲಲಲ. ಈ ಪಪಕರಣವ ನನನ ಸದರ ಪಸಸಕವನನ ನ ಹಸಸಸರರಸನವ ಮನಸಚ ದಖಲನ ಮಡಲಗದಯ ಅಥವ ನಸತರ ದಖಲನ ಮಡಲಗದಯ ನನಗ ಗಮರಸಲಲ.
18 C.C.No.16947/2020
31. The PW.6 in his complaint has stated that he has noticed the forgery of his seal and signature in the log book of the TVS fiero motor cycle bearing No.KA.03.G.746 on 01.04.2017 while verifying the same. To the contrary, the PW.6 in his chief examination has stated that " ದ.01.04.2017 ರಸದನ ಸಮನನದಸತ ಇತರ ಜಲಗಳಸದ ರರಲಲದ ನಲ ಲ ಣಕಕ ಬರನವ ವಹನಗಳ ಮಹರಗಳ ಲಗ ಪಸಸಕಗಳ ಪರಶದಲನಯಲ ತಮಡಗದ ಆಗ ಒಸದನ ಲಗ ಪಸಸಕದಲ ನನನ ಸಹ ನಕಲನ ಮಡರನವದನ ರಳದನಬಸದತನಸ". This versions of PW.6 appears to be suspicious. Because, it is not the case of the prosecution that, the signature of the complainant was found forged in the log book of the vehicles having ingress and egress to the railway station.
32. During the course of cross examination the PW.6 stated that, he had verified the log book in the month of May- June- July-2016. He did not notice any forgery at that time. As stated by PW.6, if he had not noticed any forgery in MO.1 Log Book at the earliest point of time, then how come he say that his signature and seal has been forged in the entry of June-July-2016?
19 C.C.No.16947/2020
33. The prosecution has not produced any documents before the court to show that, the accused had an access to the log books for entering the details of the vehicles of M.T.O Section. Because the PW.6 in his cross examination has stated that " ಲಗ ಪಸಸಕವನನ ನ ಎಸ. ಒ 1 ನನ ನ ವಹನಗಳ ಉಪಯಗ, ರಪದರ, ಮತನಸ ಇತರ ಅಸಶಗಳ ಬರಯನವಕಗಗ ಉಪಯಗಸಲಗರನತಸದ. ಸದರ ಲಗ ಪಸಸಕವನನ ನ ವಹನಗಳನನ ನ ಉಪಯಗಸನವಸತಹ ಪದಲಸ ವನಕಸಗಳದ ನವರಹಸನತಸರ ಮತನಸ ಬರಯನತಸರ. ಪ ಪರ ರಸಗಳಗ ಒಮಮ ಮತ ತ ರರಟರ ಗ ನ ಕಮಡಲಗನತಸದ. ರರಟರ ರವರನ ಬರವಣಗ ಪಣರಗಮಳಸ ನನನ ಬಳ ತರನತಸರ. There ಅದನನ are no materials on record to show that, the log book entry was made by the accused in his own hand writing, so as to say that the accused had access to the log book.
34. The PW.8 in his evidence has stated that, he had handed over certain sealed covers to the FSL on 06.07.2017 and received Ex.P.7 endorsement. From the contents of Ex.P.7 it appears that, the PW.8 had handed over only one cover to the FSL. That letter number is mentioned as, Questioned documents - FSL/QD/527/2017-Due date 20 C.C.No.16947/2020 06.01.2019. By perusing Ex.P.7, a question arises in the mind of the Court as to why the due date is mentioned as 06.01.2019 on that letter, when he was handed over the letter to FSL on 06.07.2017? This question remained unanswered.
35. In the present case, no independent witnesses have deposed that, Ex.P.1 mahazer was drawn and MO.1 was seized in their presence at the spot and they are aware of the contents of that document. No independent witnesses deposed before the Court that, the police have taken specimen signatures of PW.6, PW.7 and the accused in their presence. In the present case, only police officials have deposed in support of the prosecution case, which is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses.
36. There are no materials on record to show that, disputed D1/MO.1[a] signature was made by the person, who made specimen signatures as per B.1 to 7 and that hand writing tallies with the handwriting found on B.8 sheet, written by the accused. From the evidence of PW.1, PW.6, PW.7 to PW.12, the charges leveled against the accused will not be proved.
21 C.C.No.16947/2020
37. The PW.6 failed to demonstrate as to why, the accused intended to cheat him. There are no materials on record to show that, the handwriting found in MO.1[a] signature tallies with the handwriting of the accused made on B.8 sheet. As per Ex.D.2, the PW.7 had submitted the log book of KA.03.G.746 for the month of June-July 2016. So, there are no materials on record to show that, the accused was entering the details of the vehicle in MO.1 log book and he had access to that log book.
38. From the evidence led before the court, the charges leveled against the accused will not be proved. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused has forged the signature of PW.6 in MO.1 log book to cheat him. In such circumstances, I answer point No.1 in Negative.
Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused is 22 C.C.No.16947/2020 acquitted from the charge of Sec.468 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
MO.1 log book is ordered to be retained in the case file.
06.07.2022 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU 23 C.C.No.16947/2020 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : S.Hanumaiah PW.2 : Mehaboob Pasha PW.3 : Syed Isaaq PW.4 : Ravi Manjunath PW.5 : Govind Raj PW.6 : Nagaraj M N PW.7 : Chandrashekaraiah J.N PW.8 : Nataraj PW.9 : Dr.Arvind Barad PW.10 : Bailanjaneya PW.11 : Lakshmi Narayan Prasad H PW.12 : Dr.Sudhakar B S PW.13 : Kaleem PW.14 : Sathish
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Spot & Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.1[a] : 7-Signatures of PW.2
Ex.P.1[b] : 7-Signatures of PW.3
Ex.P.1[c] : 4-Signatures of PW.4
Ex.P.1[d] : 9-Signatures of PW.5
Ex.P.1[e] : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.1[f] to [k]: Signatures of PW.6
Ex.P.1[l] : Signature of PW.11
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.2[b] : Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.3 : FSL Experts Report
Ex.P.3[a] : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.4 : Copy of Station House Diary
24 C.C.No.16947/2020
Ex.P.5 : Copy of Station House Diary
Ex.P.6 : Digitally compared questioned signature
and standard signatures
Ex.P.7 : Endorsement issued by PW.8
Ex.P.8 : FIR
Ex.P.8[a]: Signature of PW.10
LIST OF MO'S MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 : Log Book M.O.1[a] : Forged signature LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED :
Ex.D.1 : True copy of Station house diary Ex.D.2 : True copy of names, who submitted Log Books Ex.D.3 : Orders passed in Departmental Enquiry
....................................................................................
Dictated on : 04.07.2022
Transcribed on : 04.07.2022
checked on : 06.07.2022
Signed on : 06.07.2022
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app
"eCourts Services" from Android or iOS