Bangalore District Court
Suhel Ahammed vs B M Venkatareddy on 7 August, 2025
KABC030575872015 Digitally signed
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY by
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 24-08-2015
Registered on : 24-08-2015
Decided on : 07-08-2025
Duration : 9 years, 11 months, 14 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 07th Day of August, 2025
C. C. No.20638/2015
(Crime No.52/2015)
State by J.C. Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri B.M.Venkatareddy,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o Sri Late B.A.Muniswamaiah,
R/at No.110, Meluru Village,
Shidlaghatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
2. Sri B.M.Ramachandra Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o Sri Late B.A.Muniswamaiah,
R/at Bannikuppa Grama,
Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura
Taluk and District.
3. Sri. C.S.Suryakanth Rao,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Sri Late C.G.Srinivas,
R/at No.102, 7th Cross,
Williams Town, J.C.Nagar,
Bengaluru-46.
4. Sri C.M.Eshwar Swaroop,
Aged about 21 years,
S/o Sri C.Munikrishna,
R/at No.01, Mathrushree Nilaya,
7th Cross, C.I.L. Layout,
Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru City.
5. Sri R.Ravindra Rao,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Sri Rathnoji Rao,
R/at No.120, Meccan Road,
Shivajinagar, Bengaluru.
2
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
6. Sri Gangadharaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o Sri Late K.V.Narasimhaiah,
No.48/6, M.M.Road,
Marappa Garden,
Bengaluru-46.
7. Sri C.Munikrishna,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Sri Chikkakotappa,
R/at No.01, Mathrushree Nilaya,
7th Cross, C.I.L. Layout,
Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Rep by Sri. K.Govindappa, Adv for Accused No.1 to 7)
1. Date of commission of 19-06-2014 to
offence 13-02-2015
2. Date of FIR 16-03-2015
3. Date of Charge sheet 29-05-2015
4. Name of Complainant Sri Suhel Ahamed,
Asst. Revenue Officer,
Vasanthanagar Sub-
Division, BBMP
3
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
5. Offences complained of Under Section 465,
468, 471, 420, 120(B),
201 read with Sec.34
of IPC
6. Date of framing charge 20-03-2018
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 15-02-2019
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 24-07-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 07-08-2025
11. Final order Accused No.1 and 2
are convicted for the
offences punishable
under section 465,
468, 471, 120(B) read
with Section 34 of IPC
and Accused No.3 to 7
are acquitted from the
offences punishable
under section 465,
468, 471, 420, 120(B)
read with Section 34 of
IPC
4
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
12. Date of Sentence 07-08-2025
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of J.C. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 201 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: The property Site No. 27carved out from Survey No. 101, Marappa Garden, M M Road, Ramaswamy Palya is in the name of CW8 Sri Riyaaz Ahmed and to grab the same property, the accused No.1 to 7 with criminal conspiracy forged the revenue of this property which has been paid during the year 2012 and 2013 vide Application No.531077851 and Receipt No.1213531077651 dated 18-04-2012 and B Register Letter No.ಡಿಎ(ವ.ನ)62 KTR/196/2010-11, dated 19-06-2014 and created in the name of accused No.1 namely Sri B M Venkata Reddy, No.05, Marappa Garden and created fake documents were submitted to the Office of the Senior Deputy Registrar, Gandhinagar on 30-09-2014 (Kacharakanahalli), Bangalore, the accused No.1 and 2 executed sale deed in the name of the accused No.3 to 5. Further, the accused No.6 even though he knew that the said documents were in the name of 5 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 his wife, he signed the said deed as a witness and accused No.7 has signed the sale deed with the intention of grab the property in favour of his son, i.e. accused No.4. The Accused No.1 to 7 destroyed the copying machine which they had used for commit the alleged offence by not producing the same during the investigation.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information given by informant cum CW1 namely Sri Suhel Ahammed, Asst. Revenue Officer, BBMP, CW1/PW7 the then PSI of J.C.Nagar police Sri E.S.Mahesh registered Crime No.52/2015 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 464 IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P10 and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers and drawn spot mahazar on 17/03/2015 as per Ex.P8 from 8.30 am to 9.20 am in the presence of CW2 Sri Praneeth and CW3 Sri N.H.Shivarajkumar Hosalaiah.
4. Investigation: After registration of case, he collected the documents as per Ex.P2 to 4, 12 to 23 from the concerned authorities and recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and submitted the charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 6 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 201 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused No.1 to 7 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 23-11-2016.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 to 7.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused persons, charge for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, however predecessor in office has not framed the charge for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 11 witnesses and examined 7 witness and exhibited 23 documents and closed their side. During the cross examination of 7 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 PW1, PW3 and PW7 by the counsel for accused, Ex.D1 to 3, Ex.D4 to 9 and Ex.D10 documents were marked respectively. The prosecution has given up CW3 from the examination by the order dated 22-10- 2019. The examination of CW7 was dropped out by order dated 22/08/2023 as he reported to be dead. Process against the CW9 and CW10 returned unexecuted and hence given up from examination by the order dated 18-07-2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 to 7 were examined as per section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witness and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 30/09/2014 the accused No.1 and 2 forged document of site No.27, 8 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Sy.No.101, Marappa garden, MM Road, Ramaswamy playa which belongs to CW8 Riyaaz Ahamed which would forged in the name of accused No.3 to 5 and particularly tax paid receipts for the year 2012 and 2013 application No.531077851 and receipt No.1213531077851 dated 18- 04-2012 forged the above said documents intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and fraudulently by knowing used as a genuine thereby resulted in commission of an offences punishable under U/s.465, 468 and 471 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence the accused No.3 to 5 9 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 forged the above said documents i.e., tax paid receipts, receipts and application in the name fo accused No.3 to 5 thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under U/s.
420 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence has committed criminal conspiracy thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/sec.120B of IPC?
4. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
1. Point No.1 & 3 : In the Affirmative as far as accused No.1 and 2 is concerned and in the Negative 10 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 as far as accused No.3 to 7 is concerned II Point No.2 : In the negative III Point No.4 : As per the final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses i. CW1 by name Sri Suhail Ahamed, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that, he was worked as an Assistant Revenue Officer in the BBMP Vasanthnagar Sub-Division from the year 2012 to 2016. In year 2015, CW8 Riyaaz Ahmed had given complain to the Commissioner that, one Sri Venkatesh Reddy had created revenue payment receipts and B register extract documents in respect of his property in Marappana Garden. The said complaint was sent to his office for investigation.
11KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 When he checked with his office books, he found that the said property was in the name of K.N. Leela, and that the revenue payment receipts and B register extract documents he had given in the name of K.N. Leela had been created in the name of Venkat Reddy. The property was changed to No.5 and the number of receipts was found to be the same. A report was submitted to the Commissioner in this regard and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 with J.C. Nagar Police Station and also furnished the revenue receipt and B extract in the name of K.N. Leela with a letter dated 26-02-2015 as Ex.P2. The documents were identified as Ex.P3 to 7 and the spot mahazar as per Ex.P8.
ii. CW2 by name Sri Praneeth, mahazar witness examined as PW2 deposed that on 17/03/2015 from 8.30 am to 9.30 am, the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P8 in connection with the complaint filed by CW1 at site No.27, Marappa Garden and obtained his signature as Ex.P8(b).
iii. CW8 by name Sri Riyaaz Ahmed, examined as PW3 deposed that, on 13/02/2015, he had complained to BBMP Commissioner, that Venkata Reddy and Ramachandra have forged and created the revenue documents in respect of property No.69, 12 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Marappa Garden, that they were the owners of the said property and sold the said property to Suryakanta Rao, Eshwar Swaroop and Ravindra. He had also filed a complaint with the Sub-Registrar to cancel the said sale deed. On the basis of the said complaint, CW1 has filed a complaint in the police station. It is said that Munikrishna and Gangadhar have signed the said purchase deed as witnesses. Although there are no documents in the names of the said persons, they have created false documents and cheated. After purchasing the property from CW9, when he went to take possession of the property, Suryakant and others have attacked and abused him, hence he filed a complaint with the BBMP Commissioner on 03/02/2015. When the accused claimed that the property which he had purchased was his, he checked the documents related to the property from the Sub-Register and BBMP office through RTI and found that the documents submitted for registration at the BBMP office were fabricated. Later, the BBMP office confirmed that the said documents were fake. The name in the said document was deleted and fake documents were created as Venkata Reddy. The document in the name of K.N. Leela was also found to be fake. The said documents were given to the police during the investigation.
13KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 iv. CW4 by name Smt. Honnamma Rani, Sub- Register examined as PW4 deposed that, she had worked as a Deputy Registrar at Kacharakanahalli Sub-Registration Office from 02/09/2013 to 18/11/2014 and had registered the sale deed document No. 2968/2014-15 on 30-09-2014.
v. CW5/PW5 by name Sri Girishchandra, Senior Sub-Registrar, deposed that, as per the direction of Registrar General and Commissioner of Stamps, filed complaint against the accused for creating a fake document for registering the sale deed before J.C. Nagar Police Station on 20-03-2015 as per Ex.P9.
vi. CW6/PW by name Sri M.Rajashekhar, FDA, deposed that, on the instruction of Deputy Registrar-CW5, submitted a complaint before JC Nagar Police Station and obtained acknowledgment.
vii. CW11 by name Sri E.S.Mahesh, the then PSI of J.C. Nagara PS, examined as PW7 deposed that, on 16-03-2015, he received written complaint from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P10, on 17-03- 2015, spot mahazar conducted as per Ex.P8 in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Praneeth and CW3 namely Sri Shivarajkumar Hosalaish, from 8:30 am 14 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 to 9:20 am. On 20-03-2015, he received the complaint and documents from the Deputy Registrar, Kacherakanahalli as per Ex.P9, recorded the statements of CW4 to CW6 and secured the FIR No.195/2014 filed by CW8 at J.C. Nagar police station on 13-10-2014. On 26-02-2015, the Assistant Revenue Officer Sub-Division issued created certificate of Survey No.111, Site No.27, Marappa Garden of Mrs.Leela as per Ex.P2 to 4. Further deposed that, he addressed a letter as per Ex.P11 to the Senior Sub-Registrar requested to confirm the EC relating to document No.1731/2010- 11 registered in the Ganganagar office and received reply on 28-03-2015 with a copy of Form No.1, sale Deed, EC, duplicate revenue receipt, Khata B.Y., Khata Confirmation Letter and Will as per Ex.P12 to
21. On 30-03-2015, he addressed a letter to the Assistant Revenue Officers, Citizens' Advice Centre, BBMP, Malleswaram West Zone, Bangalore, asking whether the original documents relating to property No.101-27-62 were genuine or fake. Accordingly on 31-03-2015, the Assistant Revenue Officers replied that the documents are fake. Later, the documents related to the property of CW8 were secured from the office of the Gandhinagar Sub-Registrar on 29-05- 2015 and filed final report against the accused persons.
15KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
15. It is the defence of the accused No.1 to 7 that the PW1 does not have any locus to file the complaint as no authority was given by his superior officer to file this complaint as against as Ex.D2, the rights of BBMP was not affected on account of fake katha extract and B Extract and the property involved in the Ex.P4 and the property of CW8/PW3 are totally different from one and another. Based upon the defence of accused persons, this court had taken the gone through the oral and documentary evidence.
16. Before dwelling onto the discussions on the point No.1 to 3, this court had to make it very clear that the court under the purview of this case, is not deciding the civil rights of parties in respect of property Site No 27 carved out from Survey No.101, Marappa Garden, M M Road, Ramaswamy Palya whether the accused No.1 and 2 has valid title to convey the same to the accused No.3 to 5 (purchasers) under Ex.P7 (Sale Deed dated 30/09/2014 and the Sale Deed dated 01/10/2014 for having purchased from Sri Lakshmipathi Babu S/o. Late Sri Narasimhah by the PW3 namely Sri Riyaz Ahamed S/o. late Abdul Jabba as per Ex.D1 as the civil suit is pending on the file of Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S. No.7266/2015 by PW3 against accused No.1 to 5 for seeking declaration of his property bearing No.69, situated at Marappa Garden, 16 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 J. C. Nagar, in BBMP Ward No.92 and bearing PID No.92-103-69, Bangalore, (formerly known as premises No.11) situated at 5th Cross, Church Street, Munimarappa Garden, K. G. Byadrahalli, Bangalore City Corporation Division No.83, Bangalore - 560006 and bounded on the East by Site No. 10 belonging to M. V. Ramakrishna, West by Road, North by Site No. 12 belonging to M. V. Ramakrishna and South by Site No. 8 belonging to T N Nagesh and measuring East to West 77'6'' + 53'3''/2 and north to south 65' + 30 + 42'6''/3 feet as per Ex. D. 5 for declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner having title in respect of the suit schedule property having acquired through the sale deed dated 01/10/2014 registered as document No.2647/2014-2015 and the interlocutory application filed by the PW3 came to be dismissed on 15/04/2015 as per Ex.D6 and the interim order in OS No.7266/2015 came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in M.F.A No.5207/2016 as per Ex.D7 by the order 03/06/2019. The Ex.D9 judgment of O.S. No. 2207/1996 does not connect with the commission of offences as alleged in this case and the Ex.D10 with regard to photographs when the police official went to the spot and the PW3 could be seen as he was staying outside the gate as on 12/03/2015. As per Ex.D8, the accused No.3, 4 and 6 has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.3539/2017 for quashing the 17 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 offences punishable under section 448, 341, 506, 379 read with section 149 of IPC wherein in paragraph 22 held as under
22. On that basis, the first respondent police registered crime No.52/2015 initially only against Venkatareddy and unnamed accused. Even in that first information report and charge sheet, the allegations of forgery were against Venkatareddy S/o.
Muniswamiah whether the accused in C C No. 20638/2021 has committed is the subject matter of that proceeding. Therefore, the court refrains from making any further observations regarding the same. Merely because the criminal petition filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 20638/2015 was withdrawn, does not change the fact that the dispute in the present case is predominantly civil in nature.18
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Such being the case, this case does not have anything to decide on the civil rights and this case restricts whether the accused persons committed forgery or not.
17. The present case is charge sheeted accused No.1 namely Sri Venkatareddy and Accused No.2 namely Sri B.M.Ramachandra Reddy, based upon the complaint lodged by the PW1 who is none other than Assistant Revenue Inspector for the offence punishable under section 465, 468, 471 R/W Section 34 of IPC. No doubt PW1 admitted in his cross examination with regard to contents of Ex.D2 which reads as under
xxx ಪಾಲಿಕೆಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನೋಂದಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿರುವುದನ್ನು ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಾಧಾರ ನೋಂದಾಯಿಸಿರುವ ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಪಾಲಿಕೆ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸುವಂತೆ ಉಪ ನೋಂದಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆಯಬಹುದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲವೇ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಸ್ವತ್ತಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ 19 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟವರು ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆಂದು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಿಸಿ ಪೂರಾ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿಸಿದೆ.
ಈ ಮೇಲಿನ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ, ಉಲ್ಲೇಖದ ಪತ್ರದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿರುವ ಖಾತಾ ದೃಢೀಕರಣ ಪತ್ರ ಖಾತಾ ನಕಲು ಮತ್ತು ಕಂದಾಯ ರಶೀದಿಯ ಜೆರಾಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಯಿಂದ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆಯೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ರಾ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಅಸಲಿಯೆ ಅಥವಾ ನಕಲಿಯೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೂಲಂಕುಷವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ದೃಢೀಕರಿಸಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಪಿ.ಐ.ಡಿ. ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 101-27-62 ರ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವ ಯಾರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಅತಿ ತುರ್ತಾಗಿ ನೀಡಲು ಕೋರಿದೆ.
and in the cross examination of PW1 which reads as under
ಸದರಿ ನಡಾವಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 3 ರಿಂದ 5ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ದಾವೆ ಹೂಡಿದ್ದು ಅದು ಇತ್ಯರ್ಥವಾಗುವವರೆಗೂ ಖಾತೆ ನೀಡಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹಿಂಬರಹ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 3 ರಿಂದ 5ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಕ್ರಯ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ರದ್ದು ಪಡಿಸಬೇಕು, ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕ್ರಮ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಕೋಶಕ್ಕೆ ಶಿಫಾರಸ್ಸು ಕಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಆ 20 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 ರೀತಿ ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ವತಿಯಿಂದ ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಬಹುದು, ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲದೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ವತಿಯಿಂದ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಲು ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಾನೂನು ಕೋಶದಿಂದ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 3 ರಿಂದ 5ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಿಪಿ.7 ರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಿರುವ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಆಯುಕ್ತರ ಮೌಖಿಕ ಆದೇಶದಂತೆ ಕಾನೂನು ಕೋಶದ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವನ್ನು ಪಾಲನೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ಉಪ ಆಯುಕ್ತರು ಶರಾ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ನಾವು ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪಾಲಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಆಯುಕ್ತರು ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸುವಂತೆ ನನಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ ಸೂಚನೆ, ನಾನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ ವರದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 8 ರವರು ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರು ಇವುಗಳನ್ನು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದಾಗ ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರು
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಮುಖ್ಯ
ಆಯುಕ್ತರು ಆ ರೀತಿ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಸೂಚನೆ ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ, ನಾನು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ವರದಿ ತಯಾರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.21
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Merely an opinion has been given by Legal Department of BBMP and Deputy Commissioner (East), of BBMP had directed them to proceed as per legal opinion, would not be a ground to absolve forgery act of accused No.1 and 2 in submitting the forged documents to the Sub-Registrar (as per complaint vide Ex.P9) and the right of public would also affected. PW1 is clear in his evidence that the oral direction was given by the Superior authority for lodging the complaint. The said act of PW1 was not been questioned by his superior authority as on the date.
18. This court had gone through the complaint dated 16/03/2015 which reads as under
xxxx ನಾವು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಸೈಟ್ ನಂ.27, ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ.101, ಮಾರಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್, ಎಂ.ಎಂ.ರಸ್ತೆ, ರಾಮಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಪಾಳ್ಯ, ವಾರ್ಡ್- 62, ಈ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಕಂದಾಯ ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುವ 2012-13ರ ಅರ್ಜಿಯ ನಂ.531077851 ಮತ್ತು ರಸೀದಿ ನಂ.1213531077851 ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 18.04.2012 ಮತ್ತು ಬಿ ವಹಿಯ ನಕಲು ಎಂಬುದು, ಡಿ.ಎ.
(ವನ)/62/ಕೆ.ಟಿ.ಆರ್/196/2010-11ದ ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 19.06.2014 ರಂದು ಈ ಎರಡು ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಈ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿಂದ ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಕೆ.ಎನ್.ಲೀಲಾ ರವರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಇದೇ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಶ್ರೀ ವೆಂಕಟರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರು 22 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 ತಮ್ಮ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ನಕಲು ದಾಖಲೆ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿದೆ.
ಪಾಲಿಕೆಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಾದ ಕಂದಾಯ ರಸೀದಿ, ಬಿ ವಹಿಯ ನಕಲು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿ, ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಸೈಟ್ ನಂ.5, ಎಂ.ಎಂ.ರಸ್ತೆ, 5ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್, ಮಾರಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಈ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀ ವೆಂಕಟರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರು ಶ್ರೀ ಸಿ.ಎಂ.ಈಶ್ವರ್ ಸ್ವರೂಪ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರಿಗೆ ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರದ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ 2968/2014-15 ರನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 30-
09-2014 ರಂದು ಹಿರಿಯ ಉಪ
ನೋಂದಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಕಚೇರಿ,
ಗಾಂಧೀನಗರ (ಕಾಚರಕನಹಳ್ಳಿ), ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ಉಪ ನೋಂದಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ರವರಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದು ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರ ನೋಂದಾಯಿಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳ ದೃಢೀಕೃತ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿದಾಗ ಪಾಲಿಕೆಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಕಲು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿತ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಬೇರೊಂದು ಆಸ್ತಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಕಂದಾಯ ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುವ ರಸೀದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಬಿ ವಹಿಯ ನಕಲನ್ನು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ/ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿರುವ ಕಾರಣ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀ ವೆಂಕಟರೆಡ್ಡಿಯವರನ್ನು ಸಹ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಕಾನೂನು ರೀತಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಕೋರಲಾಗಿದೆ.23
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Thus, the complaint as per Ex.P1 lodged by the PW1 who is an Assistant Revenue Inspector makes it very clear that the complaint was lodged only to the extent of forging of tax paid receipt and B Extract i.e., Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and submitted to the Sub-Registrar for registration of Ex.P7 Sale Deed in favour of accused No.3 to 5 by the accused No.1 and 2. The right of PW3/CW8 was not questioned by the PW1 in his complaint. The defence of the accused No.l to 7 that PW1 has lodged the complaint to aid the PW3 does not depict anywhere in the complaint.
19. The relevant provision of forgery is as under
463. Forgery.--3 [Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.24
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Section 464 in The Indian Penal Code which reads Making a false document.--[A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fradulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or 25 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Secondly--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
465. Punishment for forgery.--
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 26 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 468:- Forgery for purpose of cheating whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Thus, it is culled out the main ingredients of forgery from aforesaid sections are:
1. Making a False Document
2. As per Section 463 IPC, forgery involves making any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record.
3. Section 464 IPC further defines when a person is said to have made a false document:27
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Dishonestly or fraudulently making, signing, sealing, or executing a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made, signed, sealed, or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority the maker knows it was not made, signed, sealed, or executed Dishonestly or fraudulently altering a document or electronic record in any material part after it has been made or executed
4. Dishonestly or fraudulently causing any person to sign, seal, execute, or alter a document or electronic record, knowing that the person does not know the contents or nature of the alteration due to unsoundness of mind or intoxication
5. Intention to Cause Damage, Injury, or Fraud
6. The false document must be made with the intent to cause 28 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 damage or injury to the public or any person, support any claim or title, cause a person to part with property, enter into a contract, or commit fraud.
7. Knowledge of Forgery In this backdrop, the present case is taken up for evaluation of oral and documentary evidence to ascertain whether the prosecution has made out the case for forgery.
20. In order to prove the prosecution case, IO/CW11/PW7 has secured the original tax paid receipt and form B maintained by the BBMP as per the assessment registers as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and the issuance of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Advocate for accused persons has raised the objection for marking the Ex.P5 and 6 i.e., photostat copy however the Ex.P9 was the letter wherein the CW5/PW5 Sri Girishchandra had lodged the complaint with J C Nagar Police Station on 20/03/2015 that accused No.1 and 2 have submitted the created fake documents to register sale deed as per Ex.P9 along with Ex.P9, copy of sale deed, documents submitted 29 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 for registration of documents (Ex.P3 to 6) were given to the PW7. The contents of complaint which reads as under xxxxx ಆದರೆ, ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ 2968/2014-15 ರ ನೋಂದಣಿಗೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ವೇಳೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾರಾಟಗಾರರು ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಹ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅದರನ್ವಯ ನೋಂದಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ಬ್ಯಹತ್ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮಹಾನಗರ ಪಾಲಿಕೆಯ ವಸಂತನಗರ ಉಪ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಸಹಾಯಕ ಕಂದಾಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ರವರು ಠಾಣಾ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ಜೆ.ಸಿ.ನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 26-
02-2015ರ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ "ಅದರಂತೆ ಈ ಕಚೇರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗಿ, ಈ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿಂದ ಸೈಟ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ 27, ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ.101, ಮಾರಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್, ಎಂ.ಎಂ.ರಸ್ತೆ, ವಾರ್ಡ್-62ರ ವಿಳಾಸದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ.ಲೀಲಾ.ಕೆ.ಎನ್. ರವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಉಪನೋಂದಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಗಾಂಧೀನಗರ (ಕಾಚರಕನಹಳ್ಳಿ) ರವರ ಕಛೇರಿಯಿಂದ ಪಡೆದಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಂತೆ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ "ಬಿ" ವಹಿಯ ನಕಲು ಮತ್ತು ಕಂದಾಯ ರಶೀದಿಯನ್ನು ಶ್ರೀ ವೆಂಕಟರೆಡ್ಡಿ ನಂ.5, ಮಾರಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ತಿದ್ದಿರುವುದು ದೃಢಿಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ತಿದ್ದಿರುವ 30 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇಲ್ ಡೀಡ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ 2968/2014-15 ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 30-09- 2014ನ್ನು ನೋಂದಾಯಿಸಲು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು" ಬರೆದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜು ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ 2968/2014-15 ರ ನೋಂದಣಿಗೆ ಪೋರ್ಜರಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುವುದು ದೃಢಪಟ್ಟಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸತ್ಯಾ-ಸತ್ಯತೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳ ನೈಜತೆ/ಕೃತ್ರಿಮತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಲು ತನಿಖೆಯ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಆದುದರಿಂದ ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜು ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ
2968/2014-15ರ ನೋಂದಣಿಗೆ
ಪೋರ್ಜರಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು
ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1908 ರ ಕಲಂ 82 ರಡಿ ಪಟ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳನ್ನು ಎಸಗಿರುವುದು ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಎಸಗಿರುವಂತೆ ದೃಢಪಟ್ಟಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಕಲಂ 83 ರಡಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿತ ಪಕ್ಷಕಾರರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಲು ಉಪ ನೋಂದಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಕಾಚರಕನಹಳ್ಳಿ ರವರಿಗೆ ಮಾನ್ಯ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮಹಾಪರಿವೀಕ್ಷಕರು ಮತ್ತು ಮುದ್ರಾಂಕಗಳ ಆಯುಕ್ತರು, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ರವರು ಜ್ಞಾಪನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ ಆರ್ ಜಿ ಎನ್ 135/2017-15, ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 04- 03-2015 ರಂತೆ ಸೂಚಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
21. This apart, IO/PW7 has secured the documents submitted by the accused No.1 and 2 for 31 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 registration of sale deed dated 18/03/2011 (Ex.P17) in respect of property No.27, property No.101, measuring East to West 48 feet and North to South 75 + 50/2=62.5 feet (Eastern side 75 feet and western side 50 feet) totally measuring an extent 3000 square feet with ACC shed with red oxide flooring said measuring 100 square feet situated M. M. Road, Marappa Garden, K. G. Byadarahalli Village, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, BBMP Ward No.62 and bounded on East by private property; west by M. M. Road, North by Church road and South by Gangadharaiah property (portion of Site No.27) in favour of CW10 Smt. K. N. Leela on 27/03/2015 to the Senior Sub-registrar, Ganganagar Ballary Road, Bangalore on 27/03/2015 for which the Senior Sub- registrar, Ganganagar, Ballary Road, Bangalore on 28/03/2015 has given the documents as per Ex.P13 to Ex.P21.
22. In furtherance, IO/PW7 has secured the particulars from Assistant Revenue Officers, Citizens' Advice Centre, BBMP, Malleswaram West Zone, Bangalore, furnished the report as per Ex.P23 that xxx ಪಾಲಿಕೆಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನೋಂದಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿರುವುದನ್ನು 32 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಾಧಾರ ನೋಂದಾಯಿಸಿರುವ ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಪಾಲಿಕೆ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಯಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸುವಂತೆ ಉಪ ನೋಂದಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆಯಬಹುದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲವೇ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಸ್ವತ್ತಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟವರು ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆಂದು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಿಸಿ ಪೂರಾ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿಸಿದೆ.
ಈ ಮೇಲಿನ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ, ಉಲ್ಲೇಖದ ಪತ್ರದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿರುವ ಖಾತಾ ದೃಢೀಕರಣ ಪತ್ರ ಖಾತಾ ನಕಲು ಮತ್ತು ಕಂದಾಯ ರಶೀದಿಯ ಜೆರಾಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಯಿಂದ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆಯೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ರಾ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಅಸಲಿಯೆ ಅಥವಾ ನಕಲಿಯೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೂಲಂಕುಷವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ದೃಢೀಕರಿಸಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಪಿ.ಐ.ಡಿ. ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 101-27-62 ರ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವ ಯಾರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಅತಿ ತುರ್ತಾಗಿ ನೀಡಲು ಕೋರಿದೆ.
Thus, there is no particulars available in their computer records about property identification No.101-27-62 i.e., Ex.P14 (i.e., the property 33 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 documents submitted to the Sub-registrar for registration of Ex.P17 in the name of Smt. Leela by the accused No.1 and 2) and further had given opinion that these documents were not given from their office and the said documents are fake. The prosecution has furnished the Ex.P3 to 6 that these documents are fake and more so the PW5 had submitted the complaint as per Ex.P9 along with the Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 under their seal of Sub-registrar that accused No.1 and 2 had given those documents at the time of registration of Ex.P7 dated 30/09/2014.
23. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused No.1 and 2 has submitted fake documents (Ex.P5 and Ex.P6) at the time of registration of Ex.P7 through the Ex.P9 are fake. The evidence of PW1 and evidence of PW5 and PW7 coupled with Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 makes accused No.1 and 2 are submitted fake documents to Sub-Registrar, Kacharakanahalli, Bangalore then how the Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 came into existence and how the property was conveyed to the accused No.3 to 5 through Ex.P7 by submitting Ex.P5 and 6 through Accused No.1 and 2, the burden shifts upon the accused No.1 and 2 to rebut the same. In this regard, this court relies upon Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as under 34 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Such being the case, the accused No.1 and 2never rebutted the Ex.P3 to Ex.P6, Ex.P14, Ex.P23 and the evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW7 through any other cogent evidence i.e., how they acquired the Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 from BBMP except the bare denial in the cross examination to the prosecution witnesses and the same does not amounts to proving of their defence, therefore the prosecution proved that the accused No.1 and 2 committed the offence under section 465 of IPC. The accused No.1 and 2 would have go through the documents and submit the documents however the accused No.1 and 2 has not explained anything how the Ex.P5 and 6 came into existence and submitted the documents and the said principle is appreciated in the case of A. S. Krishnan and others vs State of Kerala reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 576.
24. The prosecution has not whispered anywhere in the record that accused No.3 to 5 was part of 35 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 altering the Ex.P3 and 4 for registration of Ex.P7 except accused No.3 to 5 purchased the aforesaid property. The prosecution has not established that the accused No.3 to 5 had knowledge about the alteration of Ex.P3 and 4 and took part in the act of forgery. The prosecution has not established that the accused No.3 to 5 was in connivance with the accused No.1 and 2 has created Ex.P5 and 6 by altering the contents of Ex.P3 and 4. The accused No.6 and 7 are attesting witnesses to the Ex.P7 and such being the case, there is no other probable evidence that the accused No.6 has given the copy of Ex.P3 and 4 to the accused No.1 and 2 to alter the contents of Ex.P3 and 4. The accused No. 7 being the father of accused No.4, has signed the sale deed as an attesting witnesses cannot be construed that he is part of forging the Ex.P3 and 4. It is common that if the accused No.4 being son of accused No.7, would expect one of his known person to be an attesting witnesses and any overt act of accused No.6 and 7 in fabricating Ex.P5 and 6 or altering the Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 with the accused No.1 and 2 was not established by the prosecution. The name of accused No.1 was very much visible in the Ex.P5 and 6 and the signature of accused No.2 who was one of vendor attested his signature on to the Ex.P5 and 6 and based upon presentation of Ex.P5 and 6, the registration of Ex.P7 had taken place and the accused No.1 and 2 are being beneficiaries from Ex.P7 (sale 36 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 deed dated 30/09/2014) as they received sale consideration from accused No.3 to 5. No doubt, the accused No.4 being one of the purchaser affixed his signature however the accused No.4 being the purchaser and the accused No.3 to 5 are victims in the hands of accused No.1 and 2 as invested Rs.45 lakhs for purchase of property under Ex.P7 and more so IO/PW7 did not investigate about the passing of consideration from hands of accused No.3 to 5 to the hands of accused No.1 and 2. Without any evidence that no consideration was passed from hands of accused No.3 to 5 cannot be made culpable. Thus, the accused No.3 to 7 are not held guilty for the offence punishable under section 465 of IPC.
25. In addition to which, the accused No.1 and 2 has used the said Ex.P5 and 6 for registration of sale deed dated 30/09/2014. Sections 468 and 471 of IPC reads as follows:
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 37 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].
--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].
26. It has been held in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 528 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed and held as under:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be 38 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.
The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.gpa The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity 39 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e., because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind etc. Such is also not the case before this court for consideration. Indisputably therefore the accused No.1 falls under first category that he created the false document -GPA dated 25/09/2006 under the authority of the CW2/PW6.
27. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein it was held that " 11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.40
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 With aforesaid ingredients of offence, this court had gone through the records. It appears from the record that the copy of sale deed dated 30/09/2014 executed by the accused No.1 and 2 falls under the first categories of `false documents' and the accused No.3 to 5 has not denied the execution of sale deed by the accused No.1 and 2 and purchased the property as per Ex.P7 from the accused No.1 and 2. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of informant that the execution of sale deed by the accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P7 is upon the Ex.P5 and 6 was created by altering the contents of Ex.P3 and 4 to the Ex.P5 and 6 by inserting the name of accused No.1 and made the Sub Registrar to register Ex.P7 as if BBMP had given Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 would bring the case under the first and second category by falsely claiming to be given by the BBMP. Though the accused has submitted that no damage has been caused to BBMP to lodge the complaint. It ought to be seen that the revenue of State has been affected for change of katha and the revenue authority would issue the katha based upon the verification of titles and such being the case not only the BBMP would be affected with such creation of Ex.P5 and 6, but also the public and also other statutory authority as they tend to believe that the BBMP has issued the Ex.P5 and 6. As discussed the above, the prosecution has 41 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 not proved about the role of accused No.3 to 7 for having taken in part of creation of forgery Ex.P5 and 6, except accused No.3 to 5 purchased the aforesaid property for consideration. The prosecution has not established that the accused No.3 to 7 had knowledge about the alleged forgery of Ex.P5 and 6 and then the Sale Deed dated 30/09/2014 came to be executed.
28. In addition to which, the accused No.1 and 2 has used the said forged and altered Ex.P5 and 6 for selling the aforesaid land to the accused No.3 to 5 on 30/09/2014 as per Ex.P7 through the registered sale deed. Merely the opinion was given by the legal department of the BBMP and the same has been accepted by the DC, does not mean that the Statutory authority/ Exchequer was deprived of the revenue as the BBMP is the authority for collection of revenues and hence the accused No.1 and 2 cannot escape from their mischief /fraudulent acts. It is relevant to mention Sections 468 and 471 of IPC reads as follows:
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be 42 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].
--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].
29. The essential ingredients of Section 471 are (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one.
30. Section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of the Section.43
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
31. To attract Section 471, it is not necessary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted, before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be a forged one can be convicted, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one.
32. The act or acts which constitute the commission of the offence of forgery are quite different from the act of making use of a forged document. The expression 'fraudulently and dishonestly' are defined in Section 25 and 24 of IPC respectively. For an offence under Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by Section 471 must be voluntary one. For sustaining conviction under Section 471 it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused No.3 to 7 knew or had reason to believe that the Ex.P5 and 6 to be a forged/altered one. Whether the accused No.3 to 7 knew or had reason to believe the Ex.P5 and 6 in question (tax paid receipt and B Extract) to be a forged is not clear from record as accused No.3 to 5 purchased the aforesaid property 44 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 for sale consideration and the contents of the sale deed contents were not rebutted by the prosecution that these documents were not executed for the sale consideration as alleged.
33. Under the IPC, guilt in respect of almost all the offences is fastened either on the ground of "intention" or "knowledge" or "reason to believe".
"Knowledge" is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mine.
34. Section 26 of IPC explains the meaning of the words "reason to believe" thus:
26 - "Reason to believe": A person is said to have 'reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise."
In substance what it means is that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned. Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if the circumstances are 45 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 such creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e. "knowledge" and "reason to believe"
have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1993 SC 1167. As discussed, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.3 to 7 had the knowledge about Ex.P5 and 6 and also had reason to believe that the document was a forged/altered one before the sale deed dated 30/09/2014 was executed as per Ex.P7.
35. It has been held in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 528 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed and held as under:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be 46 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.
The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity 47 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e., because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind etc. Such is also not the case before this court for consideration. Indisputably therefore the accused No.1 and 2 falls under first and second category that they created the false document -tax paid receipts and B Extract as per Ex.P5 and 6 claims to be under the BBMP authority has been issued and was used the forged as a genuine before the sub-registrar, Kacharakanahalli, Bangalore for execution of Ex.P7 sale deed dated 30/09/2014.
36. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein it was held that " 11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone 48 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 else or authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
Thus, the Sale Deed dated 30/09/2014 executed by the accused No.1 and 2 in favour of accused No.3 to 5 falls under the first and second categories of `false documents' and altered and tampered the Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of PW1 that the purchase of property by the accused No.3 to 5 from the accused No.1 and 2 who was in no way connected with the BBMP property however as the accused No.1 and 2 made the Sub-Registrar to execute the sale deed dated 30/09/2014 as if the BBMP has issued in the name of accused No.1 by altering the name of Smt. Leela and substituted the name of accused No.1, would bring the case under the first and second category by falsely issued by the BBMP. Therefore, alteration of such document by the accused No.1 and 2 claiming to be given by BBMP before the Sub- Registrar falls under execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code so the accused No.1 and 2 has created Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and based 49 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 upon which sale deed dated 30/09/2007 was registered, there is a forgery on the part of accused No.1 and 2 is established by prosecution and not against the accused No.3 to 7. When the forgery is established, then section 467 or section 471 of the Code are attracted.
37. In the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581, it was observed and held as under:
"25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of 50 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. „Forgery‟ and „Fraud‟ are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that „false document‟. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High 51 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same."
Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that to attract the offence of forgery, the accused No.1 and 2 must be the maker of the forged document. In the instant case, the accused No.3 to 7 are not benefited with the Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and no other strong evidence placed by the prosecution that the accused No.3 to 7 were part of tampering of Ex.P3 and 4. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, as the charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the forged document, the charges framed against the accused No.3 to 7 under Sections 468 and 471 IPC does not survive for consideration when the prosecution has not proved the overt act of accused No.3 to 7, however it appears from the record that the accused No.3 to 5 are victims from the hands of accused No.1 and 2 and the accused No.6 and 7 are just attesting witnesses to the Ex.P7 sale deed dated 30/09/2014. The learned counsel for the accused No. 1 to 7 has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Manju Gupta Vs Lt. M. S. Paintal reported in (1982) 2 SCC 412 that the accused persons would be entitled to acquittal if there is no evidence who has created the rent receipts. In the 52 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 case on hand, it is totally different from creation of statutory documents (having said to have said issued by the government bodies) and the same cannot be equated with the rent receipts. Added to which, the learned counsel for the accused No. 1 to 7 submitted that the Ex.P5 and 6 was not seized through the seizure mahazar however PW5 is the custodian of those documents having supplied to the IO/PW7 at the time of lodging the complaint and the same has come from the competent authority (Sub-Registrar) at the time of lodging the complaint. The counsel for the accused No. 1 to 7 has relied upon the decision in the case of Hasan Ali Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1983) 2 SCC 66 does not apply to the case on hand as the charge framed and the accused No. 1 to 7 has not challenged the framing of charge and the said decision does not aid the defence in any manner. Therefore the accused No.1 and 2 held guilty of offence under section 468 and 471 of IPC. Accordingly the point No.1 is answered in affirmative as far as the accused No.1 and 2 is concerned consequently the point No.1 is answered in negative as far as the accused No.3 to 7 is concerned.
38. Point No.2: The relevant provision of cheating is as under section 420 of IPC as against the accused No.3 to 5. In this context it is relevant to 53 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 reiterate Section 415 of Indian Penal Code defines cheating "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
It has been held in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Verma and others Vs State of Bihar and another reported in 2000(4) SCC 168 and in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs NEPC India Limited and others reported in 2006(6) SCC 736, this Court held :
14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In 54 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.
Thus, the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows :
(i) Deception of any persons;
(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or
(iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.55
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
39. However it appears from prosecution papers that the accused No.3 to 5 are the purchasers under the sale deed dated 30/09/2014. As discussed in paragraph No.25, IO /PW7 did not investigate about the passing of consideration from the hands of the accused No.3 to accused No.5 to the accused No.1 and 2. When such being the case, the contents of sale deed dated 30/09/2014 about the passing of consideration under the Ex.P7 and the cheque bearing No.000842 dated 01/12/2014 for Rs.5 lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank, Bangalore from the account of accused No.3 to 5 to the account of vendor No.1, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused No.3 to 5 are tainted with dishonest intention to fabricate the revenue documents as per Ex.P5 and 6 rather appears that they are victims in the hands of the accused No.1 and 2. When the forgery on the part of the accused No.3 to 5 was not established by the prosecution or any overt act in fabricating the Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 prior to the execution of sale deed dated 30/09/2014 or on account of non passing of consideration to infer that the accused No.3 to 5 has indulged in the acts of cheating, then the question of cheating does not arise and hence the Point No. 2 is answered in negative.
40. Point No.3: The relevant provision for Section 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under 56 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
To secure a conviction under this section, the prosecution must establish essential ingredients which are as under:
57KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
1.There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
2.The agreement must be for committing an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
3.The agreement must be specifically to commit an offense as defined under the IPC.
These elements are crucial for establishing the offense of conspiracy, and the absence of any one of them can lead to the failure of the prosecution''s case.
41. As per Section 10 of the Evidence Act reads as under:-
"Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is 58 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
However , to make a piece of evidence admissible under the said section it must be prima facie shown that : (a) there was a conspiracy; (b) if the conspiracy is shown to be in existence in that,eventuality anything said, done or written by any of the persons who are members of the said conspiracy would be admissible against any one of the co-conspirators; (c) the said thing done or written by any of such co- conspirators must be in reference to their common intention in order to be made admissible in evidence; and (d) the said piece of evidence would also be relevant for the said purpose against any other co- conspirator who entered the conspiracy irrespective of the fact whether the said thing was done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it. The Ex.P5 and 6 makes it very clear that the name of accused No.1 was entered and the accused No.2 has given for registration by the signing the said Ex.P5 and 6 and hence it is clear that the accused No.1 and 2 have conspired together to fabricate the tax paid receipts and B Extract as per Ex.P5 and 6 by knowing 59 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 that they are using the same for illegal act of creating documents as they are beneficiaries under the Ex.P7 (sale deed dated 30/09/2014) and the role of the accused No.3 to 7 was not proved by the prosecution with any cogent and probable evidence to show that accused No.3 to 7 have conspired to fabricate the tax paid receipt and the B extract (Ex.P5 and Ex.P6). Therefore the prosecution has established the charges under section 120 B of Indian Evidence Act against the accused No.1 and 2 and not against accused No.3 to 7. With this observation, the Point No.3 is answered in affirmative as far as accused No.1 and 2 is concerned consequently in the negative as far as accused No. 3 to 7 is concerned.
42. The discussion on the spot mahazar as per Ex.P8 does not require as the accused No.1 and 2 committed fraud by tampering the Ex.P5 and 6 which was said to have issued by the BBMP.
43. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(2) of the Cr.P.C.60
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 465, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC
(ii) Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.3 to 7 are not found guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC
(iii) Accused No.1 and 2 shall be heard on the sentence under Sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
(Typed from the reasons by me in my laptop, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 07th day of August, 2025.) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
61KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Heard on sentence from APP and the advocate for accused No.1 and 2.
:ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Accused No.1 and 2 submitted that they are aged above 60 years, suffering from Blood pressure and diabetics and are depended upon their family members to meet out their daily activities and prays to take a lenient view.
2. The learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor has replied that considering the magnitude of the fraud, maximum possible sentence be imposed on the accused No.1 and 2. The question is whether the accused No.1 and 2 should be sentenced to maximum possible sentence or any leniency can be shown to him? Admittedly the accused No.1 and 2 are aged about 66 years. Having regard to the magnitude of the fraud and taking into consideration the circumstances obtaining in the case, this court deems it just and expedient to pass the following sentence.
ORDER
i) For the offence under Section 465 of IPC accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and shall pay a fine of 62 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for one month.
ii) For the offence under Section 468 of IPC accused No.1 and 2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for one month.
iii) For the offence under Section 471 of IPC accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for one months.
iv) For the offence under Section 120B of IPC accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 15 days.
63KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
v) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
vi) Under Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are given time to pay the fine amount till the appeal period.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled.
viii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of accused No.3 to 7 shall be in force for 6 (six) months
ix) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused No.1 and 2 at free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly to the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of August, 2025.) DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
64KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1: Sri Suhel Ahamed Informant as per Ex.P1 PW2: Sri Praneeth Panch Witness PW3: Sri Riyaz Ahamed Informant as per Ex.P9 PW4: Smt. Honamma Sub-Registrar Rani PW5: Sri Girishchandra Informant as per Ex.P.2 PW6: Sri M.Rajashekar F.D.A PW7: Sri E.S.Mahesh PSI/IO Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1
Ex.P2: Letter from BBMP dtd: 26-02- PW1
015
Ex.P3: Property Tax receipt PW1
Ex.P4: Property details PW1
Ex.P5: Property Tax receipt (copy) PW1
Ex.P6: Property details (copy) PW1
65
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
Ex.P7: Absolute Sale Deed dated: 30- PW1
09-2014
Ex.P8: Spot/seizure mahazar PW1
Ex.P9: Letter dtd: 20-03-2015 from PW7
Kacharakanahalli Sub Register Office Ex.P10: FIR PW7 Ex.P11: Letter dated: 27-03-2015 PW7 addressed to Sr. Sub Register office, Ganganagar Ex.P12: Letter dated: 28-03-2015 PW7 addressed to PSI, JC Nagar PS from Sr. Sub Register office, Ganganagar Ex.P13: Receipt No.194241 (copy) PW7 Ex.P14: ಮನೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಖಾಲಿ ಜಾಗಗಳ ದಾಖಲೆ PW7 ಪುಸ್ತಕ (ಪ್ರತಿ) Ex.P15: Form 1 (copy) PW7 Ex.P16: EC PW7 Ex.P17: Absolute Sale Deed dated 18- PW7 03-2011 (copy) Ex.P18: EC PW7 Ex.P19:66
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Ex.P20: ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಋಣಭಾರ ರಾಹಿತ್ಯ PW7 ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ Ex.P21: Title Deed (copy) PW7 Ex.P22: Letter dated 30-03-2015 PW7 Ex.P23: Letter dated 31-03-2015 from PW7 BBMP Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : C/C of Absolute Sale Deed
Dated: 01-10-2014/PW1
Ex.D2 : Copy of Office note of BBMP
Office/PW1
Ex.D3 : Khatha Extract/PW1
Ex.D4 : C/C of OS No.7266/2015/PW3
Ex.D5 : C/C of amended plaint in
OS No.7266/2015/PW3
67
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
Ex.D6 : C/C of Order passed in
OS No.7266/2015/PW3
Ex.D7 : C/C of Judgement passed by Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in
Misc.F.A.No.5207/2016/PW3
Ex.D8 : C/C of Order passed by Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in
Crl.Pet.No.3539/2017/PW3
Ex.D9 : C/C of judgement passed by Hon'ble
Sessions Court in OS
No.2207/1996/PW3
Ex.D10 : Photo/PW7
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
68
KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
07-08-2025
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 465, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC
(ii) Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.3 to 7 are not found guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC
(iii) Accused No.1 and 2 shall be heard on the sentence under Sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 69 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Orders on Sentence pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER
i) For the offence under Section 465 of IPC accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for one month.
ii) For the offence under Section 468 of IPC accused No.1 and 2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for one month.
iii) For the offence under Section 471 of IPC accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay a fine of 70 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015 Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for one months.
iv) For the offence under Section 120B of IPC accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 15 days.
v) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
vi) Under Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are given time to pay the fine amount till the appeal period.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled.
viii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of accused No.3 to 7 shall be in force for 6 (six) months 71 KABC030575872015 CC No.20638/2015
ix) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused No.1 and 2 at free of cost.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 72