Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch vs No.3 on 7 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of February 2022.
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.3902/2013
Date of Offence : 01.06.2010 to 10.01.2011
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch
(F & M) Squad, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : A. 26. L.Rangaswamy
S/o Lakshman,
aged 32 years,
Sri Rangaswamy Silver
Metal Works, No.8/1,
Ground floor, 17th cross,
behind Shikshakara
Bhavan, Cubbonpet,
Bengaluru 02,
No.10, Papana Lane,
Cubbonpet, Avenue road
cross, near Boodal complex,
Bengaluru.
2 C.C.No.3902/2013
(by Shri Advocate)
( Case against A1,3 to 6, 1 to 25,
27 to 33 split up)
( A2 is not sent for trial)
( Proceedings against A7,8 and 9
quashed)
Offences complained off: U/s.419, 468, 471, 420 R/w
Sec.34 of IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused No.26 is acquitted
Date of Order : 07-02-2022.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector, CCB (F & M) Squad, has filed this charge sheet against accused No.1 to 33 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that in the year 2010 accused No.1 was working as Senior Relation Manager in informant bank by name Janalakshmi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Bank and he had authority to sanction loans upto 3 C.C.No.3902/2013 Rs.10,000/-. From July 2010 accused No.1 with an intention to cheat aforesaid bank, approached C.W.41 and assured him to sanction loans on furnishing minimum documents. Further accused No.1 collected necessary documents like PAN cards, bank account statements, VAT certificate etc., of accused No.3, 4, 10, 14 to 18, 23 to 25, 27 and 31 from C.W.41 to 43 for said purpose. Further accused No.1 himself collected such documents pertaining to accused No.5, 6, 11 to 13, 19 to 22, 26, 28 to 30, 32 and 33. Thereafter, all accused in collusion with each other created such PAN cards, bank account statements, VAT certificates, election ID cards and income tax returns of accused No.3 to 6 and accused No.10 to 33 and produced the same to informant Janalakshmi Bank. Further accused No.1 in conspiracy with accused No.7 to 9 recommended for sanctioning of loan to accused No.3 to 6, 10 to 33 on the basis of such created and 4 C.C.No.3902/2013 concocted documents as if the same are genuine. Further accused No.9 visited the temporary business premises of accused No.3 to 6, 10 to 33 and filed report for the purpose of sanctioning above loan. Thus accused No.3 to 6, 10 to 33 with active collusion of accused No.1, 7 to 9 officials of above bank opened their temporary business units and availed loans totally amounting to Rs.2,15,00,000/- from aforesaid bank on the basis of above created and concocted documents. It is further specifically alleged that accused No.26 borrowed Rs.10 lakhs on the basis of such created and concocted documents by opening temporary business unit for the purpose of loan and thereby he in collusion with other accused cheated the bank.
3. It further shows that after lodging of first information by C.W.1, representative of informant bank, initially the Ashoknagar police registered the case in their PS Crime No.14/2011 and FIR is 5 C.C.No.3902/2013 issued. After completion of investigation, I.O. filed charge sheet against accused persons for above offences.
4. After filing of this charge sheet against accused No.1, 3 to 33 cognizance of above offences is taken and summons is issued. However name of accused no.2 is dropped from chargesheet as offence is not proved against him and he is cited as witness as per C.W.41. It shows that initially accused No.1, 3, 7 to 9, 26 have appeared before Court in pursuant to summons and they are enlarged on bail. It further shows that case against accused No.8 is quashed as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition No.6779/2015. Thereafter, accused No.2, 3, 10, to 25 have not secured despite coercive steps and hence case against them is split up as per order dated 6-1-2018. Further Charge sheet copy is furnished to accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and initially charge is 6 C.C.No.3902/2013 framed against accused No.1, 7, 9 and 26. Said accused have not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and they have claimed to be tried. It further shows that case against accused No.7 and 9 is also quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per order in Crl.Petition No.1446/2018. It further shows that accused no. 1,4 to 6, 27 to 33 have also remained absconded and could not be secured. Hence case against accused no.1 split up on 08.08.2019 and case against accused no.4 to 6, 27 to 33 is also split up on 03.02.22 with direction to I.O. to file separate charsheet against them.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.26, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 32 documents as per Exs.P1 to P32. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused No.26 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been 7 C.C.No.3902/2013 recorded. The said accused has denied entire incriminating evidence against him.
6. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.26 has committed offence punishable under section 419 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.26 has committed offence punishable under section 468 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.26 has committed offence punishable under section 471 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.26 has committed offence punishable under section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order ?8 C.C.No.3902/2013
7. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused persons. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 to 4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4:- These points are taken together for consideration as findings on one point have bearing on other points.
9. P.W.1 Devaraj S/o Govindaiah has testified in his evidence that, Janalakshmi Finance had asked him to submit a report of valuation with regard to machineries, he inspected machineries and submitted his report as per Ex.P1. He has further identified photos of machines inspected by him as per Ex.P2 to P8 and his signature on Ex.P1 as per Ex.P1(a). However, in cross-examination by defence side P.W.1 9 C.C.No.3902/2013 admits that he has not furnished any documents to show that he is expert in valuation of machines. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by suggesting him that he has issued false report as per Ex.P1. However, evidence of this witness does not help prosecution in any manner to prove alleged act of forgery and cheating on the part of accused No.26 for availing alleged loan from informant bank.
10. C.W.43/P.W.2 Ajjanna Patil S/o Shambulingapa, through whom accused No.1 said to have sanctioned loans to other accused has turned hostile by testifying that initially for two years he was doing work of getting loans from the bank to customers and thereafter he has not continued said job. He has further stated that he does not know accused No.26 and as per telephonic request of his old customers, he had forwarded some documents furnished by them to C.Ws.41 and 42 , who are officials of informant bank. Though this witness is 10 C.C.No.3902/2013 treated as hostile and cross-examined by learned Sr.APP, he has denied to know that C.W.42 had misused the documents furnished by Passion Group, Popular firm, Jayalakshmi Traders and Manjunath Enterprises for the purpose of availing loan from informant bank and he has clearly denied to have given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P9. Hence evidence of this witness does not help the prosecution to prove the alleged role of accused No.26 in above offences.
11. P.W.3 C.V.Deepak S/o Chikkavenkatappa PI, Halsurgate PS has testified that he took up further investigation of the case from C.W.46 on 16-1-2013 and filed charge sheet in view of completion of investigation. However, P.W.3 has denied to know that the Hon'ble High Court has quashed proceedings against some of accused. It is suggested to him that he has filed false charge sheet against accused persons.
11 C.C.No.3902/2013
12. P.W.4 H.D.Arun Kumr S/o K.Duggappa has testified in his evidence that in the year 2012 while he was working as Addl. Commissioner of Commercial tax Department, Bengaluru on 4-1-2012, I.O. of this case forwarded notice as per Ex.P10 to his office with some documents seeking to ascertain genuineness of VAT registration certificates, returns of turnovers etc. He has further stated he examined said document through concerned official and issued reply to I.O. on 16-6-2012 as per Ex.P11. He has further stated that among 20 documents forwarded by I.O., some of them were fake documents and he has identified proforma annexed to Ex.P11 as per Ex.P11(b) and VAT details as per Ex.P12. However he has not specifically stated as to which documents were fake and how same are related to accused no.26. Further, in cross- examination entire evidence of this witness are denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per instance of police. 12 C.C.No.3902/2013
13. P.W.5 M.Rudrappa S/o Channaveerappa Gowda has testified that he has served as Income Tax officer of Ward No.7(4), Bengaluru, in the year January 2012 I.O. issued notice to him as per Ex.P13 seeking to verify income tax returns of accused accused No.26 and on verification of records he found that said returns were filed before Ward No.3(4). Hence he forwarded notice of I.O. with enclosures to concerned ITO as per Ex.P14 letter. In cross- examination this witness has again admitted that he does not remember contents of Ex.P13 and the above referred documents did not belonged to their ward. Hence evidence of this witness is not helpful to prosecution to prove creation of any documents by accused no.26 as per case of prosecution.
14. P.W.6 Shivaprakash S/o Siddaiah who is the then Income Tax Officer, (Technical) in the office Commissioner IV, Bengaluru in the year 2011-2012 13 C.C.No.3902/2013 has testified that in the month of January 2012, I.O. of this case sought details of income tax in respect of some persons and he had forwarded PAN details of such persons to I.O. as per Ex.P15 letter dated 22-3-2012 in accordance with information available in their system and he has identified his signature on said document as per Ex.P15(a). However, entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side by way of cross-examination and it also does not prove the alleged act of fraud and forgery by accused in respect of any documents.
15. P.W.7 P.Santhanam S/o late Thothadra who is the then Income Tax Officer, has testified in his evidence that on 31-1-2012, he issued Ex.P16 letter to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru as per information sought by said Commissioner about 3 assessees. He has further stated that he informed that assessee by name Dattathreya S. does not come 14 C.C.No.3902/2013 under his jurisdiction and details of E-file return was not available in their system. Further he informed that PAN No.ALIPA3619K was invalid PAN and one Athith and Manjunath B.G. also do not come under his jurisdiction. In cross-examination P.W.7 admits that he does not know for what reason the above information was sought by Commissioner and generally police seek information related to Income tax to their office by approaching public relation officer. However, nothing specifically stated by this witness with regard to nexus between aforesaid income tax documents and accused No.26.
16. P.W.8 K.S.Ramdas S/o K.R.Srinivas the then Chief Executive officer of Enterprise Financial Service in Janalakshmi Finance has testified that one Hemanthareddy was loan sourcing Officer, one Kishore Kumar as Sales Manager and one Manjunath was the relationship officer, one Girish Adithya and 15 C.C.No.3902/2013 Kishan Naidu were credit writers of their company in the year 2010. He has further stated that generally for advancing loans, their company used to collect LIC policies, hypothetication of properties agreement as security to loans and they were insisting guarantors. Further it was duty of Hemanthareddy, Manjunath, Kishore to collect necessary documents and aforesaid Girish and Kishan were bound to verify such documents. P.W.8 has further testified that in case of default of payment of installments they used to refer transactions to Collection Manager Praveen and he used to ascertain reason for such default. He has further stated that accordingly accused No.14 being Collection Manager had verified some of default loan transaction and found that some of borrowers were not at all in existence in about 29 loan cases. P.W.8 has further testified that they verified documents of said loans through outside agency an found that there were lot of discrepancies and some income tax 16 C.C.No.3902/2013 documents were not genuine and further it was duty of Girish & Kishan to visit borrower personally, to inspect their business and whereabouts prior to sanctioning of loans and their approval level was Rs.2 lakhs. He has further stated that he used to sanction and approve loans above Rs.2 lakhs by directly transferring loan amount to bank accounts of borrower and they had lent nearly Rs.2 crores to alleged 29 loan borrowers and further some of them complained that they did not receive so much amount of loan, but admitted execution of documents. He has further stated thereafter C.W,1 being their legal head lodged present case and they had given verified credit files of above 29 transactions to CCB police. However, in cross-examination P.W.8 has clearly admitted that he cannot recognize accused No.26 and he cannot say how much loan was advanced to which borrower among aforesaid 29 transactions, without seeing list. This aspect shows that P.W.8 has no personal 17 C.C.No.3902/2013 knowledge about alleged loan transaction of accused No.26 and alleged act of fraud and forgery by him. Most importantly PW.8 has further admitted initially C.W.1 lodged complaint against accused No.1 and he cannot say if accused No.26 had not borrowed any loan from their company. Hence evidence of P.W.8 is also insufficient to prove the guilt of accused no.26 nor it inspires confidence of court.
17. P.W.9 Sharanappa S/o Irappa the then PSI of Ashoknagar PS has testified that on 10-1-2011 at 7-10 p.m. C.W.1 lodged Ex.P17 first information, he registered the case in their PS Cr.No.14/2011 and issued FIR as per Ex.P18. Thereafter he arrested accused no.1, recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P19, he produced accused before court and took his police remand from 11-1-2011 to 14-1-2011. He has further testified that he seized copy of vehicle No.KA-41-M-88 under Ex.P20 mahazar and Ex.P21 18 C.C.No.3902/2013 P.F.No.7/2011. P.W.9 has further testified that he recorded statement of P.Ws.2 & 3, he got extended police remand of accused till 17-1-2011 and after producing accused before he handed over further investigation of the case to CCB Wing. In cross-examination by defence side the entire evidence of this witness is denied in toto. However, P.W.9 has clearly admitted that he is seeing accused No.26 for the first time today.
18. P.W.10 Tara Jagadish W/o Jagadish the then Income Tax officer of Ward No.10, Bengaluru has testified that she issued Ex.P 22 letter as per direction of Commissioner of Income Tax to police by mentioning details of PAN card No.ANEPA6012F and IT returns of the year 2009 to 2011 belonging to accused No.5 Ashwathnarayan. P.W.10 further stated that she has identified xerox copy of another letter dated 14-2-2012 addressed to Joint Commissioner 19 C.C.No.3902/2013 with regard to PAN and income tax details of one M.S.Shekar for assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 as per Ex.P23. However, in cross- examination she has clearly admitted that except above letters she has not furnished any other information in this case. Hence evidence of said witness also does not help prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused.
19. P.W.11 G.Srinivas S/o late C.Govindan the then Income Tax Officer in Commissioner 2 Office, Bengaluru has testified in his evidence that grievance cell of their Department received a letter, it was forwarded to him and in turn he forwarded said letter to Addl. Commissioner. Further he forwarded 3 letters of L.Rangaswamy (A.26), B.Rangaswamy and Ashwathnarayan with regard to authentication of returns filed by said persons and he has identified said letters dated 17-1-2012 as per Ex.P24 to P26. 20 C.C.No.3902/2013 However, this witness does not states anything with regard to alleged act of manipulation of above documents on part of accused No.26. In cross- examination entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side and it it suggested to him that he deposing falsely to help police.
20. P.W.12 Sundar Raghavan S/o C.K.Sree Lalan the then Income Tax officer in Chief Commissioner's Office, Bengaluru-I has testified that he received a letter from Commissioner's office seeking authentication of certain PAN cards and returns pertaining to assessees by name Manjunath Gowda, Pradeep Prasad, N.Srinivas & Satish Kumnar and it found that in said cases E-returns were not filed. He has further stated that though police had forwarded copies of returns, such E-returns were not filed. P.W.12 has further testified that in case of Bhaskar of Vinayaka Fashions no returns were filed to their office 21 C.C.No.3902/2013 as there was no official seal and acknowledgement. Further authenticity of such returns could not be ascertained. Hence he forwarded Ex.P27 letter to CCB (F & M) on 11-1-2012. P.W.12 has further testified that there were 4 letters dated 11-1-2012 which are marked as per Ex.P28 to P31 and same were addressed by police to Commissioner's No.1 to 4 of Income Tax regarding verification and authentication of certain returns and for direct reply to police. In cross-examination the entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he issued above letters as per convenience of the police at their instance. However, as already stated above this witness has also not whispered anything with regard to nexus of accused no.26 in commission of alleged fraud and forgery of alleged loan documents as per case of prosecution and hence evidence of this witness also does not help prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of accused.
22 C.C.No.3902/2013
21. Further despite sufficient opportunity C.Ws.1 to 11, 13 to 30, 33, 34, 39, 41, 42 and 46 have not been secured despite coercive steps and said witnesses are dropped as not secured. Further C.W.45 B.Noorulla Sheriff, one of the I.O. of the case could not be examined as he is reported as dead. Among aforesaid witnesses C.W.1 who is first informant of this case, C.W.4 to 8 panchas before whom the incriminating documents were seized by investigating agency could not be examined and as such the very seizure of alleged forged documents are not proved to the satisfaction of the court. Further C.Ws.13 to 30 the Managers of Janatha Co-operative Bank, Union Bank, Canara Bank, Karnataka Bank State Bank of Hyderabad, Vijaya Bank, Andhra Ban, IOB, State Bank of Mysore, Syndicate Bank are also not secured to prove the alleged forgery of documents or to prove furnishing forged documents by accused No.26 for availing loan from the informant bank. Further 23 C.C.No.3902/2013 Prosecution witnesses have not specifically stated with regard to alleged role of accused No.26 in creation of alleged documents and in fraudulently borrowing loan from informant bank with the help of such documents. Further the evidence of income tax officials examined in this case also not helpful to prove that accused No.26 had created and concocted his KYC documents or his income documents for the purpose of aforesaid loan of informant bank. Most importantly P.W.8 the then MD and CEO of informant bank himself has not identified accused No.26 and he even does not remember with regard to borrowing of loan by him as per case of prosecution. Hence evidence of P.W.1 to 12 and documentary evidence adduced by them is insufficient to prove alleged act of forgery of loan documents by accused No.26 in collusion with other accused and also to prove that accused No.26 fraudulently borrowed alleged loan from informant bank with the help of such of forged 24 C.C.No.3902/2013 documents and cheated said bank as per case of prosecution. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.26 committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence point no.1 to 4 are answered in the Negative.
22. Point No.5: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 4 , following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.26 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.26 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
Office to retain this entire file with documents and enclose the same with split case against 25 C.C.No.3902/2013 accused no. 1, 3 to 6, 10 to 25, 27 to 33.
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7 th day of February 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Devaraju, P.W.2, Anjan Patil, P.W.3, C.V.Deepak, P.W.4, H.D.Arun Kumr, P.W.5, Rudrappa,, P.W.6, Shivaprakash, P.W.7, P.Santhanam, P.W.8, K.S.Ramdas, P.W.9, Shaanappa Madli, P.W.10, Tara Jagadish, P.W.11, G.Srinivas, P.W.12, Sundar Raghavan;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Report,
Ex.P2 to
Ex.P8, Photographs,
Ex.P9, Statement of P.W.2,
Ex.P10, Copy of notice issued by IO,
Ex.P10(a), List of entities annexed to letter,
Ex.P11, Reply to the letter,
Ex.P11(a), Signature of P.W.4,
26 C.C.No.3902/2013
Ex.P11(b), Proforma annexed to Ex.P11, Ex.P12, enclosures of VAT details and returns from page No.358 to 553 of charge sheet, Ex.P13, Letter, Ex.P14, Letter forwarded by P.W.5 to ITO of Ward No.3(4) dated 2-2-2012, Ex.P15, Letter addressed to IO dated 22-3-2012, Ex.P15(a), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P16, Letter dated 31-1-2012 issued by P.W.7 to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru.
Ex.P16(a), Signature of P.W.7, Ex.P17, First information report, Ex.P17(a), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P18, First information report, Ex.P18(a), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P19, Voluntary statement of accused, Ex.P19(a), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P19(b), Signature of accused, Ex.P20, Seizure mahazar, Ex.P20(a), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P21, PF form, Ex.P21(a), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P22, Letter, Ex.P22(a), Signature of P.W.10, Ex.P23, Xerox copy of letter dated 14-2-2012 Ex.P23(a), Signature of P.W.10, Ex.P24 to Ex.P26, 3 Letters of L.Rangaswamy, B.Rangaswamy and Ashwathnarayan, Ex.P24(a) Ex.P26(a), Signatures of P.W.10, Ex.P27, Letter dated 11-1-2012.
Ex.P27(a), Signature of P.W.12, 27 C.C.No.3902/2013 Ex.P28 to Ex.P31, 4 letters dated 11-1-2012.
Ex.P28(a) to
Ex.P31(a), Signatures of P.W.10,
Ex.P32, Letter dated 3-2-2012,
Ex.P32(a), Signature of P.W.12;
List of material object :
NIL
List of Witnesses examined for defence:-
NIL List of documents marked for defence:-
NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.28 C.C.No.3902/2013
7-2-2022 State by Sr.APP Accused No.2 to 5 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.26 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.26 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
Office to retain this entire file with documents and enclose the same with split case against accused no. 1, 3 to 6, 10 to 25, 27 to 33.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.