Bangalore District Court
State vs Naveen on 17 August, 2022
KABC030512332012
Presented on : 22-08-2012
Registered on : 22-08-2012
Decided on : 17-08-2022
Duration : 9 years, 11 months, 26 days
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 17th day of August 2022
PRESENT
Sri. RAJESH N. HOSAMANE B.Sc.ML.
V ACMM BENGALURU
CC. No.18137/2012
Complainant : State
Rep. By PSI Upparpete
Police Station, Bangalore.
(by Sr.A.P.P)
-Vs-
Accused : 1. Naveen, S/o Late R. Ranganatha,
Aged about 36 years, R/at No.402,
Naveen Nilaya, 9th Cross, 2nd Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore.
(Pushpalata Adv.,)
1. Date of offence 10.06.2009
2. Arrest of the accused 15. 01,2010
3. Name of complainant T, Vishwanath Rai
4. Date of closing of 27.06.2022
evidence
5. Offences complained of U/s.379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC.
6. Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 found not guilty
2 C.C.No.18317/2012
7. Complainant by The Learned Sr.APP .
8. Accused defence by Pushpalata Adv
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed this charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/Sec.379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The facts of the prosecution case is as under:
In the year 2009 accused No. 1 stolen cheque of CW.2 Prasad from the possession of CW.3 and he in collusion with other accused persons erased the name 'Total LPG' which was written on the said cheque and written 'Prestige Fashion' on it and forged the signature of CW.2 and handed it to accused No.3, accused No.3 who is having fake bank account in the CW.1's bank, on:
10.06.2009 he presented it for payment and went along with accused No.4 in order to draw money and thereby accused No. 1 to 4 have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
3. On the basis of the complaint the PSI of Upparpet PS registered the case in Cr.No.315/2009 for 3 C.C.No.18317/2012 the offences punishable U/Sec.420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and sent the FIR to the court. Accused No.3 and 4 have been caught hold of by bank staff and police and they have been produced before police when they tried to draw money. IO recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and on the same day has recorded the statements of CW.5 and 6 and produced accused before the Magistrate and took them to police custody till 17.6.2009. On 23.6.2009 he has recorded the statement of Cw.4 and on 24.10.2009 accused 2 and 5 have appeared before him in the Police Station by obtaining anticipatory bail, and then enlarged them on bail, thereafter CW.5 and 6 have produced two cheques. On 24.3.2010 IO has sent hand writing and signature samples to FSL. After obtaining the documents from CW.1, he has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
4. This court took cognizance for the offences and Criminal case No. 28258/ 2010 is registered against accused No.1 to 6. Only Accused No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have 4 C.C.No.18317/2012 appeared before the court in CC.No. 28258/2010 and case against Accused No. 3 and 6 is split-up on:
02.11.2010 and CC.No. 47245/2010 is registered against Accused No. 3 and 6. Later accused No. 1 remained absent in original CC.No. 28258/2010, hence, case against accused No.1 is split up on: 03.08.2012 and the present CC.No. 18317/2012 registered against accused No.1.
5. Accused No.1 was in judicial custody in connection with another case. Hence, body warrant is issued against him. He is produced from J/C under body warrant. Legal aid panel advocate Smt. Pushpalata appeared on behalf of accused No.1. Towards compliance U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., copy of charge sheet is supplied to the accused No.1. Charge is framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, same is read over and explained to the accused No.1 in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined only one witness as PW.1 out of total seven prosecution witnesses and closed their side 5 C.C.No.18317/2012 and thereafter accused statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is recorded, read over and explained before accused No.1, wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances against him as false and he has not chosen to adduce.
7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8. On the basis of the above material placed on record, the following points arise for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 has committed theft of cheque belonging to CW.3 and the accused No. 1 to 6 are in furtherance of common intention have dishonestly inducing and delivery of the cheque and accused No.2 has presented the said cheque in CW.1's bank in the name of one Soumya's account and they have tried to use the said cheque as a genuine inspite of knowing that the said cheque is forged one and thereby they have cheated and with dishonest intention have forged the signature on cheque and committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What order?6 C.C.No.18317/2012
9. My findings to the above point is as under for the following;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per the final order for
the following reasons.
REASONS
10. Point No.1: In order to substantiate its case prosecution has examined only one witness out of total 7 prosecution witnesses. CW.6 namely Gopalaiah S/o Late Ramadas is examined as PW.1. In his evidence he deposed that on 15.01.2010, CW.7 deputed him in order to trace accused No.1 and 6. When they were patrolling, they contacted informers and as per their information at about 11.00 a.m. they went near Majestic bus stand plat form No.1. On suspicion they approached one person, he started to run away from the place. They caught hold him of the said person and he stated his name as Naveen S/o Late Ranganath. Thereafter they produced the said person before CW7. Except CW7 the prosecution has not examined any of other witnesses.
11. Inspite of issuance of summons, warrant and proclamation CW.1 to 5 and 7 have not appeared before 7 C.C.No.18317/2012 the court. The prosecution has failed to secure the presence of CW.1 to CW.5. CW.7 is reported to be dead. Therefore the court dropped CW.1 to 5 and 7.
12. Later learned Sr.APP filed memo and submitted that he will adopt the evidence already recorded in original CC No.28258/2010. The same is allowed and evidence of PW.1 to 4 in original CC No.28258/2010 is adopted. PW1 is complainant, PW2 is Investigation officer, PW3 is Police Constable and PW4 is the spot panchanama witness.
13. Now it relevant here to mention the excerpts of the evidence of PW.1 to 4 of CC.No. 28258/2010. PW.1 deposed that he worked as Assistant General Manager in Syndicate Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch from 16.1.2009 to 29.8.2010. The Prestige Fashion firm is having current account in his bank bearing its Account NO.400/1010/13290. On 6.6.2009 a cheque for sum of Rs.4,20,876/- is presented to his bank for credit the same to the said account. The said cheque is belonging to Federal Bank, Rajajinagar Branch. Thereafter they have sent the said cheque to the Federal Bank for clearance. On: 8.6.2009 they received information from 8 C.C.No.18317/2012 Federal Bank that the said cheque is forged one. The said cheque is originally belonging to Total LPG India Ltd. but they have removed the said name and inserted the 'Prestige Fashion'. Immediately, he has intimated his officials regarding the same and advised them to alert while dealing with the said cheque. On 9.6.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. he has received one telephone call regarding said cheque, whether it is credited to his account or not and also at about 11.45 a.m. he presented the cheque from current account for sum of Rs.47,000/-. Thereafter they have searched the person who has presented the cheque for a sum of Rs.47,000/-. He was not found in the bank, at about 4-00 p.m. he has received telephone call regarding credit of the said cheque. For that he has stated that it was credited and stetd the person to collect the money in the bank, but he has not came to the bank. He has intimated the said fact orally to Upparpet Police Station and evening at about 4- 00 p.m., two persons came to his bank and asked to provide the extract of said current account. On enquiry, they stated their name as Uday Kumar and Nagaraj. 9 C.C.No.18317/2012
14. PW.1 in his cross-examination deposed that, he himself has prepared the complaint with the help of his staff. He came to know about the forged cheque when Federal bank have issued intimation to his bank. He do not know who has presented the cheque for sum of Rs.47,000/-. He has not produced any documents to show that he has received the call and he do not know from which number, who has called.
15. During the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the accused No.4 PW.1 deposed that he cannot say the exact date when current account in the name of Prestige Fashions is opened. He cannot say whether the said account is existing or not. He cannot say the cheque number and also in whose favour it was drawn.
16. PW.2 namely C. Narayanaswamy PSI, State Intelligence department has deposed that on: 10.6.2009, at about 9.50, CW.1 along with CW.5 and 6 have produced accused Uday Kumar and Nagaraj, and CW.1 lodged complaint. He has registered the case in Cr.No.315/2009 and send the FIR to the court and 10 C.C.No.18317/2012 recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and produced them before the Magistrate and recorded the statement of CW.5 and 6. He has obtained police custody of the accused persons and on 23.6.2009 he has recorded the statement of Cw.4, on 24.10.2009 accused Nagesh and Suresh have appeared before him along with anticipatory bail order. On 29.1.2010 CW.5 and 6 have produced two cheques and on 15/1/2010 CW.5 and 6 have produced accused Naveen before him, he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused and on the same day has recorded the statement of Nandish, S/o Srinivasa Reddy and on 24.3.2010 he has sent the signature and handwriting of accused Naveen, Nagaraj and Uday Kumar to FSL. On 8.1.2010 he has written letter to CW.1 to produce certain documents. The said documents are not enclosed in the charge sheet, hence Lr.Sr. APP prayed for further evidence of PW.2 and therefore, the evidence of PW.2 is deferred. Inspite of taking sufficient opportunity, PW.2 did not turn up and not adduced further evidence.
17. PW.3 by name Vijay is a Police Constable has deposed that on 10/6/2009, CW.7 has deputed him and 11 C.C.No.18317/2012 CW.6 to produce suspected persons who are in Syndicate Bank. Immediately, they went to the Syndicate bank and they caught hold of the said suspected persons as shown by CW.1 and produced before I.O. along with report. On 15.1.2010 they apprehended the absconding accused at platform No.1 of BMTC bus stand and produced before CW.7 and they have obtained tow cheques from Syndicate bank from Manager on 29.9.2010 and handed over the same to CW.7.
18. PW.4 by name Prasad deposed that he is running gas cylinder business, he know the accused. In June 2009 he has given Federal bank cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of his business in favour of Total Gas, Nelamangala Plant. Said Nelamangala plant sent the cheque to Total Gas, Central Office through courier. At the time of delivery of said cheque, the accused have committed theft of the said cheques. The accused have deleted the name, Total Gas India Ltd and inserted the name, Prestige Fashion and have also forged the signature and presented before Syndicate Bank. When the cheque was sent for clearance, they have endorsed that said cheque is forged one. Hence, said 12 C.C.No.18317/2012 cheque is not honoured. The Manager of Syndicate Bank has lodged the complaint. Thereafter police have arrested the accused. He had an account at Federal bank, Rajajinagar Branch. He has not remember the account number. He has not put his signature on the back side of the cheque. During his cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, he deposed that he went to the Police Station and identified accused persons. Further he deposed that police have shown him the photograph of the accused by name Naveen.
19. During the cross-examination PW.4 by the learned counsel for accused, he deposed that, in the month of first week of June 2009, the bank Manager has intimated him about the forgery of the cheque. He do not know who has misused his cheque. He has not lodged any written complaint to the Manager. He visited the Police Station after 2-3 days from the date of complaint, thereafter he never visited the Police Station. He cannot say the age of the person, who has seen in the photograph at Police Station. He do not know the other cheques are belonging to him, after lodging the complaint he has met the bank manager.
13 C.C.No.18317/2012
20. In CC.No. 28258/2010 he prosecution has examined four witnesses. PW.1 who is the complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that he do not know from which number the accused have called him. He has not at all produced the call register extract of the telephone and he has not seen who has presented the cheque, on suspicion he has shown two accused to the police who are present in his bank. In order to prove the guilt of the offence the prosecution has not produced any available cogent material to connect the alleged offence against the accused . PW.2 has stated that he has sent the signature and handwriting of Uday Kumar, Naveen and Nagaraj to FSL, but whether he has obtained FSL report or not and is there any corroboration in this regard etc is not deposed by PW.2. PW.2 has not appeared before the court for his further chief- examination and he has not been subjected himself for cross-examination. Therefore, his evidence is not acceptable. PW.4 turned partly hostile to the case of prosecution. He admitted every suggestion made by Lr.Sr. APP in his cross-examination. This witness seems 14 C.C.No.18317/2012 to be not trustworthy and no evidentiary value is adhered to his testimony.
21. In order to prove the forgery the prosecution has to produce FSL report. But in this case the prosecution has not produced Forensic Science Report. It is deposed by PW.2 that he has taken specimen signature of accused persons in order to send them to FSL. Whether he has sent the same to FSL or not, is not forthcoming from his evidence. There is no evidence and material on record in regard to theft of cheque committed by accused No.1. The entire evidence of PW.1 to 4 is not helpful to the case of prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused persons.
22. Though the learned Sr.APP adopted the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 of original CC.No. 28258 of 2010, but the said witnesses have not been present before the court for cross-examination. Moreover, in original CC No.28258/2010 the court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against accused No.2, 4 and 5. Hence, the court has acquitted accused No.2, 4 and 5. In this case, though the court has issued warrant and 15 C.C.No.18317/2012 proclamation in order to secure the presence of witnesses, the prosecution has not taken any pain in order to secure the presence of prosecution witnesses. As discussed above the evidence of PW.1 to 4 of CC.No. 28258 of 2010, there is no iota of evidence on record in order to come to the conclusion that accused No.1 along with other accused have committed the offence punishable u/s.379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
23. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following..
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 by Name Naveen S/o Late R. Ranganath is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Jail authorities are directed to release accused No.1 from JC if he is not required in any other case.
The entire case file shall be kept in split-up case pending against accused No.3 and 6. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 17 th day of August 2022) V ACMM, Bengaluru.
16 C.C.No.18317/2012ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Gopalaiah LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL V A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.17 C.C.No.18317/2012
17.08.2022 State by Sr.APP Accused No.1 For judgment Accused No.1 produced from J/C through VC under body warrant.
ORDER (Pronounced in open court vide separate order) Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 by Name Naveen S/o Late R. Ranganath is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 379, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Jail authorities are directed to release accused No.1 from JC if he is not required in any other case.
The entire case file shall be kept in split-up case pending against accused No.3 and 6.
V A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.