Bangalore District Court
V.P.M. Swamy vs H N Krishna on 30 April, 2026
KABC030085832012
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 30th day of April 2026
PRESENT: SRI.MANJUNATHA.K.P.,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
I Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.8400/2012
COMPLAINANT :- State by CID (EOD) (Vidhana Soudha) P.S
(State by Sr.APP)
ACCUSED :- 1. H.N Krishna S/o. Late Nanjegowda,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at.No.27, 1st Cross,
8th Main, Vasanthanagara,
Bengaluru.
2. Asha Parveen W/o. Late Mahammad,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at.No.20, 2nd Cross,
Jenukallu Siddeshwaranagara,
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru.
3. Salma Firdosh W/o. Zameel Hamad,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at.No.4, 3rd Cross,
Hynes Road, Bengaluru.
2
C.C.No.8400/2012
5. K.Narasimha S/o. Late K.Krishnappa,
Aged About 48 years,
R/at.No.27, 1st Cross,
8th Main, Vasanthanagara,
Bengaluru.
6. P. Gopi Krishna S/o. Pilla Rangaswamy,
Aged About 54 years,
R/at. No.69/18, 6th Cross,
8th Main, Official Colony,
Bhairasandra, Jayanagara,
1st Block East, Bengaluru.
7. M.B Banakaar S/o. Basavarajappa,
Aged About 50 years,
R/at. No.2876, 1st 'C' Cross,
5th 'A' Lane, Renko Layout,
Vijayanagara, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. , Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
This case arise out of charge-sheet filed by the CIB (EOW) P.S against the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 for the alleged offences punishable U/s.418, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC.
2. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is as under:-
The facts of the prosecution case is that the accused No.1 is being Chairman of KPSC Board from 15.01.2001 to 3 C.C.No.8400/2012 14.01.2007 and accused No.5 to 7 they being employees of KPSC Commission they working under accused No.1, and accused No.2 and 3 being a candidates of KPSC examination for the batch of 1998 Gazetted Probationers. So accused No.1 being a Chairman of the KPSC in the batch of 1998 for A & B group examination, the CW.28 to CW.30 are eligible candidates to the concerned post, though accused have intentionally given post to the accused No.2 and 3 and other candidates and caused loss to the CW.28 to CW.30 they being eligible candidates. Accused No.5 to 7 they being a officials of the said KPSC who are working under accused No.1 with a dishonest intention rejected the H.G Prabhakar and T.S Hanumanthegowda and Allabhksha and given post to the accused No.2 and 3 and others by creating the documents and accused No.2 and 3 they being a candidates of 1998 Gazetted Probationers batch and given caste certificates rather than the dates fixed by the KPSC, that means the KPSC has been specified the dates to produced the caste certificates and other documents, they should obtained within the time limits of 09.03.1998 to 16.04.1998, though accused No.2 and 3 placed the documents of 28.03.1996 and 04.04.1998 respectively i.e., caste and income certificates and placed the said documents before accused No.1 and committee members. that too have created this said documents and used the said documents as 4 C.C.No.8400/2012 genuine one and get the benefits as well as Gazetted Officer post etc.,. In pursuance of the complaint I.O has filed charge-
sheet against accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are on bail and represented by his counsel, after complying with the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and on hearing both sides, charge was framed, read-over and explained to the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.41 witnesses and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents. In spite of repeated process including summons, proclamation, rest of the prosecution witnesses have not secured. Hence, the predecessor of this court after granted sufficient opportunities, evidence of said witnesses orders to be dropped. On the other hand by way of confrontation to the prosecution witnesses Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.81 documents are marked on behalf of accused.
5. The statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, read over, explained to the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and denied the incriminating circumstances which 5 C.C.No.8400/2012 appeared against him. Thereafter called upon him to enter into defence evidence, to which he submits no defence evidence to make and to file statement under Sec.(5) of Cr.P.C.,
6. Heard the arguments. Perused the documents on record.
7. The following points do arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 is being Chairman of KPSC Board from 15.01.2001 to 14.01.2007 and accused No.5 to 7 they being employees of KPSC Commission, they working under accused No.1, and accused No.2 and 3 being a candidates of KPSC examination for the batch of 1998 Gazetted Probationers. So accused No.1 being a Chairman of the KPSC in the batch of 1998 for A & B group examination, the CW.28 to CW.30 are eligible candidates to the concerned post, though accused have intentionally given post to the accused No.2 and 3 and other candidates and caused loss to the CW.28 to CW.30 they being eligible candidates. Accused No.5 to 7 they being a officials of the said KPSC who are working under accused No.1 with a dishonest intention rejected the H.G Prabhakar and T.S Hanumanthegowda and Allabhksha and given post to the accused No.2 and 3 and others by creating the documents and accused No.2 and 3 they being a candidates of 6 C.C.No.8400/2012 1998 Gazetted Probationers batch and given caste certificates rather than the dates fixed by the KPSC, that means the KPSC has been specified the dates to produced the caste certificates and other documents, they should obtained within the time limits of 09.03.1998 to 16.04.1998, though accused No.2 and 3 placed the documents of 28.03.1996 and 04.04.1998 respectively i.e., caste and income certificates and placed the said documents before accused No.1 and committee members. that too have created this said documents and used the said documents as genuine one and get the benefits as well as Gazetted Officer post etc and thereby committed an offences punishable U/s.418, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC ?
2. What order?
8. For the reasons to be stated herein after, I answer the above points as follows:-
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:-Admittedly to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.41 witnesses and also exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents and during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses accused side exhibited Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.81 documents by way of 7 C.C.No.8400/2012 confrontation. Further the predecessor of this court by oversight mentioned the Ex.P.52, but the said document has not mentioned in any of the deposition and no documents have marked in this case on said head and further in Ex.P.46 also one page is not available, but the predecessor of this court randomly marked the several documents as Ex.D.27 to Ex.D.46, but out of said documents the last page has not available in the file.
10. Admittedly this case arise out of the charge sheet filed by the investigation officer against the accused for the alleged offences punishable U/s.418, 468, 465, 120(B) of the IPC. Further admittedly as per the orders of the predecessor of this court dated:22.02.2017 charge is framed against accused No.1 is only with respect to the sections 418 of IPC and from rest of the offences have been discharged.
11. Further during the course of arguments Ld.Spl.PP vehemently definitely argued that prosecution has proved it's case by way of oral and documentary evidence and and accused No.1 being a Chairman of the KPSC Board who is committed criminal acts against the CW.28 to CW.30 and other accused are employees of KPSC Board and when candidates are appear for personality test i.e., Vivo as per the Notification dated:1998 the accused have played their role as 8 C.C.No.8400/2012 per their whims and fancies and casts certificates of accused No.2 and 3 obtained contrary to the notifications dates and PW.7/Allbaksh who has turned hostile, but complaint and his Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement given before the Magistrates have supported the prosecution case, but subsequently, he turned hostile before this court and his 164 Cr.P.C statement supported to the prosecution case and as per the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the hostile witness evidence also helpful to the prosecution, where there is corroboration in their evidence and accused have provided Gazetted Officer posts to the unsuccessful candidates. Accused No.1 has conducted the process and he being Chairman has committed several criminal acts and he has no special power to divert the notification conditions and as per Sec.197 of the Cr.P.C, sanction is not necessary to file complaint against accused No.1, because he committed criminal acts and KPSC is not a final authority to verify the documents and forensic report also given and Allabakash has written the Ex.D.1 Ex.D.46 letters voluntarily. I.O has nothing elicited in his cross-examination. And all accused are working in different cadres and prosecution has proved it's case and prays to convict the accused by relying i.e., The prosecution has filed following rulings i.e., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 9 C.C.No.8400/2012 India orders in Crl.Appeal No.906/2023 between Selvamani v/s. State Inspector of police in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the hostile witness evidence also reliable to convict the accused where their evidence having in corroborative manner and the courts should scrutiny the said hostile witnesses evidence and merely having of some omissions, contradictions, discrepancies are not a sole ground to disregard the entire evidence of hostile witness etc.
12. Per contra accused No.1 counsel argued that accused No.1 has prepared the list of 1:5 ratio and only Sec.418 of IPC available against accused No.1, but there is no evidence against the accused No.1 as per the ingredients of said sections and accused No.1 has filed written arguments and memo with rulings, FSL report has support the accused No.1 case, accused No.5, 6, 7 are officials of the KPSC and aggrieved persons Allabaksh and Hanumantharayappa and others have turned hostile and accused No.2 and 3 have properly produced caste certificates there is no dispute with regard to their castes and there is no proof against the accused No.1 with regard to the criminal activities are concerned and prays to acquit the accused No.1.
10C.C.No.8400/2012
13. Further accused No.2 and 3 counsel argued that CW.28 to CW.30 submitted requisitions before KPSC have no objection to provide post to the accused No.2 and 3 and CW.28 to CW.30 are working as IAS grader posts and CW.9/Venkataswamy who is member of the Election Committee not noted any reports and Sinduthva and cast certificate rightly issued and as per Sec.114 of evidence act, any acts done by the officials are properly done and only some administration lapses are held in the process of 1998 batch which was observed by the Hon'ble High Court, PW.18 Muniyappa has said about non entering of register and one Ranganatha evidence also not reliable and cannot be believable one, he was accused in 1998 case and none of the accused are liable for the offence of Sec.420 of IPC, because there is no dishonest and inducement and cheating intention of accused has proved in this case and there is no forgery of documents has been proved. So using of said forgery documents U/s.471 of IPC is not at all possible and there is no meeting of minds of accused and prays to acquit the accused and counsel also further argued that accused No.5 prosecute the case by party in person and he is steno in KPSC at the time of 1998 notification and he has no role in any of the appointment and falsely implicated in this case.
11C.C.No.8400/2012
14. Accused No.2 and 3 counsel further argued that in the charge sheet at last para there is a TIPPANI as well as SHARA with regard to the written to the Government against accused No.1 and Hon'ble High Court Judgments at last para quashed the proceedings and there is no inconvenience caused by the accused No.1 against any of the victims. And all the accused counsel prays to acquit the accused by filing written arguments and relying following rulings...
That means accused No.1 has filed written arguments in which he reiterated entire above oral arguments addressed by the counsel and also relied upon following rulings.....
1. WP No.50714/2024 State of Karnataka v/s Sri. K Mohammed Irfan.
2. (2015) 12 SCC 231 D.T Virupakshappa v/s C. Subash and accused No.3 also filed memo with following rulings they are.,
1. Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema v/s Balwant Singh Khera and Ors (CRL APL No.1116 OF 2023).
2. Mohammed Ibrahim and others v/s State of Bihar and another [(2009) 8 SCC 751].
12C.C.No.8400/2012
3. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh [(Crl Appeal No.1066 of 2010; Aug 25 2022)].
4. The State of Kerala v/s P.Sugathan and Anr (2000) 8 SCC 203.
and accused No.7 also filed memo with following rulings....
In which the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble court held that..
a) Sec.197 Cr.P.C attracts if a person i.e., accused is public servant and when any acts committed by him while discharging of his official duties sanction from the Government to prosecute the case is necessary.
b) The prosecution must proved the contents of Sec.420, 468, 471 of IPC with regard to how and in what manner the accused having criminal intention and created the documents and used the said documents as genuine one, unless proved the said ingredients accused are liable for acquitted.
c) The prosecution must proved the fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the accused, in cases registered under Sec.420 of IPC and also causing 13 C.C.No.8400/2012 of injuries to the other person out of the deceived also proved etc.,
15. During course of reply Ld.Sr.APP argued that prior sanction is not require to initiate the case against the accused and issue of sanction as already decided in PARA 24 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka order. PW.16 evidence support against the accused No.2. CW.17 and CW.18 evidence also supports against accused No.3 and Ex.P.50 caste certificate indicates to the court that about creation by the accused No.3 and prays to convict the accused. During the course of reply accused No.1 counsel argued that as per volumes sanction against accused No.1 is necessary under Sec.197 Cr.P.C. because while discharging of public duties the alleged offences were held and in Crl.Ptn.No.73/2016 stated that sanction is requires to prosecute the case against public servants and prays to acquit the accused.
16. Further admittedly prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.41 witnesses they are CW.28/PW.1 - H.G Prabhakar, CW.29/PW.2 - K.S Hanumanthegowda, CW.1/PW.3 - V.P.M Swamy, CW.51/PW.4 - K.Padmavathi, CW.52/PW.5 - V.L.N Prasannakumar, CW.57/PW.6 - S.R Srinivas, CW.30/Allabhaksh, CW.31/PW.8 - S.S Madhukeshwar, CW.3/PW.9 - Venkataswamy, CW.4/PW.10 14 C.C.No.8400/2012
- Lillian Xavier, CW.6/PW.11 - Mohammed Ali Khan, CW.2/PW.12 - H.S Patil, CW.60/PW.13 - B.A Padmanayan, CW.5/PW.14 - Dasaiah, CW.17/PW.15 - Revanna Siddaiah, CW.7/PW.16 - Shivaswamy, CW.9/PW.17 - Shivaputhrappa, CW.10/PW.18 - Muniyappa, CW.11/PW.19 - G.A Jayaramareddy, CW.13/PW.20 - Syed Abbas, CW.8/PW.21 - Ranganatha, CW.14/PW.22 - Lakshmikantha, CW.20/PW.23
- Navamani, CW.19/PW.24 - Meena.A, CW.16/PW.25 - Meera, CW.23/PW.26 - B.E Harishgowda, CW.25/PW.27 - Shobha, CW.22/PW.28 - Channaraju, CW.27/PW.29 - Narayana, CW.24/PW.30 - B.S Ramaprasad, CW.36/PW.31 - Venkatachalaiah, CW.37/PW.32 - Sudeep Maruthi Koravi, CW.40/PW.33 - Tippegowda, CW.39/PW.34 - Chandrappa, CW.32/PW.35 - Mastaiah, CW.33/PW.36 - Manjunatha H.S, CW.34/PW.37 - Srinath, CW.35/PW.38 - Neelakantappa, CW.38/PW.39 - Venkataramaiah, CW.17/PW.40 - Devaraju and CW.15/PW.41 - Khaleel Ahmed K.R and prosecution also exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents they are Ex.P.1/unaccepted statement portion of PW.1, Ex.P.2/S.L No.291 to 313 documents, Ex.P.2A/Shara belongs to PW.1 in Page No.72, Ex.P.2(b)/particular entry in page No.742, Ex.P.3/SL No.366 to 382 documents, Ex.P.3B/Shara, Ex.P.3C/Page No.52 document, Ex.P.4/refused statement portion of PW.2, Ex.P.5/Complaint, Ex.P.6/Letter, 15 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.P.7/Search Warrant, Ex.P.8/Seizure mahazar, Ex.P.9/application submitted for the preliminary exam's original copy of Asha Parveena, Ex.P.10/application submitted to mains exam's original copy of Asha Parveena, Ex.P.11/Seizure mahazar, Ex.P.12/application submitted for the preliminary exam's original copy of Salma Firdus, Ex.P.13/application submitted to mains exam's original copy of Salma Firdus, Ex.P.14/Seizure mahazar, Ex.P.15/application submitted for the preliminary exam's of CW.30, Ex.P16/application submitted for the Mains exam's of CW.30, Ex.P.17/unaccepted statement portion of PW.7, Ex.P.18/statement of PW.7, Ex.19/Further statement of PW.7, Ex.P.20/statement of PW.7 dated:27.12.2011, Ex.P.21/attendance sheet of PW.7, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23/Two writings of PW.8, Ex.P.24/PW.10 made statement before CID, Ex.P.25/PW.10 made statement before Magistrate, Ex.P.26/statement of PW.11, Ex.P.27/PW.11 made statement before Magistrate, Ex.P.28/statement of PW.12, Ex.P.29/Seized mahazar, Ex.P.30/the mahazar dated:30.08.2011, Ex.P.31/Secretary giving details of Chairman and members, Ex.P.32/Seized mahazar, Ex.P.33/Register for the period 1997, Ex.P.34/Register pertaining to from 01.04.1998 to June 1998, Ex.P.34(A)/Particular entry of Ex.P.34, Ex.P.35/another 16 C.C.No.8400/2012 register for the period 10.06.1998 to June 1998, Ex.P.36/Seizure mahazar, Ex.P.37/Seizure mahazar dated:09.08.2011, Ex.P.38/documents, Ex.P.39/Dairy, Ex.P.40/Sheet, Ex.P.41/52 pages writings, Ex.P.42/Writings of M.B Banakar, Ex.P.43/Writings of K.Narasimha, Ex.P.44/Writing of Gopi Krishna, Ex.P.45/Laminated caste and Income certificates of Allabaksh, Ex.P.46/Laminated caste and Income certificates of Hanumanthegowda, Ex.P.47/Reports received by Truth Lab, Hyderabad, Ex.P.48/Statement, Ex.P.49/Statment, Ex.P.50/Caste certificate of Salma Firdose, Ex.P.51/Caste and Income distribution copy, Ex.P.52/not marked, Ex.P.53/interview schedule, Ex.P.54/Seizure mahazar, Ex.P.55/candidates list of selected for vivo dated:07.01.2006 at 7.00 A.M, Ex.P.56/candidates list of selected for vivo dated:07.01.2006 at 3.00 P.M, Ex.P.57/candidates list of selected for vivo dated:09.01.2006 at 10.00 A.M, Ex.P.58/candidates list of selected for vivo dated:09.01.2006 at 3.00 P.M, Ex.P.59/unaccepted statement of PW.37, Ex.P.60/statement of PW.1, Ex.P.61/notification, Ex.P.62/164 statement, Ex.P.63/Notification, Ex.P.64/application of PW.2, Ex.P.65/Preliminary exam, Ex.P.66/Main exam, Ex.P.67/Main Exam Marks card, Ex.P.68/notice, Ex.P.69/Original 17 C.C.No.8400/2012 application form of KPSC, Ex.P.70/Letter dated:29.03.2006 and Ex.P.71/cheque list of main examination.
17. On the other hand during the course of cross- examination by the accused have exhibited Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.81 documents by way of confrontation, they are Ex.D.1/statement given before the CID Police, Ex.D.3/copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Ex.D.4/Charanareddy statement dated:03.03.2011, Ex.D5/Letter given by DGP, CID special enquiry on 16.11.2011, Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 Writ petitions No.11550/2008 and 9098/2009, Ex.P.8/Remand application dated:20.12.2011, Ex.D.9 to Ex.D.46/certified copies of requisitions, Ex.D.47 and Ex.D.48/order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.12548/2002 and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No.11589-639/2002, Ex.D.49/order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on I.A No.5, Ex.D.50/report submitted before Hon'ble High Court , Ex.D.51/copy of the FSL, Ex.D.52/the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Ex.D.53/letter from the FSL, Ex.D.53(A)/receipt of the report on 06.03.2012, Ex.D.54/order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Ex.D.55/copy of the Crl.Pet.No.4645/2012 order, Ex.D.56/B report of Lokayukta, Ex.D.57/order sheet, 18 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.D.58/documents are seized by the KPSC, Ex.D.59/Order copy, Ex.D.60 and Ex.D.61/Rejected order copy of Hon'ble Supreme Court belongs to Natesh, Ex.D.62/Letter of PW.25, Ex.D.63/Xerox Copy, Ex.P.64/Report of PW.16, Ex.D.65/Letter given to CID police, Ex.D.66/Letter issued by Tahsildar office, Ex.D.67/letter issued office of PW.16, Ex.D.68/statement of PW.16 to given I.O, Ex.D.69/document certificate certified by DIG, Ex.D.70/reply to the notice issued by PW.13 office, Ex.D.71/clarification regarding issuance of caste certificate, Ex.D.72/reply given by the Tahsildar to Ex.D.71, Ex.D.73/Letter given to Tahsildar, Ex.D.74/reply given by the Tahsildar to Ex.D.73, Ex.D.75/letter written to the Tahsildar seeking clarification with regard to IIB certificate issued to accused No.2, Ex.D.76/letter written by Tahsildar to PW.13 office, Ex.D.77/Register, Ex.D.77(A)/Serial No.11603 1st Line handwriting is different from that of next column, Ex.D.78/Caste certificate belongs to Y.B Archana, Ex.P.79/Notice given to accused No.5, Ex.D.80/One more notice given to accused No.5 and Ex.D.81/copy of the statement given by Prabhakar before KPSC,
18. Admittedly to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined nearly 41 witnesses i.e., PW.1/H.G 19 C.C.No.8400/2012 Prabhakar who is the Joint Director of BCM Department stated before the Court that he is one of the candidate in 2005 Gazetted Probationary Group A and B post and he has passed examination and appointed in BCM Department and he also stated about getting of 926 marks out of 1800 and also stated that about conduct of examination by the then Chairman of the KPSC and obtaining of marks of 145 in personality test and claiming of reservation in Kannada Medium and 3A Rural Cota and he has not given said documents at the time of Vivo because he has passed in General Category. In spite of cross- examination by the Ld.Spl.APP he has not supported the prosecution case. Of course he admitted certain admissions in the cross-examination they are...
ದಿನಾಂಕ:29.3.2006 ರಂದು ಸದರಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿತ್ವ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಹಾಜರಾಗಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಲೋಕಸೇವಾ ಆಯೋಗದ ಅಂದಿನ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ಮತ್ತು ಸದಸ್ಯರು ನನ್ನ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನಗೆ ಸದರಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿತ್ವ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಟ್ಟು 145 ಅಂಕಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ನಾನು ಅರ್ಹತಾ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ, 3ಎ, ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಕೃಪಾಂಕ ವಿಭಾಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆದರೆ, ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿತ್ವ ಸಂದರ್ಶನಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಹೋದಾಗ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಕಾರಣವೆಂದರೆ ನಾನು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ತೀರ್ಣ ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದೆ.
ದಿ.29.03.2006 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಸಂದರ್ಶನಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರಾದಾಗ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದವರಿಗೆ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ 20 C.C.No.8400/2012 ನಾನು ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ ಕೋರಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಉಳಿದ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀ ಕೆ.ನರಸಿಂಹ ಎನ್ನುವವರು ನಾನು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಹುದ್ದೆಗಾಗಿ ಆಯ್ಕೆಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೀರಾ ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ, ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಕೃಪಾಂತ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ ಇವುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವುದು ಬೇಡವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿಯವರು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ದಿನಾಂಕ: 10.10.2011 ರಂದು ಸಿಓಡಿ ಪೊಲೀಸಿನವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಹಾಜರಾಗಲು ನನಗೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಹಾಜರಾಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ದಿನದಂದು ಸಿಓಡಿ ಪೊಲೀಸಿನವರು ನನಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಇರುವ ನನಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ ನಂಬರ್ನ ಕೆಪಿಎಸ್ಸಿಯ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ಹಾಗೂ ನೊಂದಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ಷರಾ ಬಳಿ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಸರಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಷರಾ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸದರಿ ಷರಾ ಸರಿ ಇರುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ದಿನದಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಸಂದರ್ಶನದ ವೇಳೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಗುರುತನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿ ಅವರ ಪೆನ್ನಿನಿಂದಲೇ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಸಂದರ್ಶನ ಮುಗಿದ ನಂತರ ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯದೇ ಓರಿಜಿನಲ್ 3ಎ ಸರ್ಟಿಫಿಕೇಟ್, ರೂರಲ್ ಸರ್ಟಿಫಿಕೇಟ್, ಕನ್ನಡ ಮೀಡಿಯಂ ಸರ್ಟಿಫಿಕೇಟ್ ನಾಟ್ಪ್ರೊಡ್ಯೂಸ್ಡ್ ಎಂದು ಪರಾ ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡಂತೆ ನಾನು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳದ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ-1 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
21C.C.No.8400/2012 ದಿ.18.11.2011 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಎಂಎಂಟಿಸಿ 3ನೇ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ದಂಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ.164ರ ಅಡಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ/ನನಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಪೊಲೀಸರ ಒತ್ತಡವಿದ್ದುದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಮಾನ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಪೊಲೀಸರ ಒತ್ತಡವಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಈ ದಿನ ನನಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಒತ್ತಡವಿದ್ದುದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರ ಒತ್ತಡದಿಂದ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ' ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಪುಟ.72 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಹೆಸರು ಮತ್ತು ನೊಂದಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಷರಾವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ-2ಎ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ-2ಬಿ ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾದವು.
19. PW.2/K.S Hanumanthegowda he also one of the candidate for Gazetted Probationary Officers of A and B Group conducted by the KPSC in the year 1998 he also stated about getting of score of 1146 marks out of 1800 and attend of Vivo on 10.01.2026 and claiming of appointment in 3A group, but he has not brought the original caste certificate at the time of Vivo. In spite of cross-examination by the Ld.APP, he has not support the case, but he admitted certain points in his cross-examination marked.
20. PW.3/V.P.M Swamy who is Rtd.Dy.SP stated before the court he was working at CID from 2008 to 2012 and as per direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P 22 C.C.No.8400/2012 conducted investigation and seeking the permission from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka and conducted investigation etc., but his evidence only confers to the court that about investigation is concerned as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
21. PW.4/K.Padmavathi she is PSI of CID, stated that about working in CID and dated:07.10.2011 CW.56/Shankrappa, Dy.S.P directed her to search in the accused house. Accordingly she went along with I.O and typed the mahazar in Vasanthanagara and herself and Savitha, Ramprakash, Ravikumar present at the time of drawing of mahazar and partly she has not support the prosecution case. Hence the Ld. APP cross-examination, but has not supported the prosecution case.
22. PW.5/V.L.N Prasannakumar who is also PSI of CID he stated before the court dated:16.11.2011, CW.60 has recorded the statement of CW.35 and she has recorded the same in computer and she also stated about the typing of statements of CW.18 and CW.19.
23. PW.6/S.R Srinivas, he also Dy.S.P stated before the court that dated:30.08.2012 he received the memo from CW.60 to work as assistant to CW.60. Accordingly 23 C.C.No.8400/2012 dated:07.09.2011 he went to the KPSC Office and he received the preliminary and main applications, marks cards, check list and other documents for a period of 1998, 1999 and 2004 Probationary Officers posts and he also stated some other things, hence he cross-examined by the Ld.APP that means he has not supported the prosecution case in full.
24. PW.7/Allabhaksha who is Social Welfare Officer he stated before the court as per version of PW.1 and PW.2 i.e., he also one of the candidate in 1999 KAS batch and he secured 967 marks out of 1800 he claiming reservation in 2B category by filing caste certificate, at the time of Vivo he has not produced the original marks card and rest of the facts he has denied. Hence Ld.APP cross-examined, in his cross- examination he admitted the following points.....
ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರಾಗುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ 2ಬಿ ಕ್ಯಾಟಗರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆದರೆ ಮೌಖಿಕ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಹಾಜರಾಗುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಸದರಿ ಮೂಲ ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರ ಕಳೆದು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ಕಾರಣ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲು ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಆದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಏನು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆಂದು ನನಗೆ ನೆನಪಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳದ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.17 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಪಿ.17 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು 24 C.C.No.8400/2012 ಸತ್ಯವಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ ನಿಜಾಂಶವನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡಂತೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ದಂಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ.164 ರಡಿ ಮಾನ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಸಠಿ ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಒತ್ತಡದ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ಈಗ ನಿಪಿ.18 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳದ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸದರಿ ಮರು ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.19 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಪಿ.19 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ನಾನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ದಂಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ.164 ರಡಿ ದಿ.27.12.2011 ರಂದು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆದರೆ ಕೆಲವೊಂದು ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಶಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಒತ್ತಡದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
25. PW.8/S.S.Madhukeshwar who is one of the candidate in KPSC examination for the batch of 1998 to the post of Gazetted Probationary A and B Officer's post. He stated before the court that he has secured 936 marks out of 1700 marks and he has secured 160 marked in personality test and after Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Orders he secured 155 marks in Vivo and total he secured 1091 marks and he selected for the post of Tahsildar and further rest of the facts he has denied, in spite of cross-examination by the Ld.APP he has not supported.
26. PW.9/Venkataswamy who is one of the official of KPSC worked from 09.06.2002 to 14.11.2008 stated that he 25 C.C.No.8400/2012 was in charge Chairman of KPSC from January 2007 to May 2007 and in his tenure he has involved for selecting of Gazetted Probationary Officer's 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches and he given statement to the CID police and he also stated accused/Asha Parvin had applied for the post of Gazetted Probationary post under 2B category and she has not filed caste certificate as such she was selected for interview under GM category and she attended the interview before the committee on general merit and later on CID police have tell him about appointment of Asha Parvin under 2B category for the post of Tahsildar etc.,.
27. PW.10/Lilian Xavier who is one of the member of KPSC Board he was worked in the year 2000 to 2006, stated that about involving in appointment of A & B Group post in 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches and he stated about given statement before the CID police and he also not fully supported the prosecution case. Hence cross-examined by the Ld.APP.
28. PW.11/Mohmmed Ali Khan he also stated that he was working as a member in KPSC from 1999 to 2011 and when he was member at that time one Panchakatti was the Chairman, subsequently accused No.1 has assumed as 26 C.C.No.8400/2012 Chairman and he was participated in interview process of 1999 batch and he given statement to the CID police. But rest of the facts he has denied. in spite of cross-examination by the Ld.APP he has not supported.
29. PW.12/H.S.Patil he also one of the KPSC member, stated about his participation in the process of interview of Probationary Officers 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches and given statement to the CID police in this regard. He has not fully supported to the prosecution case hence he cross-examination by the Ld.APP.
30. PW.13/B.A.Padmanayan who is Rtd. IGP stated before the court that some of the candidates have appeared for interview for selection of KAS service in 1998, 1999 and 2004 batches and as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, he coduct enquiry with regard to illegalities and irregularities held in selection process of said batches and he also stated about collection of certain documents as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and conducting of investigation etc.,.
In his cross-examination he admitted the following points...
Mr. DIG was conducting enquiry and thereafter I continued the same and 27 C.C.No.8400/2012 submitted the report to the monitory judge and no preliminary enquiry was conducted.
Q:- On what basis we have registered a case against the accused.
Ans: During enquiry we came to know some of the irregularities in recruitment of probationary officers for the year 1998, 1999 and 2004 and accordingly we sought permission of the Hon'ble High Court to investigate the matter.
It is true to suggest that, before registering the complaint against the accused I have obtained permission from our higher authorities. In the present case I have filed only one FIR.
There was no direction from any body to make accused persons in the present case. It is true to suggest that, the letter now shown to me is the letter given by DGP, CID special enquiry on 16.11.2011 the said letter is marked as ExD5.
It is It is true to suggest that, in the process of selection the chairman and members of the commission have role only to conduct interview and allot marks. It is true to suggest that, I have made the accused person as shown in the remand application dated. 20.12.2011. The same is marked as ExD8. It is true to suggest that, in ExD8 I have shown the chairman and members of the commission as known accused. It is true 28 C.C.No.8400/2012 to suggest that, the duty of a staff and secretary in the said selection process was to scrutinize and verification of the document of the candidates. It is true to suggest that, it is the duty of the secretary to prepare provisional and final selection list. It is true to suggest that, if any anomaly i.e. marks, category, ranking and etc.. found in the provisional list or final list it is for the secretary to rectify.
Q:- Except the accused herein we have not made the members and secretary as accused in the present case what is the reason?
Ans: During course of investigation, I have not found any incriminating material against other except the accused herein, therefore, I have not sent them for trail.
It is true to suggest that, in 161 statement the members of the commission have stated that they have corrected the marks. Witness voluntaries that some of the members told they have corrected the marks at the instruction of the accused and some of the members have told that they have not remembered the said correction. I do not remember whether accused herein has corrected any marks.
29C.C.No.8400/2012 It is true to suggest that, the then Tahasildar Bangalore North Taluk by name Shivaswamy has given statement before me that certificate issued in favour of Asha Parvin were issued by their office. Witness voluntaries that the said certificate was issued on 26.06.1998 as per the issuance register and not on 09.03.1998. The concerned district caste verification Committee has not passed any order to the effect that the particular caste certificate furnished by Asha Parvin was invalid. It is not true to suggest that, the staff of the secretary will scrutinized the validity of the documents to consider whether the particular candidate is entitle for any benefit under any category. Witness voluntaries that confidential branch of the commission has scrutinized the documents. It is true to suggest that, after scrutinized documents the concerned scrutiny branch will prepare the list of the candidates for interview.
It is true to suggest that, I have not enquired with deputy commissioner and members of the committee we have validate the certificate of Asha Parvin. I have seen the original caste certificate of Alla Bakash. Some of the witnesses have appeared before me voluntarily and some of the witnesses appeared before me on the notices issued by me during the investigation. I do not 30 C.C.No.8400/2012 remember who was the chairman of the selection committee for 1998 batch. It is true to suggest that, I have not enquired the Chairman of the 1998 batch. I can not remember in which batch the above said Alla bakash was selected.
Q:- Can you say how many candidates have given a requisition to the chairman of the commission to consider their candidature in general merit as they have not complied with furnishing original certificates.?
Ans: Some of the candidates told that chairman of the commission has forcibly taken such requisitions.
May be true nearly 38 members have given such requisitions. Certified copies of those requisition are now shown to me. The same are marked as ExD9 to ExD46. It is true to suggest that, in my report I made a statement that accused has favoured to his community. It is true to suggest that, Hanumanthe Gowda, Madhukeshwar, Prabhakar are belongs to community of the accused.
It is true to suggest that if candidate has not given preference his candid will not be considered preferably though he secured more marks.
31C.C.No.8400/2012 It is true to suggest that, the Hon'ble High Court has passed order in the above said writ petition on I.A. no.5. The copy of the said order is now shown to me is marked as ExD49, I have sent caste cum income certificate of Smt. Asha Parvin and Salma Firdose to the forensic lab to ascertain the authenticity of issuance of the said certificates, on the ground that the issuing authority by name Sri.Jayaramareddy has stated in the statement that he has not issued the said certificates. The FSL given a report that the signatures found on the signatures are tallying with specimen signatures. Therefore, I have send back the same for further opinion. In the second report the FSL stated that the signatures are not tallying with specimen signatures. Therefore, I have sent those certificates again for third opinion to truth lab of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
It is true to suggest that, I have not filed reports of the FSL, Bangalore except truth lab. It is true to suggest that, the copy of the FSL, Bangalore is now shown to me. The same is marked as Ex.D.51.
There is a mention in para 2 of Ex.D53 with regard to the receipt of the report by me on 06.03.2012. the same is 32 C.C.No.8400/2012 marked as Ex.D53(a). It is true to suggest that, truth lab Hyderbad is a private agency. I do not know whether the said truth lab is blocked listed by the Government.
I have recorded further statement of the Alla Bakash on 20.12.2011. It is not true to suggest that, I obtained the further statement from Alla Bakash forcibly after production of the copies of the requisition letter before the Hon'ble High Court for considering bail petitions of the accused No.1.
It is true to suggest that, Lokayukta has filed the 'B' report on the said complaint. The said report is marked as Ex.D56 and order sheet of the said case is marked as Ex.D57. I have recorded the statement of Alla Bakash before registering the case. We have filed the said statement before the court. It is true to suggest that, the caste certificate of Alla bakash was seized by the office of KPSC but, I do not remember the caste certificate seized was a Xerox copy. The Ex.P.45 produced by Alla bakash on 30.01.2012. It is true to suggest that, the documents now shown to me is seize by the KPSC. The same is marked as ExD58. ExP45 and ExD58 are It is though looks different but, contents same information. It is true to suggest that, the 33 C.C.No.8400/2012 witnesses in ExP45 and ExD58 are different. It is true to suggest that, dates shown on ExP45 and ExD58 are also different. It is true to suggest that, the format of Ex.P.45 and ExD58 is also different. It is true to suggest that, hand writings in both documents is also different. I can not say which one of those two documents is genuine. It is true to suggest that, I have recorded the statement of Alla Bakash on 07.09.2011 and further statement of 20.12.2011. It is true to suggest that, I have filed a complaint on 11.08.2011.
It is not true to suggest that, so for as present case is concerned they are two FIR's on the same date in the same crime number. I have not enquired in two caste certificates furnished by Alla bakash. I have not made any attempt to find out which of two caste certificates produced by Alla Bakash was genuine.
It is true to suggest that, the Alla bakash, Hanumanthe Gowda, Prabhakar and Madhukeshwar have not raised any objection either to It is not provisional list or final list or file any complaint.
It is true to suggest that, I have mentioned in the charge sheet to the effect that charge is filed pending obtaining prior 34 C.C.No.8400/2012 permission. Witness voluntaries that Govt. of Karnataka issued an endorsement to the effect that such a prior permission is not necessary. I have not produced said endorsement before the court. The sanctioning authority is governor but, not the government.
Ans: there is an endorsement that there is no sanction is necessary.
I have authorized detective inspector one Srinivas to seized the documents, but there is no an order in this regard in writing. Witness voluntaries that whenever the investigation office required such documents he can authorize or delegate to seize the documents. It is true to suggest that, while authorized him I have given instructions to seized particular documents I particular way.
31. PW.14/Dasaiah who is one of the Rtd. KPSC member he stated before the court that about tenure of accused No.1 as Chairman in KPSC Board and Asha Parvin i.e., accused has attend for interview under GM category and as per the CID documents she has selected under 2B category and he also stated one Allabakash also appeared for interview and he has not produced SSLC marks card and 2B certificate and he also stated Hanumanthegowda also appeared for interview 35 C.C.No.8400/2012 under 3A category but at the time of verification, he was interviewed under GM category and one Prabhakar also appear for interview under 3A category, but he was interviewed under GM category and one Roopa also called for interview under 3A category etc.,.
32. PW.15/Revanna Siddaiah who is one of the Red. Deputy Secretary stated that he was private Secretary to the Chaiman of KPSC from 2000 to 2003 and he has given statement to the CID police. He has not fully supported the prosecution case, hence he cross-examined by the Ld.APP.
33. PW.16/Shivaswamy who is Asst. Commissioner stated before the court about the given of statement to the CID on fact of caste certificate of Asha Parvin S.N i.e., accused and also stated that about issuance of caste certificate pertaining to said Asha Parvin.
In his cross-examination he admitted following points...
ನಿಡಿ.63 ನಮ್ಮ ಇಲಾಖೆಯಿಂದ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಂಚೆ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿ ನೀಡುತ್ತೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ನಿಪಿ.63 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿ.09.03.1998 ರಂದು ತಹಸೀಲ್ದಾರ್ ರವರು ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.33 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊದಲು ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ ತಿಂಗಳು 1998 ರ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಆ ನಂತರ ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 36 C.C.No.8400/2012 ತಿಂಗಳು 1998ರ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದಂತಹ ದಾಖಲೆ ನಾವು ಕೊಟ್ಟಂತಹ ವರದಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು ಎಷ್ಟು ವಹಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವೆಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.64 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಿಐಡಿ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ನವರಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಂತಹ ಪತ್ರ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.65 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದಂತಹ ಪತ್ರವು ಹಿಂಬಹರವಾದದ್ದು ಅದನ್ನು ತಹಸಿಲ್ದಾರ್ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿಂದ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ಈಗ ನಿಡಿ.66 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ವಿತರಣಾ ವಹಿಯ ನಮೂನೆ ಒಂದೇ ತರಹ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ನಿಪಿ.33 ಮತ್ತು 34ರ ನಮೂನೆ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ತರಹ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿಂದ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.67 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಪಿ.33 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿ.27.03.1998 ರಂದು ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 11522 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಸಿಂಧುತ್ವ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಡಿ.ಆರ್.ಪುಷ್ಪರವರಿಗೆ ವಿತರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಆಶಾ ಫರ್ವಿನ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದಂತಹ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ವಾಪಸ್ ಪಡೆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯಾಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯಾಗಲೀ ನನಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
34. PW.17/Shivaputhrappa who is Rtd. Official Stated before the court that about issuance of cast certificate pertaining to the accused Salma Firdhosh.
35. PW.18/Muniyappa who is Rtd. Revenue Inspector stated before the court that with regard to the given of 37 C.C.No.8400/2012 statement to the CID police pertaining to the accused/Salma Firdhosh caste certificate i.e., Ex.P.50.
36. PW.19/G.A Jayaramareddy who is Rtd. Tahsildar stated before the court that about issuance of case certificate belongs to the Asha Parvin and in his cross-examination he admitted following points...
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಒಂದೇ ತರಹ ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಂತಹ ಜಾತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆದಾಯ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಬಾಲ್ ಪೆನ್ ಅಥವಾ ಇಂಕ್ ಪೆನ್ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ತನಿಖಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ತೋರಿಸಿದಂತಹ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನದು ಎಂಬ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ನಿಜವಾದ ಸಹಿಯೆಾಂದಿಗೆ ತುಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿಗಳು ನನ್ನದಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರು ಸಿಂಧುತ್ವ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರಬಹುದು.
ನಿಪಿ.51 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ನಮೂದು ಪುಟ.5 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 59 ದಿ.11.04.1998 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಾಗಿರುವುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯು ಪ್ರತಿ ತಿಂಗಳು 2ನೇ ಶನಿವಾರ ಕೆಲಸ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ದಿ.11.04.1998 2ನೇ ಶನಿವಾರ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.34 ವಹಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 6232 ನಂತರ 6333 ಎಂಬ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ನಮೂದನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.34(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು 100 38 C.C.No.8400/2012 ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಗಳ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆದಾಯ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಸದರಿ ನೀಡಿಕೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿತರಣಾ ವಹಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಮಾಡದೇ ಇರುವಂತಹ ಸಂಭವ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ.
37. PW.20/Syed Abbash who is Rtd. Sheristedar also stated with regard to the accused/Asha Parvin caste certificate.
38. PW.21/Ranganatha who is Asst. Commissioner also stated that with regard to the issuance of accused/Salma Firdhosh caste certificate.
39. PW.22/Lakshmikanth who is Rtd. FDA also stated with regard to the issuance of caste certificate pertaining to the accused/Asha Parvin i.e., Ex.P.34.
40. PW.23/Navamani who is one of the official stated before the court with regard to the having of knowledge over the accused No.1/H.N Krishna he was Chairman of KPSC and given of statement to the CID pertaining to the Gazetted Probationary batch 1998.
41. PW.24/Meena.A she is one of the official stated that accused No.1 was Chairman of KPSC and she stated about knowing signature of accused No.1.
39C.C.No.8400/2012
42. PW.25/Meera she stated before the court that she is one of the candidate in 1998 Gazetted Probationary batch and she has secured 1015 marks and in on personality test she secured 177 marks and she has selected as Tahsildar under 3B category etc.,
43. PW.26/B.E.Harishgowda who is Rtd.IAS Officer stated before the court that about issuance of directions by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and selection process of 1998 KAS batch.
44. PW.27/Shobha she is system analysis of KPSC stated before the court about the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka pertaining to the 1998 KPSC batch and examined 19 subjects.
45. PW.28/Chennaraju who is Rtd. Joint Secretary stated before the court that about given of statement to the police and with respect to SHARA written on Hanumanthegowda candidate and the said hand writing belongs to the accused No.6.
46. PW.29/Narayana who is one of the Rtd. Deputy Secretary of KPSC stated before the court about identification of signatures of accused No.1/H.N.Krishna and he also 40 C.C.No.8400/2012 identified serial No.17 of selected list and signature of the Chairman.
47. PW.30/B.S Ramprasad who is Rtd. IAS Officer stated before the court that as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka pertaining to the 1998 KPSC batch and direction by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 19 subjects.
In his cross-examination he admitted following admissions...
ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳ ಮೌಖಿಕ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಿ ಅವರುಗಳಿಗೆ ಅಂಕಗಳ ನೀಡುವ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಸಮಿತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಹೇಳುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳ ಸಂದರ್ಶನ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಸಮಿತಿಯ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳು ತಾವು ಮೌಖಿಕ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಹಾಜರಾಗಲು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಲೋಕ ಸೇವಾ ಆಯೋಗದ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯವರು ಸದರಿ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಷರಾ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದರಂತೆ ಸದರಿ ಷರಾವನ್ನು ಪರೀಶಿಲನೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತಹ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ವಿಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ನಂತರ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಕಡತವು ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿರವರಿಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಕೊಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ಕಾನೂನು ಬಾಹಿರ ತಪ್ಪನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಸಮಿತಿ, ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ಅಥವಾ ಸದಸ್ಯರು 41 C.C.No.8400/2012 ಎಸಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಸದರಿ ತಪ್ಪನ್ನು ಅವರುಗಳ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತರುವ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ನನಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಂತಹ ದಾಖಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕಡತಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ತಪ್ಪು ಕಂಡುಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಮೌಖಿಕ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಆದ ನಂತರ ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಸಮಿತಿಯಿಂದ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ, ಪರೀಕ್ಷಾ ಶಾಖೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಶಾಖೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಆ ನಂತರ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಕನ್ನರ್ಮೇಷನ್ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ಗಳು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಕೊಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಕನ್ನರ್ಮೆಶನ್ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ತಪ್ಪುಗಳು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದರೆ ಸದರಿ ತಪ್ಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸದಸ್ಯರುಗಳ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತರುವ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಆದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯವರು ಆ ತರಹದ ತಪ್ಪುಗಳ ಸಂಬಂಧವಾಗಿ ಷರಾಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆದರೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಯವರ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮೇಲೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ತಪ್ಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ಮತ್ತು ಸಮಿತಿಯ ಸದಸ್ಯರುಗಳಿಗೆ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತಂದು ಒಂದು ಪಕ್ಷ ಸದರಿ ತಪ್ಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಸರಿ ಮಾಡದಿದ್ದರೆ ಸದರಿ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತರುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಯವರು ಕನ್ನರ್ಮೇಶನ್ ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟರ್ಗೆ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 1998 ರ ಆಯ್ಕೆಯ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ನ್ಯೂನತೆಗಳು ಕಂಡುಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
48. PW.31/Venkatachalaiah who is Assistant in KPSC stated before the court that about drawing of Ex.P.8/mahazar 42 C.C.No.8400/2012 in his presence and seizure of certain documents and prepare of Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.11/mahazars.
49. PW.32/Sudeep Maruthi Koravi who is Assistant in KPSC Department he also stated about drawing of Ex.P.8, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.54/mahazars and seizure of certain records and Ex.P.57 selected list.
50. PW.33/Thippegowda who is employee in CID Department he also stated about drawing of mahazar at that time of seizure of Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 caste certificate documents and he also identified signature on Ex.P.32/mahazar.
51. PW.34/Chandrappa who is one of the Head Constable in CID Department he also stated that about drawing of Ex.P.29/mahazar at the time of seizure of Ex.P.55 income certificate record.
52. PW.35/Mastaiah who is also one of the Rtd. Officer of KPSC stated about collect of Ex.53/documents i.e., personality test list of candidates.
53. PW.36/Manjunatha.H.S who is also one of the Rtd. KPSC officer also stated as per the version of PW.35.
43C.C.No.8400/2012
54. PW.37/Srinath who is Rtd. KPSC Official stated that about given of statement to the CID police pertaining to the Asha Parvin selected list.
55. PW.38/Neelakantappa who is Section Officer in KPSC stated before the court that about given of statement pertaining to the accused No.2/Asha Parvin selected list and appoint of said Asha Parvin under 2B category.
56. PW.39/Venkataramaiah who is Rtd. H.C stated before the court that about drawing of Ex.P.59/mahazar and seizure of Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 documents.
57. PW.40/Devaraju who is Head Master, Maddur Tq, he stated before the court that he is one of the candidate in 1998 Gazetted Probationary batch for A and B post and he has secured 1038 marks and has claimed reservation under 3A category and he has appointed as group A assistant in State Treasury and he also stated about position of accused No.1/H.N Krishna in KPSC board and question of said Chairman about the caste of PW.40 and he also stated about appointment A group post in State Treasury in the said list.
44C.C.No.8400/2012
58. PW.41/Khaleel Ahmed K.R stated before the court that he know the knowledge over the 1998, 1999 and 2004 Gazetted Probationer's group A posts and he also stated about held of scam in the said exam and himself and other 61 members filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in the said Writ Petition the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the COD to investigate the matter and also stated in CID investigation he aware about 60% to 70% Mal - practice was held in said batches. That means he has stated oral evidence with regard to the held of mal-practice and other criminal activities in the KPSC board, when accused No.1 has Chairman in the said board.
59. In support of prosecution case i.e., evidence of PW.1 to PW.41 prosecution has exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents. As stated supra during the course of evidence prosecution witnesses have admitted Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.81 documents. That means they marked by way of confrontation.
60. So on perusal of the overall materials placed by the prosecution i.e., oral and documentary evidence and arguments addressed by the counsels, the admitted facts are that there is no dispute with regard to the position of the accused in this case i.e., accused No.1 was the then Chairman 45 C.C.No.8400/2012 of KPSC Board and accused No.2 and 3 are candidates they secured some posts by providing 3B caste and income certificates and admittedly accused No.5 to 7 are employees in KPSC Board, they are working in different cadres under the control of accused No.1. Further there is no dispute that CW.28 to CW.30 i.e., PW.1, 2, 7 they are H.G Prabhakar, K.S Hanumanthe Gowda and Allabakash are alleged aggrieved parties in this case and they are working in IAS cadres and further there is no dispute that all allegations as per the charge- sheet materials made against accused No.1, 5 to 7 that they given post to the accused No.2 and 3 on fake and forged caste and income certificates produced in contravention of the KPSC specified dates, that means accused No.2 and 3 obtained caste certificates after the expiry of specified dates and they get the posts from the KPSC Board.
61. Further there is no dispute that with regard to the decide of issue of sanction by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as stated above, that means and further there is no dispute that against accused No.1 only Sec.418 of IPC is pending, further there is no dispute that case against accused No.4 has been dropped and this case pending against accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7.
46C.C.No.8400/2012
62. Further there is no dispute that the very aggrieved persons who preliminarily made allegations against accused, that means CW.28 to CW.30 i.e., PW.1, 2 and 7 have partly hostile and in spite of cross-examination they have not supported the prosecution case. The prime dispute in the present case is that the criminal intention of the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and cheating of candidates i.e., CW.28 to CW.30 by non providing of proper eligible posts and create as well as commit of forgery over the caste certificate of accused No.2 and 3 and given of certain posts, as per the charge-sheet allegations and also use of said forged documents as genuine one etc.,. to prove the said facts as stated supra the prosecution has placed PW.1 to PW.41 evidence and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents.
63. Further on perusal of overall oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution the very important witness CW.28 to CW.30 that is PW.1, 2 and 7 in their chief examinations they simply stated before the court that they secured written examination marks as 926 by PW.1 by name H.G. Prabakar and 1146 by PW 2 by name Hanumanthegowda and PW.7 Allabakash secured 967 marks and they stated that about claiming of appointment under reservation of 2B category and securing 967 marks and these PW 1, 2, 7 also 47 C.C.No.8400/2012 submits they have not produced relevant documents at the time of viva as well as personality test and securing of certain marks under said test but for the rest of the facts they have denied and not supported the prosecution case, In spite of cross examination by the Ld. APP they have not supported the same.
64. Of course they admitted certain facts in their cross examination those have referred about but they have not support the prosecution case to convict the Accused . Of course as argued by the Ld. APP these PW 1, 2, 7 have stated allegations against the Accused before the Magistrate under section.164 of Cr.P.C statement but after the said statement these witness have turned hostile before this court. Of course as per the rulings of the prosecution there is no bar under law to considered the hostile evidence witness for the extend where there is corroboration in favour of prosecution case, but here in this case there is no corroboration evidence in the evidence of PW.1, 2, 7 to believe their hostile evidence to convict the Accused persons, because they specifically and directly denied the contents of Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement and also which allegations made by them before the investigation officer.
48C.C.No.8400/2012
65. Further as per the investigation papers and evidence the allegations against Accused No.2 and 3 are they produced caste certificate for the date of 28-03-1996 and 04- 04-1998 that is the said caste certificates and income certificates are not obtained within the specified dates, as specified by the KPSC board i.e., within 09.03.1998 and 16.04.1998. Of course to substantiate the said facts, prosecution has marked Ex.P. 50, 51, 33 and 34 caste and income certificates of Accused no. 2 and 3 so as per the said documents accused Salma Firdosh has obtained caste certificate dated:04-04-1998 and Accused Asha Paraveen obtained caste certificate on 28-03-1996 so, merely Accused No.2 and 3 have produced caste certificates rather-than, the dates specified by the KPSC are not a sole ground to believe the allegations against them on fact of forgery, dishonest intention and use of forged documents as genuine unless prosecution has proved the criminal and dishonest intention of accused, that too create of documents for purpose of getting of group 'A' and 'B' post.
66. Further Truth Lab Foundation also given reports i.e., expert opinion in this case, but they have not been proved by examining the author of the said documents.
49C.C.No.8400/2012
67. Further admittedly Accused no.5 to 7 are employees in KPSC board and they are working under Accused no. 1 at the time of 1998 KPSC Gazatted Probationary batch but except insertion of their names in charge sheet there is no role of Accused no.5 to 7 as proved before the court in creating of documents and using of said documents as genuine, further as stated supra only section.418 of IPC is pending against Accused no. 1 so, as per the ingredients of said section.418 of IPC that means knowledge of accused No.1 for causing of wrongful loss to PW.1, 2, 7 has not proved before the court, because as stated supra PW.1, 2, 7 themselves have not supported the prosecution case and they have not deposed any incriminating evidence against Accused no. 1 nor other Accused and In spite of cross examination by treating hostile by the Ld.APP, they have not supported the prosecution case, of course Ld.Spl.PP argued about the given of Sec.164 Cr.P.C statements by the PW.1, 2, 7 before the Magistrate, the said u/s.164 Cr.P.C statement have not a conclusive proof of documents and they needs to be corroboration by way of oral evidence from PW 1, 2, 7 but here in this case as stated supra they turned hostile and they deposed against their own statements.
68. Of course PW.9, 13, 16, 19 have supported the prosecution case that is PW 9 Venkatswamy stated with regard 50 C.C.No.8400/2012 to applied of Accused Asha Paraveen to the post of Gazetted Probationary post under '2B' category and PW 13 B. A Padmanayan retired IGP stated that about conduct of investigation with respect to illegalities and irregularities of KPSC appointment process in the year 1998, 1999 and 2004 batch and PW.16-Shivaswamy and PW.19 - A.Jayaramareddy have also stated about issuance of caste certificates of Accused Asha Paraveen.
69. As stated supra mere produce of caste certificate by the Accused No.2 and 3 and issuance of said certificates by the considered Tahsildhar and Assistant Commissioner are all not yet to the disputed in this case, the prime dispute in the present case is that whether Accused no.1 has caused wrongful loss to the PW.1, 2, 7 and other candidates of Gazetted Probationary posts aspirants and creation as well as forging of documents by the Accused no. 2 and 3 and 5 to 7 etc., the said facts has not proved before the court by way of cogent, convince and corroborative evidence.
70. Of course the prosecution has placed very lengthy oral and documentary evidence but they have only confers to the court about committing of some irregularities and diversions of rules and regulations of KPSC at the time of providing of Gazetted Probationary post in the batch of 1998 51 C.C.No.8400/2012 and other batches, so merely held of some regularities and diversions contrary to the rules framed by the KPSC are not a sole ground to given a criminal colour to the acts of the accused No.1, 2, 3 and 5 to 7. Further on perusal of the over all materials I am of the opinion that definitely there is some lacunals and irregularities and there is grave administrative lapses in the process of 1998 Gazetted Probationary batch, so such administrative lapses shall not be given nor treated as criminal acts against the Accused in this case.
71. Further admittedly the very important and significant and aggrieved persons who are disputed the acts of Accused No.1 and 5 to 7 i.e., PW 1, 2, 7/ CW.28 to 30 have not at all supported the prosecution case, so in the absence of support of said witness merely prosecution has examined nearly 41 witness and exhibited Ex.P.1 to 71 documents and defence side Exhibited Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.81 documents are all not sufficient to the convict the Accused in mechanical manner, unless prosecution has proved the ingredients of alleged sections. Of course prosecution has exhibits very bundle of books that means one trunk of documents but the said documents have not confers to the court about criminal intention of Accused and their dishonest intention and creating/forging of documents and use of said documents as 52 C.C.No.8400/2012 genuine and causing of wrongful loss to the CW 28 to 30. Accordingly, any amount of arguments by the Ld.Spl.PP have not support the prosecution case.
72. Of course prosecution has exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents out of which Ex.P.1 is portion of statement, Ex.P.2 is Gazetted Probationary list that means out of the said documents very important documents are Ex.P.5/complaint, Ex.P.7/search mahazar, Ex.P.8/mahazar, Ex.P.11/mahazar, Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13/applications farm, Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37/mahazars, Ex.P.39 is dairy and Ex.P.47 is Truth Lab report, Ex.P.50/caste certificate, Ex.P.54 is seizure mahzar, Ex.P.55 to Ex.P.58 are list of candidates, Ex.P.63/notifications and Ex.P.64 is application etc.,
73. The prosecution also examined other several witnesses, but as stated supra these all witness evidence and documents marked by the prosecution only confers to the court that accused No.1 is Chairman of the KPSC Board, at the time of 1998 Gazetted Probationary Batch and accused No.5 to 7 are employees in the said KPSC Board and they are working under direction of accused No.1 and accused No.2 and 3 are aspirants as well as candidates of 1998 Gazetted Probationary batch. So said these all roles of accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are not dispute in this case. The only dispute is causing of 53 C.C.No.8400/2012 wrongful loss by the accused No.1 without providing proper post to the PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 and also committing of forgery as well as cheating by the accused and create of documents and use of said documents as genuine and criminal intention of the accused and dishonest intention to cheat the CW.28 to CW.30 i.e., PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 the said facts has not proved in this case. Further first of all very aggrieved persons CW.28 to CW.30 i.e., PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 have not supported the prosecution case and they have deposed evidence against to their own statements given before the police and Magistrates u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C.,
74. So in the absence of incriminating evidence as per the ingredients of the alleged sections merely prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.41 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.71 documents and defence side exhibited Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.81 documents are all not sufficient to believe the prosecution case with regard to the commit of offence by the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 as per the charge-sheet materials. Accordingly I am of the opinion that any amount of oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution including arguments addressed by the Spl.PP are not at all helpful to the prosecution case to convict the accused for the alleged offences. So in the absence of cogent, corroborative and 54 C.C.No.8400/2012 convincing evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt as per the ingredients of the alleged sections, that means responsibilities of accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 for acts of the for criminal acts as alleged in the charge sheet Accordingly, accused are entitle for benefit of doubt they have not found guilty, hence my answer on point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
75. Point No.2:- From the discussions on foregoing points, this court opined that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused, punishable under the alleged sections of Penal Code. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are not found guilty. Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C., I hereby ACQUIT the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s.418, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and that of their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated by me, typed by the steno, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of April - 2026).
(Manjunatha.K.P) I ACJM, BENGALURU 55 C.C.No.8400/2012 ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 H.G Prabhakar
PW.2 K.S Hanumanthegowda
PW.3 V.P.M Swamy
PW.4 K.Padmavathi
PW.5 V.L.N Prasannakumar
PW.6 S.R Srinivas
PW.7 Allabhaksh
PW.8 S.S Madhukeshwar
PW.9 Venkataswamy
PW.10 Lillian Xavier
PW.11 Mohammed Ali Khan
PW.12 H.S Patil
PW.13 B.A Padmanayan
PW.14 Dasaiah
PW.15 Revanna Siddaiah
PW.16 Shivaswamy
PW.17 Shivaputhrappa
PW.18 Muniyappa
PW.19 G.A Jayaramareddy
PW.20 Syed Abbas
PW.21 Ranganatha
PW.22 Lakshmikantha
PW.23 Navamani
PW.24 Meena.A
56
C.C.No.8400/2012
PW.25 Meera,
PW.26 B.E Harishgowda
PW.27 Shobha
PW.28 Channaraju
PW.29 Narayana
PW.30 B.S Ramaprasad
PW.31 Venkatachalaiah
PW.32 Sudeep Maruthi Koravi
PW.33 Tippegowda
PW.34 Chandrappa
PW.35 Mastaiah
PW.36 Manjunatha H.S
PW.37 Srinath
PW.38 Neelakantappa
PW.39 Venkataramaiah
PW.40 Devaraju
PW.41 Khaleel Ahmed K.R
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 Unaccepted statement portion of PW.1
Ex.P.2 S.L No.291 to 313 documents
Ex.P.2A Shara belongs to PW.1 in Page No.72 Ex.P.2b Particular entry in page No.742 Ex.P.3 SL No.366 to 382 documents Ex.P.3b Shara Ex.P.3C Page No.52 document Ex.P.4 Refused statement portion of PW.2 57 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.P.5 Complaint Ex.P.6 Letter Ex.P.7 Search Warrant Ex.P.8 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.9 Application submitted for the preliminary exam's original copy of Asha Parveena Ex.P.10 Application submitted to mains exam's original copy of Asha Parveena Ex.P.11 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.12 Application submitted for the preliminary exam's original copy of Salma Firdosh Ex.P.13 Application submitted to mains exam's original copy of Salma Firdosh Ex.P.14 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.15 Application submitted for the preliminary exam's of CW.30 Ex.P.16 Application submitted for the Mains exam's of CW.30 Ex.P.17 Unaccepted statement portion of PW.7 Ex.P.18 Statement of PW.7 Ex.P.19 Further statement of PW.7 Ex.P.20 Statement of PW.7 dated:27.12.2011 Ex.P.21 Attendance sheet of PW.7 Ex.P.22, 23 Two writings Ex.P.24 PW.10 made statement before CID Ex.P.25 PW.10 made statement before Magistrate Ex.P.26 Statement of PW.11 Ex.P.27 PW.11 made statement before Magistrate 58 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.P.28 Statement of PW.12 Ex.P.29 Seizer mahazar Ex.P.30 Mahazar dated:30.08.2011 Ex.P.31 Secretary giving details of Chairman and members Ex.P.32 Seizer mahazar Ex.P.33 Register for the period 1997 Ex.P.34 Register pertaining to from 01.04.1998 to June 1998 Ex.P.34(A) Particular entry of Ex.P.34 Ex.P.35 Another register for the period from 10.06.1998 to June 1998 Ex.P.36 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.37 Seizure Mahazar dated:09.08.2011 Ex.P.38 Documents Ex.P.39 Dairy Ex.P.40 Sheet Ex.P.41 52 pages writings Ex.P.42 Writings of M.B Banakar Ex.P.43 Writings of K.Narasimha Ex.P.44 Writing of Gopi Krishna Ex.P.45 Laminated caste and Income certificates of Allabaksh Ex.P.46 Laminated caste and Income certificates of Hanumanthegowda Ex.P.47 Reports received by Truth Lab, Hyderabad Ex.P.48 Statement Ex.P.49 Statement, 59 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.P.50 Caste certificate of Salma Firdosh Ex.P.51 Caste and Income distribution copy Ex.P.52 Not marked Ex.P.53 Interview schedule, Ex.P.54 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.55 Candidates list of selected for vivo dated:07.01.2006 at 7.00 A.M Ex.P.56 Candidates list of selected for vivo dated:07.01.2006 at 3.00 P.M Ex.P.57 Candidates list of selected for vivo dated:09.01.2006 at 10.00 A.M Ex.P.58 Candidates list of selected for vivo dated:09.01.2006 at 3.00 P.M Ex.P.59 Unaccepted statement of PW.37 Ex.P.60 Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.61 Notification Ex.P.62 164 statement Ex.P.63 Notification Ex.P.64 Application of PW.2 Ex.P.65 Preliminary exam Ex.P.66 Main exam Ex.P.67 Main Exam Marks card Ex.P.68 Notice Ex.P.69 Original application form of KPSC Ex.P.70 Letter dated:29.03.2006 Ex.P.71 Cheque list of main examination. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
NIL 60 C.C.No.8400/2012 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:-
NIL LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :-
Ex.D.1 Statement given before the CID Police
Ex.D.2 Notice to personality test
Ex.D.3 Copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka
Ex.D.4 Charanareddy statement dated:03.03.2011
Ex.D.5 Letter given by DGP, CID special enquiry on
16.11.2011
Ex.D.6 & Writ Petitions No.11550/2008 and 9098/2009
Ex.D.7
Ex.D.8 Remand application dated:20.12.2011
Ex.D.9 to Certified copies of requisitions Ex.D.46 Ex.D.47 Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Ex.D.48 Karnataka in W.P.No.12548/2002 and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No.11589-639/2002 Ex.D.49 Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on I.A No.5 Ex.D.50 Report submitted before Hon'ble High Court Ex.D.51 Copy of the FSL Ex.D.52 Copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Ex.D.53 Letter from the FSL Ex.D.53A Receipt of the report on 06.03.2012 Ex.D.54 Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 61 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.D.55 Copy of the Crl.Pet.No.4645/2012 order Ex.D.56 B report of Lokayukta Ex.D.57 Order sheet Ex.D.58 Documents are seized by the KPSC Ex.D.59 Order copy Ex.D.60 & Rejected order copy of Hon'ble Supreme Court Ex.D.61 belongs to Natesh Ex.D.62 Letter of PW.25 Ex.D.63 Xerox Copy Ex.D.64 Report of PW.16 Ex.D.65 Letter given to CID police Ex.D.66 Letter issued by Tahsildar office Ex.D.67 Letter issued office of PW.16 Ex.D.68 Statement of PW.16 to given I.O Ex.D.69 Document certificate certified by DIG Ex.D.70 Reply to the notice issued by PW.13 office Ex.D.71 Clarification regarding issuance of caste certificate Ex.D.72 Reply given by the Tahsildar to Ex.D.71 Ex.D.73 Letter given to Tahsildar Ex.D.74 Reply given by the Tahsildar to Ex.D.73 Ex.D.75 Letter written to the Tahsildar seeking clarification with regard to IIB certificate issued to accused No.2 Ex.D.76 Letter written by Tahsildar to PW.13 office Ex.D.77 Register Ex.D.77A Serial No.11603 1st Line handwriting is different from that of next column 62 C.C.No.8400/2012 Ex.D.78 Caste certificate belongs to Y.B Archana Ex.D.79 Notice given to accused No.5 Ex.D.80 One more notice given to accused No.5 Ex.D.81 Copy of the statement given by Prabhakar before KPSC (Manjunatha.K.P) I ACJM, BENGALURU 63 C.C.No.8400/2012 30.04.2026 State by APP Accused For Judgment (Judgment passed separately in the Open Court) ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are not found guilty.
Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C., I hereby ACQUIT the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s.418, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and that of their surety stands cancelled.
I Addl.CJM 64 C.C.No.8400/2012