Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Represented By ... vs G.C.Anil Kumar on 12 November, 2021
1 Spl.CC 390/2015
KABC010196462015
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act), BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.77)
Present: Sri.Gopalakrishna Rai.T, B.A.(Law), LL.B.,
LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru.
C/c LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru
Dated: 12th day of November, 2021
Special C.C. No.390/2015
Complainant : The State of Karnataka represented by Lokayukta
Police, City Division, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused : G.C.Anil Kumar, S/o Late G.Channaiah,
the then Special Land Acquisition Officer-2,
KIADB, Gandhinagara, Bengaluru R/at No.637, 3rd
Cross, I Main, near Kathriguppe Water Tank,
Kempegowda Layout, Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru-85.
(Represented by Sri.M.N.V. & Sri.
C.G.S.Advocates)
2 Spl.CC 390/2015
Date of commission of offence : -
Date of report of occurrence : 15.12.2010
Date of arrest of accused : -
Date of release of accused : -
on bail
Date of commencement of : 26.10.2018
evidence
Date of closure of evidence : 28.02.2020
Name of the complainant : H.S.Manjunath
Offence complained of : Punishable under section 13(1) (e)
r/w/s 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused is found guilty
JUDGMENT
Briefly stating the prosecution case is that the accused joined the service as Tahsildar of Gulbarga Taluk on 29.03.1982 and as on the date of raid more precisely on 22.09.2010 he was working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.I.A.D.B, Bengaluru. The then Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta by name H.S.Manjunath received credible information about accused amassing of assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income and placed Source Report as per Ex.P1 before Superintendent of Police, City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru. As per the Source Report, the accused amassed assets worth Rs.1,33,63,928.00 and incurred expenditure of Rs.25,00,000/- and thereby total value of assets and expenditure of the accused was Rs.1,58,63,928.00 against 3 Spl.CC 390/2015 his approximate income of Rs.25,00,000/-. Thus, it was alleged that the accused has amassed assets to the tune of 534.55% in excess to his known source of income.
2. Based on the Source Report Superintendent of Police vide his order in LOK/SP/City/Source/6/2010 dated 22.12.2010 as per Ex.P2 directed H.S.Manjunatha, (PW1) Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta to register the case against the accused and to investigate into the matter. In accordance with said order a criminal case was registered in Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Urban Division in Crime No.65/2010 for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ('the P.C.Act' for short) and submitted FIR as per Ex.P3 and taken up investigation.
3. It is the version of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer/PW1 secured a search warrant as per Ex.P5 from the competent Special Court to conduct search into the house of the accused bearing No.257, 1st Cross Road, 2nd block, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru. Based on such search warrant, PW1 conducted search to house No.257 in the presence of P.Rajendra and K.N.Deepak (PW2). Upon search of the house, PW1 and panchas found several assets, ornaments, cash of Rs.7,18,400/- and property documents and the same was reported to the Court in PF No.57/2010 as per Ex.P6. PW1 continued the investigation, collected various documents and recorded statement of the witnesses. On his transfer 4 Spl.CC 390/2015 handed over further investigation to PW8 N.B.Shivashankar/Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. PW8, based on the authorisation of the S.P as per Ex.P37 continued the investigation, conducted search to locker No.620 available at Canara Bank, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Smt.Kusuma wife of the accused, noted down gold ornaments worth Rs.5,72,986/-. He too collected the documents, recorded the statement of the witnesses and called upon the accused to furnish his Schedule information. In pursuance of notice so issued by PW8, the accused has submitted his explanation in the form of Schedules as per Schedule No. 1 to 23. Having gone through the same and also evidence collected, PW8 has prepared a Final Report as per Ex.P74 and submitted the same to A.D.G.P, Karnataka Lokayukta to secure prosecution sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under section 13(1)
(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. Later, learned A.D.G.P secured Prosecution Sanction as per Ex.P73 from the Competent Authority of the accused to prosecute him. Thus, on conclusion of the investigation PW8 has laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.
4. It is the precise case of the prosecution that during the check period i.e., from 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010, the accused acquired assets in his name and also in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.39,84,731/- and during the check period he incurred expenditure of Rs.80,95,882/- and his known source of income 5 Spl.CC 390/2015 during the check period was Rs.87,91,619/-. Thus, his total assets and expenditure stood at Rs.1,20,80,613/-, thereby suggesting that he could not satisfactorily account to the pecuniary sources and properties to the extent of Rs.32,88,994/-, which is 37.41% in excess of his known source of income.
5. On receipt of the charge sheet cognizance of the offence was taken and in response to summons, the accused appeared and copy of the charge sheet and its annexures were supplied to him as provided under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The provisions of Cr.P.C 1973 provides for hearing before charge. As generally done in the cases of this nature the accused filed an application under section 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. It was heard and the same was rejected by this Court as per its Order dated 01.08.2018. Thereafter, charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. So, in order to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as PWs 1 to 10, besides marking 74 documents as per Ex.P1 to P74 and closed its side.
6. The evidence of Prosecution in brief:
i. PW1- H.S.Manjunath, Retired Dy.S.P, deposed that he prepared Source Report as per Ex.P1, received authorisation as per Ex.P2, registered the case, transmitted Ex.P3 FIR to the Court, drawn Ex.P4 mahazar in the house of the accused and collected documents as per Ex.P7 to 31.
6 Spl.CC 390/2015 ii. PW2 - Deepak K.N, S.D.A of the Department of Agriculture, deposed that he has participated in search proceedings and seizure of the documents.
iii. PW3 - S.C. Puttaswamy, Retired F.D.A, Finance and Statistical Department, deposed that a search was conducted to a locker available in Canara Bank, Banashankari Branch.
iv. PW4 - B.Sudhakar, Retired Superintendent Engineer, deposed that Junior Engineer of his Department Sri.Mruthyunjaya has valued the building and accordingly he has submitted Report as per Ex.P34.
v. PW5 - M.S.Giridhar, President of Century Club, deposed that he has furnished the documents to Lokayukta Police and as per the documents the accused has spent Rs.33,460/- and Rs.16,000/- towards his membership.
vi. PW6 - U.B.Bhat, the then President of Century Club deposed that at the request of the Lokayukta Police he has furnished information as per Ex.P35 and the accused has spent Rs.6,000/- towards entrance fee, Rs.12,500/- towards permanent membership and Rs.33,440/- towards entertainment.
vii. PW7- Jayadeva Prakash, Retired Joint Director (Statistics) Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru deposed that he has estimated total invisible expenditure of the accused and his family members during the check period at Rs.10,18,184/- and issued Report as per Ex.P36.
viii. PW8 - N.G.Shivashankar, Police Inspector, deposed that he has conducted further investigation, collected the documents as 7 Spl.CC 390/2015 per Ex.P37 to P72. According to him during the check period, the accused and his family members possessed assets worth Rs.39,84,731/-, their expenditure was Rs.80,95,882/- and the income was Rs.87,91,619/- and therefore, during the check period the accused and his family members were having assets worth Rs.32,88,994/- in excess to their known source of income. Hence, he prepared Final Report as per Ex.P74 and later on securing Prosecution Sanction as per Ex.P73, filed the charge sheet against the accused.
ix. PW9 - Mruthyunjaya has deposed that based on the Schedule Rates he has valued house No.31 and furnished Report as per Ex.P34.
x. PW10 - Prakash Chand, Pawn Broker has deposed that he has examined 261 grams of gold ornaments and valued the same at Rs.1,81,440/-.
7. The accused was examined by this Court as provided under section 313 of Cr.P.C and he was permitted to lead evidence on his behalf. While recording his statement, the accused has filed written statement as provided under section 313(5) of Cr.P.C and the same is annexed to the statement.
The brief facts stated in the written statement:
8. The gold and silver articles that were found at the time of search was belonging to the wife of the accused. The use of search mahazar drawn in Crime No.42/2010 as evidence in Crime 8 Spl.CC 390/2015 No.65/2010 is not lawful process. A sum of Rs.7,00,000/- belonged to G.C.Manohar and he has kept the same in the house of the accused in the first week of September 2010 to secure engineering seat to his son Basavakirana. The money was needed towards probable expenses like donation, college fee, hostel fee, books and uniform etc. The accused has spent only Rs.11,000/- in respect of his Membership at Century Club. PW7 has quantified domestic expenditure at Rs.10,18,184/- by taking urban rates into consideration though the accused has worked at Taluka places for 13 years. The Investigating Officer has wrongly considered a sum of Rs.5,72,986/- in respect of gold ornaments belonging to the wife of the accused. The car found in the house of the accused belonged to his father G.Channaiah. Admittedly, the accused is Group 'A' Officer and therefore on the recommendations of the Cabinet, His Excellency Governor of Karnataka is empowered to accord sanction and hence, for want of legal sanctity, Prosecution Sanction so produced and relied by the prosecution is invalid. The house was constructed in the year 1993-94 under the self supervision of the accused. Therefore, 10% of Contractor's margin and rebate shall be given in respect of valuation of Rs.5,20,000/-. The accused or his family members does not possess any asset in excess to their known source of income.
The evidence of DW1 G.C.Manohar:
9. The accused is his elder brother. His father G.Channaiah was a teacher, later LIC Agent and started to do Kirana business and was 9 Spl.CC 390/2015 having 25 acres of ancestral land. His father had earned about 30 lakhs and purchased car in his name. The car was parked in the house premises of the accused as Channaiah used to travel from Chitradurga to Bengaluru to take treatment. The son of DW 1 was preparing for CET in Karnataka and hence a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was kept in the house of the accused so as to pay College Admission Fee. This amount was debited from the business account.
The documents marked on behalf of the accused:
10. At the time of cross examination of prosecution witnesses the accused got marked Ex.D1 to D9 and during the course of evidence of DW 1 he got marked Ex.D10 to D13.
Arguments:
11. Then, the Prosecutor as well as defence counsel were heard. The learned counsel for the accused has filed written arguments and additional legal grounds by way of written submissions. In this background, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused being a public servant, during the check period commencing from 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010 was found in possession of property worth Rs.32,88,994.00 i.e., 37.41% disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account and thereby he 10 Spl.CC 390/2015 has committed the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r /w Sec.13(2) of the PC Act ?
2. What order ?
12. My findings to the above points are as under :
Point No.1 : The prosecution has proved that during the check period the accused was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.19,83,319/- i.e., 22.02% disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r /w Sec.13(2) of the PC Act.
Point No.2: As per the final order below for the following R EAS O N S
13. Point No.1 :
13.1. The fact that as on the date of raid more precisely as on 22.09.2010 the accused was working as a Special Deputy Commissioner (the then Special Land Acquisition Officer-2 KIADB office, Gandhinagara Range, Bengaluru) is not in dispute. Further, the fact that from 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010 (check period) the accused was working as public servant in various capacities is also not in dispute. Hence, from the admitted facts it is clear that the accused was a public servant within the meaning of section 2(c) of the PC Act.
11 Spl.CC 390/2015 13.2. The criminal prosecution was initiated against the accused by the Police at Karnataka Lokayukta for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) r/w section 13(2) of the PC Act. Hence, it is for the prosecution to show that, it has obtained a valid sanction as required under section 19 of the PC Act. Similarly, it is incumbent for the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This process can be established by the prosecution by producing original sanction order which contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and also by adducing evidence of the author who has issued prosecution sanction order.
13.3 In this case, the accused has seriously disputed the validity of Ex.P73 Sanction Order for non examination of the author and on the ground that the sanction was not issued by His Excellency Governor of Karnataka on the recommendations made by the Cabinet. In order to prove that it has secured sanction to prosecute the accused, the prosecution has placed reliance on Ex.P73 Prosecution Sanction Order issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, D.P.A.R. It is the definite evidence of PW8 that on completion of his investigation, he prepared Final Report as per Ex.P74 and made a representation through his higher officer to obtain sanction order to prosecute the accused. It is also his evidence that 12 Spl.CC 390/2015 pursuant to his representation on 17.11.2014 he received sanction order as per Ex.P73. This evidence of PW8 would clearly indicate that through his higher officer, he has secured prosecution sanction as per Ex.P73. Though this witness was subjected to the test of cross examination nothing was suggested to him that sanction order as per Ex.P73 was not issued by the Competent Authority. Therefore, absolutely there are no reasons much less good reasons to disbelieve faultless evidence of PW8.
13.4. The accused in his statement as provided under section 313 (5) at para 8 has stated that he belonged to Group 'A' service and therefore, based on Cabinet decision it is His Excellency Governor of Karnataka who is empowered to accord sanction to prosecute him.
This type of statement was made by the accused for the first time at the time of recording his statement as provided under section 313 of Cr.P.C. All along, during trial he kept quite. At a belated stage this type of defence was taken. No doubt, it is true that the validity of sanction can be raised at any stage of proceedings. Based on this statement of the accused this Court has carefully examined Ex.P73. A meaningful reading of Ex.P73 makes it very clear that based on the orders of His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka, the Under Secretary to Government, DPAR has issued the same. Therefore, the official act of Under Secretary cannot be discarded, because in respect of this official act there is presumption under section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. Hence, only conclusion is that under Rule 19 of 13 Spl.CC 390/2015 Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977, Under Secretary has issued sanction as per Ex.P73 in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka.
13.5. Though, the accused has stated in his statement that the sanction order as per Ex.P73 is not valid, at the time of cross examination of PW8 this aspect of the matter is not at all touched. Therefore, prosecution had no opportunity to prove the validity of Ex.P73. The evidence of PW8 that he secured sanction as per Ex.P73 is inconsonance with the documentary evidence placed on record. Even on an independent application of mind, this Court is also of the opinion that the Investigating Agency has produced entire materials that were collected at the time of investigation for the scrutiny of the Competent Authority. Hence, objection raised by the accused with regard to validity of sanction has no legs to stand and accordingly it shall fall to the grounds. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the sanction order as per Ex.P73 is valid and is issued by the Authority competent to issue the same.
13.6. It is very relevant to note that the Final Report of the Investigator made available as per Ex.P74 makes it very clear that the accused was born on 19.02.1955. Therefore, he has retired from service on 19.02.2015 on superannuation. In the present case, after filing of the charge sheet this Court has took cognizance of offence on 21.8.2015. As per Section 19 of the P.C.Act, no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 13 except with 14 Spl.CC 390/2015 previous sanction from Competent Authority in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the State. Admittedly, as on the date of taking cognizance, the present accused no more remained as a public servant. Under such circumstances, in the present case, there was no necessity for the Investigating Agency to take prior sanction from the Competent Authority because as on the date of taking cognizance of the offence, the accused had already retired from the service. Further, the amended provisions of Section 19 introduced by way of Act No.16 of 2018 with effect from 26.07.2018 is not at all applicable to the present case as the amendment is always prospective in nature unless specifically mentioned therein with regard to its retrospective effect. This observation of mine is supported by the decision of Apex Court in 2020 (2) SCC 153 in the case between Station House Office and another CBI/ACB Bengaluru V/s B.A.Srinivasan and another. Thus, the contention of the accused that sanction is required to prosecute him for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act or that Ex.P74 order is not valid is liable to be negated and thereby rejected.
13.7. The Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that registration of the second FIR or multiple FIRs from out of the same event is impermissible. It is also submitted that the present case is outcome of 3rd FIR in this series. Yes, the learned counsel is justified in stating that the present case is out come of 3 rd FIR in the series.
15 Spl.CC 390/2015 This observation is made because, initially a case was registered against the Case Worker working in the office of the KIADB in Crime No.24/2010 for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act. It emanates from the materials placed on record that on receiving further information a case was registered against accused G.C.Anil Kumar in Crime No.42/2010 for the offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(c)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act and also under section 465, 468, 471, 420 and under section 120(B) of IPC. The materials placed on record also disclose the fact that during the course of investigation in Crime No.42/2010, a 3rd FIR came to be registered in Crime No.65/2010 for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act and on completion of investigation the same was resulted in filing of the charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.390/2015 i.e., the present case.
13.8. It is submitted that registration of 1 st FIR in respect of an event has led to registration of two more FIRs from the same event and such registration is not permissible in law. In order to substantiate this contention, Sri.C.G.S. Advocate for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 in the case between T.T.Antony V/s State of Kerala & others and also in the decision reported in 2013(6) SCC 348 in the case between Ambatibhai Anil Chandra Shaha V/s C.B.I and another.
16 Spl.CC 390/2015 13.9. In the present case, the investigator who has registered the case based on Source Report as per Ex.P1 is examined as PW1. Said PW1 has categorically stated that he has submitted Ex.P1 Source Report and based on Ex.P2 authorisation of Superintendent of Police as provided under section 17 of the P.C.Act he has registered the case on 22.12.2010 and transmitted Ex.P3 FIR to the Court. It is also the evidence of PW1 that on 22.09.2010 he has conducted the raid to the house of the accused and drawn Ex.P4 mahazar and this mahazar has been used in the present case which has been registered on 22.12.2010. Though such is the evidence of PW1, nothing was suggested to him that only to falsely implicate the accused he has registered the case and made use of mahazar dated 22.09.2010 drawn in Crime No.42/2010. A meaningful reading of the decisions referred to above makes it very clear that there can be no 2 nd FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving raise to one or more cognizable offences. But in the present case, it is very relevant to note that though the Investigating Officer made use of Ex.P4 mahazar dated 22.09.2010 in the present case, but same has not arisen in respect of same cognizable offence covered in Crime No.42/2010. On the other hand, though mahazar as per Ex.P4 was made use of, PW1 has prepared independent Source Report as per Ex.P1, then with the authorisation under section 17 of the PC Act as per Ex.P2, has registered the present case. Since PW1 has taken up independent investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio 17 Spl.CC 390/2015 of the above decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In addition to it, the decision of the Apex Court of this Nation in 2014 (2) SCC 1 in the case between Lalithakumari V/s Government of U.P and others comes to the aid of the prosecution to make use of Ex.P4 mahazar. In this decision, the Apex Court has categorically held that in respect of corruption cases preliminary enquiry is permissible.
13.10. At this juncture it is relevant to place reliance on the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in 2020 (2) SCC 88 in the case between Vinod Kumar Garg V/s State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi). In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 23 has observed as follows :
" This Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia V/s State of Sikkim referring to earlier precedents has observed that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, would have no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial. Where the cognizance of the case has already been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of precedent investigation does not vitiate the result unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby."
18 Spl.CC 390/2015 13.11. In the present case, though PW1 has deposed that he has made use of Ex P4 mahazar drawn in Crime No.42/2010, nothing was suggested to him that only to falsely implicate the accused, he has prepared false Source Report as per Ex.P1 and registered a false case against the accused. The cumulative effect of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence placed on record makes this Court to feel that during the course of investigation PW1 was able to unearth the fact that the accused has accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source of income and hence, he prepared Source Report and secured permission as per Ex.P2, registered the case and conducted the investigation. In the present case, nothing is placed on record to the effect that the registration of the 3 rd FIR has resulted in miscarriage of the justice. Under the circumstances, by virtue of latest decision of the Apex Court, the accused is not entitled for the benefit of acquittal as contended.
13.12. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the Investigating Officer in Crime No.42/2010 has conducted investigation without securing authorisation as provided under section 17 of the P.C.Act and therefore, seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4 drawn in Crime No.42/2010 is cannot be made use of in this case. A reading of Ex.P2, would show that the S.P of Karnataka Lokayukta by invoking Section 17 of the P.C.Act, has authorised PW1 to register the case and conduct the investigation. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the act of PW1 in registration of the case and conducting 19 Spl.CC 390/2015 investigation is protected under Ex.P2 Order. Further, the investigator of this case made use of Ex.P4 mahazar but conducted investigation independently. Hence, the contention of the accused that for non compliance of Section 17 of the P.C.Act, Ex.P4 is cannot be made use of, is cannot be accepted. Accordingly, rejected.
13.13. In this case, it was argued that the complainant himself is Investigating Officer and therefore, he was interested in the success of the case and therefore the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2018 SC 8853 in the case between Mohanlal V/s State of Punjab and argued that as the complainant himself has investigated the case, entire process vitiates and hence the accused is entitled for the benefit of acquittal. However, at the time of cross examination of PW1 nothing was suggested to him that only to falsely implicate the accused, he being the complainant registered the case and conducted the investigation. In fact, Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest decision reported in 2020 (10) SCC 714 in the case between Rajesh Dhiman V/s State of Himachal Pradesh has held in para 11 of the judgment that " the earlier position of law which allowed the solitary ground of the complainant also being the Investigating Officer, to become a spring board for an accused to be catapulted to acquittal, has been reversed. Instead, it is now necessary to demonstrate that there has either been 20 Spl.CC 390/2015 actual bias or there is real likelihood of bias, with no sweeping presumption being permissible".
13.14. In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself it cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case-to-case basis."
13.15. The ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to this case, because, in this case the accused has failed to show that the investigation done by PW1 caused prejudice to him. Further, with regard to unfair or biased investigation, nothing was suggested to PW1 at the time of his cross examination. A meaningful reading of cross examination of PW1 would clearly show that he has conducted investigation based on Ex.P2 Order of Authorisation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the legal grounds urged by the accused will not come to his aid to seek an order of acquittal.
13.16. Before commencement of discussion based on oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and the accused, 21 Spl.CC 390/2015 in the opinion of this Court it is necessary to have a birds eye view on the family background of the accused so as to understand the case of prosecution and defence of the accused. The investigator into the present crime Sri.N.G.Shivashankar in his Final Report as per Ex.P74 has observed that accused G.C.Anil Kumar was born on 19.02.1955 to one Sri.G.Channaiah and Smt.Gangamma of Mallappanahalli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. Further, it is stated in the Final Report that Sri.Mallappa and Smt.Gangamma had three sons by name 1) G.C.Anil Kumar (accused herein), 2) G.C.Thippeswamy working in Modi Care Centre, LIC Agent and doing business and 3) G.C.Manohar, owner of Rajalakshmi Traders, Commission Agency, Chitradurga. It is also stated in the Final Report that Sri.Mallappa has died on 28.06.2011. After completion of his graduation both in Science and Law, the accused has married Smt.B.Kusuma on 02.07.1980 and in the wedlock they have got two children i.e., 1) A.Thippesh, born on 05.01.1983 and 2) A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, born on 12.08.1987.
13.17. At the outset itself, I shall make a mention that in order to maintain brevity of the judgment, instead of reproducing arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M.N.V advocate for the accused, it is proper to take up their submissions as and when they would come up for discussion and record the findings. At this juncture, it is also relevant to make a mention that the accused is presumed to be innocent until contrary is proved beyond 22 Spl.CC 390/2015 reasonable doubt. Further, especially a case like instant one it is for the prosecution to discharge its initial burden of proving that the accused was possessing properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income and in the event if it is so succeeds, then onus shifts on the accused to offer his explanation. Otherwise, he is not required to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account for possession of such properties and pecuniary resources. In order to make this observation, this Court is guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 3713 in the case of Vasantharao Guhe V/s State of Madhyapradesh.
13.18. It is also relevant to make a mention at the outset itself that the learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on some citations and tried to impress on the Court that the investigation carried out by PW8 is not proper. Since, the citations are referred at the introductory part of written arguments, this Court is of the opinion that it is proper to make a mention of the same at this juncture itself. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2003 SCC 1314 (Cri) in the case between Union of India V/s Prakash P.Hinduja and another. In this decision, the Apex Court of this Nation has held that the investigation is first stage of criminal case. The primary object of investigation is to collect materials and find out evidence as to commission of an offence. It is therefore ends with the formation of opinion as to whether on the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during 23 Spl.CC 390/2015 the course of investigation, if there is a case for trial against the accused. The ratio of the above decision, at this stage is of no relevance because based on the investigation materials, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence and conducted trial.
13.19. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has also placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1968 SC 1292 and AIR 1968 SC 1323 and argued with regard to scope of the investigation. But, the counsel has failed to explain to the Court as to how the ratio of the above decision can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In addition to it, he has also placed reliance on the decision reported in 2010 Crl.L.J 1427 and 1976 Crl.L.J 1925. A perusal of notes of arguments would show that these two citations are with reference to discharge of the accused. But, in the present case, this Court is already held that there are sufficient materials available in the lines of accusation made against the accused. Therefore, at the time of disposal of the case on merits, the ratio of the above decision is of no relevance. Added to the above, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2010 Crl.L.J 2228 and AIR 2014 SC 394. As per this decision, the contents of panchanama is not substantive evidence. There is no dispute with regard to this concept of law. However, in this case, drawing of panchanama as per Ex.P4 is not in dispute. In fact, in this case PW1 and PW8 being the investigators into the crime have reiterated as to what they have done during the course of their investigation. Similarly, PW2 Deepak K.N has reiterated the 24 Spl.CC 390/2015 contents of mahazars so relied by the prosecution. Therefore, the ratio of the above decisions is met with by the prosecution.
14.1. Now let me consider the case of the prosecution on merits. The prosecution alleged that this accused has acquired wealth, properties and assets disproportionate to his known source of income. As per the charge sheet, during the check period from 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010, the accused and his family members were owning properties worth Rs.39,84,731/-, whereas, the expenses of the accused and his family members during the check period were Rs.80,95,882/- and in total, assets and expenditure of the accused and his family members were Rs.1,20,80,613/-. It is the case of the prosecution that the income of the accused from his known source, during the check period was Rs.87,91,619/- and thereby the accused found to be in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.32,88,994/- which amounts to 37.41% more than his income, for which the accused could not satisfactorily account.
14.2. It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the accused presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. In the case between P.Nallammal V/s The State reported in 1999 SCC Cri. 1133 it was held that " the two postulates must combined together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate 25 Spl.CC 390/2015 to the known sources of income of the public servant and inability of the public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution, whereas, the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb." Thus, from the above dictum it is clear that mere possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income does not lead to the presumption that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. On the other hand, if the accused fails to offer satisfactory explanation for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, then it amounts to an offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.
14.3. Further, it is settled proposition of law that to substantiate a charge under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients viz., i) it must prove that the accused is a public servant, ii) it must prove the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or properties which were found in his possession, iii) it must prove as to what were his known source of income i.e., known to the prosecution and iv) it must prove, quiet objectively that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct is complete, unless, the accused is able to account for such resources. In other words, only after the prosecution 26 Spl.CC 390/2015 proves the required ingredients, the onus of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.
14.4. Now, keeping the above proposition of law in mind, it is just and necessary to appreciate the evidence placed on record and to find out as to whether the accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income or not. However, before examining assets and expenditure of the accused, it is proper to consider income of the accused considered by the prosecution and dispute raised by the accused with regard to non consideration of some of the income by the Investigating Officer. As per the prosecution during the check period, the accused was having income of Rs.87,91,619/- from various source. The tabulation made by the Investigating Officer reads as follows:
Sl. Income Amount
No. (in Rs.)
1 Salary Income from the date of joining service 38,93,139.00
till the date of raid
2 Income from house rent in respect of house 7,37,650.00
No.31, Shettihalli Tumkur (in the name of
wife of the accused)
3 Income from sale of site No.32, Sapthagiri
Extension, Settihalli Gate, Tumkur. 16,00,000.00
4 Income from sale of site No.12, Medehalli, 7,50,000.00
Chitradurga
5 Income from the sale of gold ornaments by the 1,98,500.00
wife of the accused
27 Spl.CC 390/2015
6 Income from sale of Maruthi Car KA 13 N 58,000.00
524 by the wife of the accused
7 Income from the sale of old motor bike 12,000.00
8 Income from sale of computer 14,500.00
9 Income from sale of VCR 15,000.00
10 Income from sale of colour TV 5,000.00
11 Income from sale of 345 grams of gold 1,55,250.00
ornaments
12 Income from R.D Account No.236170, 2,37,560.00
Someshwarapuram, Tumkur 572 102
13 Income from NSC maturity 1,21,420.00
14 Loan availed by the accused from LIC Policy 2,00,000.00
No.611622495
15 Loan availed by the accused from LIC Policy 18,640.00
No.620237267
16 Loan availed by the accused from private 4,07,000.00
persons
17 Income from LIC Policy No.720190999 72,920.00
18 Income from LIC Policy No.620387796 1,09,400.00
(maturity/interest/ survival benefit)
19 Income from LIC Policy No.620230132 7,890.00
(maturity/interest/ survival benefit)
20 Income from LIC Policy No.622648405 40,000.00
(maturity/interest/ survival benefit)
21 Income from LIC Policy No.620236340 45,175.00
(maturity/interest/ survival benefit)
22 Interest received by the accused from S.B. 11,946.00
Account No.54024595839, State Bank of
Mysore, Vinayakanagara Extension, B.H.Rod, Tumkur 28 Spl.CC 390/2015 23 Interest received by the accused from S.B. 23,905.00 Account No.282810123791, Canara Bank, BDA campus, Sankey Rod, K.P West, Bengaluru 24 Interest received by Sri.A.Thippesh son of 13,083.00 accused from S.B. Account No.0884101026535, Canara Bank, Yadiyur branch, Kanakapura Road, 7th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 25 Interest received by the wife of the accused 281.00 from S.B. Account No.2513101010722, Canara Bank, Kamakya complex, 100 feet road, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru 26 Interest received by Sri.A.Vikas @ 1,179.00 A.K.Yashorajath, son of accused from S.B. Account No.20022283711, State Bank of India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 27 Interest received by Sri.A.Thippesh, the son of 28 accused from S.B. Account No.00411000223174, H.D.F.C Bank, 3rd Main Road, 18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru 28 Interest received by Smt.B.Kusuma, the wife 32,153.00 of the accused from S.B. Account No.30005299499, State Bank of India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 29 Deposit amount taken back by the accused 10,000.00 from Century Club Total 87,91,619.00 14.5. By admitting income considered by the Prosecution i.e., Rs.87,91,619/-, the accused has contended that the Investigating Officer did not consider i) a sum of Rs.40,000/- received in respect of 29 Spl.CC 390/2015 money back policy No.622648405 standing in the name of A.K.Yashorajath, ii) a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- received by the accused as maturity proceeds from K.G.I.D. policy through clearing cheque No.000000106279, iii) a sum of Rs.10,000/- received through LIC money back policy No.620256340 and iv) also a sum of Rs.21,125/- received from maturity of LIC Policy No.601423349. According to the accused, the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out the income of Rs.2,53,789/-. It is argued that if the above income of Rs.2,53,789/- is added to admitted income of Rs.87,91,619/-, the same comes to Rs. 90,45,408/-.
14.6. In view of the above contention of the accused, it is just and necessary to appreciate the stand taken by the accused with regard to additional income received by him. However, it is relevant to note here itself that apart from admission of the accused, the Prosecution has independently proved the income of the accused by producing relevant documents along with charge sheet. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss admitted income. So, I confine my discussion in respect of disputed income and disputed facts. It is also relevant to note that in view of admitted facts regarding the income and source of income, the initial burden is placed upon the prosecution to prove the income of the accused stands discharged. Once, the prosecution is able to prove those incomes and its source, there is benefit of presumption in favour of the prosecution as provided under section 20 of the P.C.Act. Moreover, the term known 30 Spl.CC 390/2015 source of income referred under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act, is the income known to the prosecution. Hence, onus would shift to the accused to prove that apart from above referred income, as contended by the prosecution, he had an additional income to the tune of Rs.2,53,789/- from legal source. Regarding, the degree of proof required to accept the explanation of the accused and evidence let in by him, it is necessary to refer a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5411 in the case between State of Maharashtra V/s Dyaneshwar Lakshman Rao Wankhade. By interrupting Section 20 of the P.C.Act it was held that in a case registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis prosecution would differ. It was further held that the Court is required to consider explanation offered by the accused, if any, on the touch stone preponderance of probabilities and not on the touch stone proof beyond all reasonable doubt. So, from the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is very clear that, in so far as the prosecution is concerned, it has to prove the allegations levelled against the accused with the proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, the explanation offered by the accused has to be considered on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities which normally applied in civil cases. So, now keeping the above principles in mind, it is just and necessary to consider the explanation offered by the accused and evidence produced by him regarding other source of income.
31 Spl.CC 390/2015 14.7. The learned counsel for the accused has contended that the Investigating Officer has intentionally left out i) a sum of Rs.40,000/- received by the accused through Cheque No.483195 in respect of LIC Policy No.622648405.
14.8. The counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the evidence of PW8 at paragraph No.33 and argued that as per the evidence of this witness, in respect of LIC Policy No.622648405, the policy holder by name A.K.Yashorajath, the son of the accused has received a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 26.03.2009 through cheque No.483195. According to the accused, PW8 did not consider the same as his income. In fact, premium paid to the tune of Rs.1,09,890/- was considered as expenditure of the accused as per expenditure at Sl.No.28 in page 71 of the Final Report. A perusal of Final Report at page No.71 would show that the accused did not declare premium amount of Rs.1,09,890/- in his Assets and Liabilities statement submitted to his Department. In fact, a perusal of Ex.P55 would clearly indicate that in respect of money back Policy No.622648405 by way of installment a sum of Rs.40,000/- was received through Cheque No.483195 dated 26.03.2009. This document of LIC of India, Chitradurga Branch is produced by the prosecution. In fact, by relying on Ex.P55, at page No.147, the Investigating Officer has considered a sum of Rs.40,000/- as income of the accused. Further, the same is narrated in Sl.No.20 in the tabulation given herein above. Therefore, the accused is not at all 32 Spl.CC 390/2015 justified in contending that intentionally the Investigating Officer did not consider a sum of Rs.40,000/- as his income.
14.9. ii) According to the accused, the Investigating Officer has left out a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- received by him by way of maturity of KGID policy. PW8 in para 27, page No.31 and 32 of his evidence has deposed that as per Ex.P56 i.e., the explanation offered by the accused in statement 8A, the particulars of KGID Policy Number is mentioned. A perusal of Ex.P56 at page No.23 would show that in respect of KGID Policy No.680903, the accused has paid total premium of Rs.22,908/- and in respect of KGID Policy No.1188859, he paid premium of Rs.72,742/-. As per Ex.P56, the installments were paid out of salary deductions. Further, as per the evidence of PW8, at the time of search in the house of the accused a copy of KGID Policy was seized and the same is available in Ex.P7 at page No.337 and 338. This document is pertaining to policy No.1188859. The last payment required to be paid was in the month of February 2010. Therefore, the accused is justified in contending that this policy was matured much earlier to the date of raid i.e., on 22.09.2010. It is the definite contention of the accused that Policy No.680903 and 1188859 were matured on 19.02.2010 and he received a sum of Rs.1,82,664/-. This receipt of a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- declared by the accused as per Ex.P56 statement '8C' was not at all considered by the Investigating Officer. Further, PW8 has deposed that he did not consider statement as per 8C in page No.25 of Ex.P56.
33 Spl.CC 390/2015 Further, PW8 has categorically admitted that as per account extract of Canara Bank issued for the period 01.01.2007 to 03.01.2011 produced at page No.341 to 344 of File No.1, as on 02.09.2010 through clearing Cheque No.000000106279 a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- was credited to the account of the accused. This categorical statement of PW8 strengthens the contention of the accused that though a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- was credited to his account, the Investigation Officer did not consider the same as the income.
14.10. Further, a perusal of Ex.D4 account extract issued by Canara Bank, BDA Complex Branch, Bengaluru makes it very clear that on 02.09.2010 by way of clearing Cheque No.000000106279, a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- was credited to the S.B account of the accused. Therefore, the undisputed documentary evidence placed on record would clearly establish that though the accused has received Rs.1,82,664/- by way of maturity of KGID policies much earlier to the date of raid, the Investigation Officer did not consider the same as the income of the accused.
14.11. In addition to the above, PW8 has further deposed that he did not verify from which source accused has received a sum of Rs.1,82,664/-. It is also his evidence that he has not shown a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- credited to the account of the accused as his income. More importantly, PW8 also admitted that he ought to have added a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- in the income of the accused. In view of the above proved circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the 34 Spl.CC 390/2015 Investigating Officer has omitted to add a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- to the head of income of the accused. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,82,664/- shall have to be included in the head of income of the accused received by him during the check period.
14.12. (iii) It is the contention of the accused that the Investigating Officer omitted to consider income of Rs.10,000/- received by him from LIC Money Back Policy No.620256340. The counsel for the accused has invited the attention of this Court with regard to the contents of Ex.P56. In Ex.P56 page No.25, Sl.No.3, the accused has explained that he received Rs.55,175/- by way of maturity of LIC Money back policy No.236340. It is the definite evidence of PW8 that the accused has furnished the information in respect of Money Back Policy No.620256340, and receipt of Rs.55,175/-. It is the contention of the accused that the Investigating Officer has omitted Rs.10,000/- and considered only a sum of Rs.45,175/- as his income. The evidence of PW8 would show that since he did not receive any information from LIC of India, he has not considered said sum of Rs.10,000/- as the income of the accused. The evidence of PW8 would also show that he did not make any further enquiry with regard to receipt of another sum of Rs.10,000/- under Money Back Policy No.620256340.
14.13. In fact, the Investigating officer during the course of his investigation collected document from LIC of India as per Ex.P53. A perusal of Ex.P53 at page No.159 would clearly show the fact that 35 Spl.CC 390/2015 in respect of LIC Policy No.620256340, on 28.01.2010 a sum of Rs.40,175/- and on 18.01.2005 a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid to G.C.Anil Kumar. In fact, similar type of statement is produced by the accused as per volume No.3 page No.191. Further, a copy of Insurance Policy is produced as per page No.192 of volume No.3. From the reading of above admitted document it is crystal clear that, in respect of money back policy, the accused has received total sum of Rs.45,175/-. In fact, Investigating Officer has considered a sum of Rs.45,175/- as income of the accused. The counsel for the accused by placing reliance on a copy of Insurance Policy available in Volume No.3 page No.192 has contended that the policy was commenced on 04.01.1990 and the Policy Holder has received 20% of the sum assured on the completion of 5 years from the date of commencement and 20% on completion of 10 years. This submission of the learned counsel for the accused is based on the contents of insurance policy. The evidence of PW8 would indicate that he did not make any further enquiry in respect of receipt of Rs.5,000/- after completion of 5 years and Rs.5,000/- after completion of 10 years from the date of commencement of policy. But, a meaningful reading of undisputed document would clearly indicate that the Policy Holder has received Rs.10,000/- on completion of 10 years from the date of commencement of policy. Thus, the contention of the accused that in respect of LIC Policy No.620256340, he has received a sum of Rs.55,175/- is stands for reasons. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Investigating Officer is not justified in considering 36 Spl.CC 390/2015 only a sum of Rs.45,175/- as income of the accused, instead of it he ought to have considered a sum of Rs.55,175/- as income of the accused.
14.14. iv) In addition to the above, it is also contended by the accused that the Investigating Officer has omitted to consider income of Rs.21,175/- received by him by way of maturity of LIC policy No.061423349. In order to substantiate this contention, the accused has placed reliance on the cross examination portion of evidence of PW8 in para No.34 page No.40/41. In this case, Final Report of the Investigating Officer is marked as Ex.P74. With reference to this document at page No.116, PW8 deposed that he did not include Policy Number 061423349 held in the name of the accused. According to PW8, he is not in a position to say whether it was money back policy or not. It is his evidence that as per file No.3 page No.186, there is a reference that through cheque No.0968078, after maturity the accused has received a sum of Rs.21,175/- on 13.03.2008. The Status Report of Policy No.061423349 dated 12.06.2012 is not denied by the prosecution. The evidence of PW8 would also show that in Ex.P56, at page No.25, the accused has shown that in respect of Policy No.061423349 he received a sum of Rs.26,125/- on maturity of the said policy. The evidence of PW8 is suffice to hold that he has omitted to consider a sum of Rs.21,175/- as income received by the accused by way of maturity of LIC money back policy No.061423349. Therefore, this amount of Rs.21,175/-
37 Spl.CC 390/2015 shall have to be included in the head of Income of the accused received during the check period.
14.15. Thus, the accused has succeeded in proving that income of Rs.1,82,664/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.21,175/-, which he received through lawful source, during the check period was not considered by the Investigating Officer. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the income of the accused is considered as follows:
Sl.No. Income Amount
(in Rs.)
1 Salary Income from the date of joining 38,93,139.00
service till the date of raid
2 Income from house rent in respect of house 7,37,650.00
No.31, Shettihalli Tumkur (standing in the name of wife of the accused) 3 Income from sale of site No.32, Sapthagiri Extension, Settihalli Gate, Tumkur. 16,00,000.00 4 Income from sale of site No.12, Medehalli, 7,50,000.00 Chitradurga 5 Income from the sale of gold ornaments by 1,98,500.00 the wife of the accused 6 Income from sale of Maruthi Car KA 13 N 58,000.00 524 by the wife of the accused 7 Income from the sale of old motor bike 12,000.00 8 Income from sale of computer 14,500.00 38 Spl.CC 390/2015 9 Income from sale of VCR 15,000.00 10 Income from sale of colour TV 5,000.00 11 Income from sale of 345 grams of gold 1,55,250.00 ornaments 12 Income from R.D Account No.236170, 2,37,560.00 Someshwarapuram, Tumkur 572 102 13 Income from NSC maturity 1,21,420.00 14 Loan availed by the accused from LIC 2,00,000.00 Policy No.611622495 15 Loan availed by the accused from LIC 18,640.00 Policy No.620237267 16 Loan availed by the accused from private 4,07,000.00 persons 17 Income from LIC Policy No.720190999 72,920.00 18 Income from LIC Policy No.620387796 1,09,400.00 (maturity/interest/ survival benefit) 19 Income from LIC Policy No.620230132 7,890.00 (maturity/interest/ survival benefit) 20 Income from LIC Policy No.622648405 40,000.00 (maturity/interest/ survival benefit) 21 Income from LIC Policy No.620236340 45,175.00 + (maturity/interest/ survival benefit) (10,000/-) 22 Interest received by the accused from S.B. 11,946.00 Account No.54024595839, State Bank of Mysore, Vinayakanagara Extension, B.H.Rod, Tumkur 23 Interest received by the accused from S.B. 23,905.00 Account No.282810123791, Canara Bank, BDA campus, Sankey Rod, K.P West, Bengaluru 39 Spl.CC 390/2015 24 Interest received by Sri.A.Thippesh, son of 13,083.00 the accused from S.B. Account No.0884101026535, Canara Bank, Yadiyur branch, Kanakapura Road, 7th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru 25 Interest received by the wife of accused 281.00 from S.B. Account No.2513101010722, Canara Bank, Kamakya complex, 100 feet road, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru 26 Interest received by Sri.A.Vikas @ 1,179.00 A.K.Yashorajath son of accused from S.B. Account No.20022283711, State Bank of India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 27 Interest received by Sri.A.Thippesh, son of 28 the accused from S.B. Account No.00411000223174, H.D.F.C Bank, 3rd Main Road, 18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru 28 Interest received by Smt.B.Kusuma the 32,153.00 wife of accused from S.B. Account No.30005299499, State Bank of India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 29 Deposit amount taken back by the accused 10,000.00 from Century Club 30 Amount received from K.G.I.D. policy 1,82,664/- 31 Amount received LIC on Maturity of the 21,125/-
policy
Total 90,05,408/-
14.16. Under the circumstances, as has been contended by the accused omitted income of Rs.1,82,664/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.21,175/-, totally amounting to Rs.2,13,839/- shall have to be 40 Spl.CC 390/2015 included to the admitted income of Rs.87,91,619/-. If Rs.2,13,839/- is added to the admitted and undisputed income of the accused i.e., Rs.87,91,619/-, the total income of the accused during the check period would be Rs.90,05,408/-. Hence, it is held that the income of the accused during the check period was Rs.90,05,408/-.
15.1. Now let me discuss the dispute regarding assets of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused owned assets worth Rs.39,84,731/-. Whereas, the accused claims that his assets were worth only Rs.18,01,147/-. So, there is dispute of opinion between the prosecution and accused in respect of the assets worth Rs.21,83,584/-. In view of the above dispute it is just and necessary to describe the list of assets considered by the Investigating Officer as described in Ex.P74 Final Report.
15.2. The list of assets considered by the Investigating Agency is as follows:
Sl. Value
Assets
No. (in Rs.)
1 The site No.31, situated at Shettihalli, Kasaba 6,10,000.00
Hobli, Tumkur in the name of Smt.Kusuma,
wife of the accused
2 Amount found in SB Account 75,980.00
No.54024595839 at S.B.M. Vinayakanagara Extension, B.H.Road, Tumkur in the name of accused 41 Spl.CC 390/2015 3 Amount found in SB Account 7,60,686.00 No.282810123791 at Canara Bank, B.D.A Campus, Sankey Road, K.P. West, Bengaluru in the name of accused 4 Amount found in SB Account 2,74,726.00 No.0885202036535 at Canara Bank, Yadiyur Branch, Kanakapura Road, Jayanagara 7th Block, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 5 Amount found in SB Account 214.00 No.2513101010722 at Canara Bank, Kamakya Complex, 100 feet Road, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 6 Amount found in SB Account 50,000.00 No.20022283711 at State Bank of India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath son of accused 7 Amount found in SB Account No. 10,048.00 00411000223174 at H.D.F.C Bank, 3rd Main Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 8 Amount found in SB Account 1,04,769.00 No.30005299499 at State Bank of Mysore, Banashankari, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 9 Amount invested on U.T.I Mutual Fund ULIF 1,04,260.00 Policy No.200030351001760 10 Value of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.KA 16 5,50,320.00 N 524 standing in the name of Sri.G.Chennaiah, father of the accused 42 Spl.CC 390/2015 11 Cash found in the house of the accused at the 7,18,400.00 time of raid 12 Difference of 745 grams of gold ornaments 3,60,278.00 declared by the accused 13 Cash found in Locker N.620, Canara Bank, 50,000.00 Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru 14 Value of the house hold articles found in the 2,16,150.00 house of accused at the time of raid 15 Amount deposited for obtaining water 2,000.00 connection to the house at Shettihalli village, Tumkur standing in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused.
16 Advance amount paid to the house No.257, 1st Cross, 2nd Block, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 95,000.00 Bengaluru Deposit towards Gas Connection bearing 950.00 Consumer No.30750 to Harikrishna Enterprises, No.257, 1 Cross, 3rd Stage, st Bengaluru to the house of the accused 17 Deposit towards Gas Connection bearing 950.00 Consumer No.36832 to Ganapathiraju Enterprises, Bharath Gas Supplier, K.V.Layout, Jayanagara East, Bengaluru to the house of the accused Total 39,84,731.00 15.3. Out of the above list containing 17 items, the accused has disputed the value of assets in respect of i) item No.1, ii) item No.4, iii) item No.9, iv) item No.10, v) item No.11 and v) item No.12. The accused has disputed the value of those items on the following grounds.
43 Spl.CC 390/2015 15.4. i) Asset at item No.1: The Investigating Officer has taken sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- paid to the vendors under the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993 as asset value of site No.31. However, according to the accused, site No.31 of Settihalli, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur was purchased by Smt.Kamalamma in the name of Smt.Kusuma under the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993. The fact that said Smt.Kusuma is the wife of the accused and daughter of Smt.Kamalamma is not in dispute.
15.5. The copies of the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993 are made available in volume No.1 page No.299 to 312. Whereas, the originals of the same were seized from the house of the accused at the time of search and the same are available in Ex.P7 File No.5 at page No.72 to 82 and at page No.100 to 106.
15.6. According to the accused, the sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- in respect of two sale transactions dated 23.04.1993 was paid by Smt.Kamalamma and hence, the value of site No.31 to the tune of Rs.90,000/- shall not be included to his asset value. Further, it is also submitted that on 26.05.1993, Smt.Kamalamma secured permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan so as to enable her to gift the property to Smt.Kusuma. In fact, a copy of permission letter dated 26.05.1993 is produced in Volume No.3 annexure statement 13-A (2) at page No.274. Therefore, it was argued that the Investigating Officer is not 44 Spl.CC 390/2015 at all justified in considering sale consideration of site No.31 to the tune of Rs.90,000/- as the asset value of the accused.
15.7. It is relevant to note that the Investigating Officer in his Final Report as per Ex.P74 at page No.41-42 narrated that as per the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993, site No.31 was purchased by Smt.Kamalamma in the name of her daughter Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused. A perusal of reasons assigned in Ex.P74 at page No.41 would show that according to the Investigating Officer, there are no documents to show that Kamalamma has invested Rs.90,000/- for the purchase of site No.31 under two sale deeds dated 23.04.1993.
15.8. A perusal of sale deeds available in Ex.P7 at page No.72 to 82 and at page No.100 to 106 clearly indicate that in so far as these two sale deeds are concerned Smt.Kusuma was the purchaser. However, it is recited in these two documents that the sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma. In Ex.P74 at page No.41 the Investigating Officer has simply stated that he did not secure any document to show that the sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma. When, the sale deeds itself disclose the fact that the sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma, PW8 is not justified in contending that he did not secure any document to show that Kamalamma paid sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-. If really PW8 was interested in securing credible evidence, he could have examined 45 Spl.CC 390/2015 Smt.Kamalamma and so called sellers by name Lakshmamma, T.R.Nagabhushan and B.Chandrakanth. But for the reasons best known to PW8, he did not examine them.
15.9. It is very relevant to note that the counsel for the accused has invited the attention of this Court with regard to facts elicited from the mouth of PW8 in his cross examination. For the purpose of better appreciation of evidence of PW8, relevant portions are narrated below.
i) It is the evidence of PW8 that "it is true that on page No.41 of Final Report in the last paragraph I have made an observation that there is no document to evidence payment of Rs.90,000/- by Smt.Kamalamma to Smt.Kusuma W/o. of G.C.Anil Kumar towards purchase of site No.31 of Settihalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur."
ii) "It is true that, in page no.102 of Ex.P7 (file no.5) i.e., registered sale deed dated 23.04.1993, there is a recital that Rs.60,000/- is paid by Smt.Kamalamma in cash on behalf of Kusuma."
iii) "It is true that on page no.101 of the sale deed there is an endorsement regarding payment of Rs.60,000/- by Kamalama with her signature."
iv) "It is also true that signature of the vendor - B.Chandrakanath, can also be seen in the said page for having received sale consideration."
46 Spl.CC 390/2015
v) "Likewise, even in the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1993, sale deed at page No.74 of Ex.P7, there is an averment that Rs.30,000/- cash was paid by Smt.Kamalamma to the vendors- Smt.Lakshmamma and others."
vi) "It is true that on page no.83 of said document there is endorsement with seal of the Sub-Registrar regarding payment of said sum by Smt.Kamalamma and receipt of it by the vendors."
vii) "It is true that as per the said two registered sale deeds sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma."
viii) "It is also true that in that event in the said Rs.6,10,000/- shown on page no.41 and 110 (Sl.No.1) of Final Report, Rs.90,000/- shall have to be reduced."
ix) "It is true that there are documents to evidence regarding said payments."
15.10. Thus, from the above evidence of PW8, it is clear that he was aware of recitals that were made in the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993 with regard to payment of sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-. When admittedly the documents collected by PW8 itself disclose the fact that sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma, it is for him to show that she had no financial capacity to invest a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The oral evidence of PW8 in chief would show that he has collected the documents as per Ex.P7. Except the evidence with regard to collection of documents, PW8 did not whisper anything about the financial incapacity of Smt.Kamalamma to pay sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-.
47 Spl.CC 390/2015 15.11. Further, one of the grounds urged by the accused is that in so far as receiving of gift is concerned, Smt.Kamalamma has secured permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan on 26.05.1993. In fact, PW8 has categorically admitted that " it is true that in page No.274 of file No.3, there is a copy of the letter dated 26.05.1993, of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, regarding according his sanction to receive gift of Rs.90,000/- from said Kamalamma on the basis of requisition of the accused as well as requisition of the said lady." Thus, it is clear that Smt.Kamalamma has secured permission from the Competent Authority of the accused to gift away site No.31 to Smt.Kusuma.
15.12. From the above discussed evidence, it is proved that entire consideration of Rs.90,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. Further, the endorsement made in the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993, proves the fact that the sellers have received sale consideration from Smt.Kamalamma in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. Admittedly, the sale transaction was taken place in the year 1993. Therefore, absolutely there is nothing on record to disbelieve the recitals that were found in the sale deeds. Further, it is not the evidence of PW8 that Smt.Kamalamma was financially not sound enough to pay the sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-. It is also relevant to make a mention that, the prosecution has not contended that it is the accused who has invested a sum of Rs.90,000/-. Further, PW8 has not produced any evidence to show that the sale 48 Spl.CC 390/2015 consideration of Rs.90,000/- was paid by the accused or his wife Smt.Kusuma. Under the circumstances, the only option available for the Court is to accept the recitals that are found in the sale deeds dated 23.04.1993. The categorical admission given by PW8 referred herein above further strengthens the contention of the accused that Smt.Kamalamma had paid the sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-. Further, according to PW8, a sum of Rs.90,000/- shall have to be deducted from Rs.6,10,000/-. Therefore, it is held that sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma and hence this amount shall have to be deducted from the head of asset value of site No.31.
15.13. Now, it is just and necessary to consider the dispute relating to value of the house and cost of construction relating to the house constructed by the accused in site No.31. According to the Prosecution, the cost of construction of the house found in site No.31 was Rs.6,10,000/-. In order to prove the same, the Prosecution relies upon evidence of PW4 Sudhakar, Retired Engineer and his Report as per Ex.P34 in page No.8 to 14 of Volume No.2. Further, the Prosecution has also placed reliance on Building Valuation Report given by PW9 Mruthyunjaya.
15.14. It is the evidence of PW4 B.Sudhakar that he has received a letter from Karnataka Lokayukta to value building No.31 of Settihalli village, Tumkur. According to him, Junior Engineer Mruthyunjaya has valued the building based on Schedule Rates of the 49 Spl.CC 390/2015 year 1993-94 and submitted his Report as per Ex.P34. According to him, as per the Report at Ex.P34 the value of the building was Rs.5,20,000/-. The counsel for the accused by placing reliance on cross examination of PW4 argued that 10% of contractor margin and 10% overhead charges i.e., Rs.1,04,000/- shall have to be deducted from the total value of the building. In fact, PW4 in his cross examination has admitted that the building tenders are called based on S.R and in the said tenders there will be 10% contractors margin and 10% overhead charges. Therefore, it was argued that in view of the above evidence of PW4 it is just and necessary to deduct a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- from the total value of Rs.5,20,000/-.
15.15. In the present case, the counsel for the accused has also placed reliance on the evidence of PW8/Investigating Officer. In his cross examination PW8 has deposed that he had been to the house built in site No.31 and as per his investigation the building was constructed by the accused under his own supervision. This evidence of PW8 is remained unchallenged. The evidence of PW8 would show that if a person wants to construct building on his own, he has to purchase construction materials. According to PW8 in Ex.P34 Report no rebate was given on the ground that owner himself has constructed the building.
15.16. Further, in order to establish the fact that the value of the building as shown in Ex.P34 was Rs.5,20,000/-, the Prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW9 Mruthyunjaya.
50 Spl.CC 390/2015 According to him, he received a letter from Dy.S.P., Lokayukta to value the building existed in site No.31 at Rs.14,32,221/- as per S.R rates for the year 2011-2012. From this evidence of PW9 it is clear that the Investigating Officer requested him to value the building at Rs.14,32,221/-. Whereas, Report as per Ex.P34 makes it very clear that based on Schedule Rates prevailing in the year 1993-94, PW9 computed the value of the building at Rs.5,20,000/-. Therefore, it is also clear that PW9 has not heeded to the request made by the Investigating Officer. According to this witness in Schedule Rate 10% will be added on material costs. According to him, he has not enclosed measurement of the building along with Ex.P34 Report. However, this aspect of the matter is not fatal to the case of the prosecution because the existence of the house in site No.31 and the fact that the same was constructed during the year 1993-94 is not at all in dispute.
15.17. PW9 has categorically admitted that in the event if owner of the site constructs building on his own supervision, cost of construction will be comparatively less like in the case of hiring the services of contractor. Further, he has deposed that whenever a contractor constructs, he will have his own margin and that will be included in the Schedule Rates and that when Owner himself goes for purchasing of construction items he will bargain and saves something, it cannot be done in case of construction through a contractor and in the Schedule Rates 10% will be added on material cost.
51 Spl.CC 390/2015 15.18. In the present case, the Prosecution by examining PW4 and PW9 and by placing reliance on Ex.P34 Report has discharged initial burden cast on it to prove that the cost of construction of the house was Rs.5,20,000/-. Now, onus shifts upon the accused to prove and substantiate his version. Even though, the accused claimed that the total cost of construction of house was only Rs.4,16,000/-, absolutely no evidence has been let in to prove the same. In fact, the accused is the best person to produce the documents relating to the actual cost incurred for the construction of his house because it is he who has constructed the house and paid the money. But in the present case, the accused did not produce any documentary evidence which is well within his custody. Therefore, merely disputing the cost of construction shown by the prosecution and saying that it was only Rs.4,16,000/- cannot be accepted by this Court when prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to show that cost of construction was Rs.5,20,000/-.
15.19. The evidence of PW9 would clearly indicate that based on Schedule Rates prevailing in the year 1993-94 he has computed the value of the building at Rs.5,20,000/-. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused has got constructed the building through the contractor. At the time of cross examination of PW8 it was specifically suggested to him that during the course of investigation, he had been to the house constructed in Shettihalli village and as per the investigation the said building was constructed 52 Spl.CC 390/2015 by the accused under his own supervision. In view of the above admitted fact, there is no meaning in accused contending that 10% of Contractor's margin shall have to be deducted from Rs.5,20,000/-.
15.20. In this case, the fact that the cost of construction as given in Ex.P34 to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/- is not denied by the accused. Further, in Ex.P56, at statement No.13(A)(ii) the accused has declared that the value of house constructed in site No.31 was Rs.5,20,000/-. In this case, by producing above referred evidence, the prosecution has discharged initial burden cast on it to prove that the cost of construction of the house was Rs.5,20,000/-. Further, as has been observed here-in-above in so far as cost of construction is concerned, accused is the best person to produce the document relating to the actual cost of construction. Merely disputing the cost of construction shown by the prosecution is not sufficient. Since the accused himself has constructed the building in site No.31, this Court is of the opinion that in order to meet the ends of justice it would be proper to reduce overall cost of construction by 10% of the total cost of construction i.e., Rs.5,20,000/-. Therefore, by reducing total cost of construction by 10%, the cost of construction of the building effected in site No.31 is determined as Rs.4,68,000/-. Hence, as has been observed above, sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- shall also to be deducted from the value of the asset. So, in view of the above proved circumstances, the asset value of asset No.1 is determined at Rs.4,68,000/-.
53 Spl.CC 390/2015 15.21. Asset at Item No.4: ii) The Investigating Officer has considered a sum of Rs.2,74,726/- available in S.B. account No.0884101026535 at Canara Bank, Yediyur branch, Kanakapura Road, Jayanagara, Bengaluru in the name of A.Thippesh, son of the accused as an asset, but the accused has disputed the same. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation secured a letter from the Manager, Canara Bank, Yediyur Branch, Bengaluru as per Ex.D3. A perusal of this document would clearly indicate that S.B.Account No.0884101026535 was standing in the name of A.Thippesh. The fact that A. Thippesh referred in Ex.D3 is the son of the accused is not in dispute. In fact, at the time of raid, the Investigating Officer has seized certain documents from the house of the accused in File No.5 as per Ex.P7. A perusal of pass-book available in Ex.P7 at page No.25 would clearly indicate that S.B. Account No.0884101026535 stands in the name of A. Thippesh. Further, a joint reading of Ex.P7 and Ex.D3 clearly indicate that the account was closed on 30.05.2009. However, as per Ex.P7 at page No.25 and as per Ex.D3, as on 19.01.2009 outstanding balance was Rs.2,74,726/-. The Investigating Officer has taken this amount as an asset of the accused.
15.22. It is the contention of the accused that since S.B. Account No.0884101026535 was already closed on 30.05.2009, and as the Investigating Officer did not secure any documents to show that as on 22.09.2010 the said amount was laid in credit of that 54 Spl.CC 390/2015 account and hence, a sum of Rs.2,74,726/- cannot be considered as an asset.
15.23. In this case, in order to substantiate the contention of the accused, he has placed reliance on the evidence of PW8 N.G.Shivashankara. In his evidence PW8 has deposed that in Ex.D3 letter, the banker has informed him that S.B account No.0884101026535 was closed on 30.05.2009. According to this witness there is no document to show that as on 22.09.2010 the said amount was lying in the account. In addition to it, PW8 has categorically admitted that since account was closed on 30.05.2009 and as there is no document to show that amount was lying in that account as on 22.09.2010, the said amount has to be deducted from the assets of the accused. This categorical admission given by PW8, is in corroboration with the defence of the accused.
15.24. Admittedly, the account was closed on 30.05.2009 i.e. before conducting raid to the house of the accused, however, as per the admitted document, outstanding amount was Rs.2,74,726/-. Therefore, based only on the say of the Investigating Officer, it is not proper to exclude a sum of Rs.2,74,726/- from the head of assets of the accused. When admittedly, a sum of Rs.2,74,726/- was available in the account of A.Thippesh, it is for the accused to explain as to what has happened to the amount that was available as on 30.05.2009. It is not the contention of the accused that after closure of the account, he has invested a sum of Rs.2,74,726/- and hence this amount cannot 55 Spl.CC 390/2015 be considered as his asset. Since, the amount was very much available at the disposal of the accused, it is for him to explain the matter. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the side of the accused as to what has happened to a sum of Rs.2,74,726/-. Therefore, this amount of Rs.2,74,726/- shall have to be considered as an asset of the accused. Accordingly, it is held that the Investigating Officer is justified in considering a sum of Rs.2,74,726/- as an asset of the accused.
15.25. Asset at item No.9 iii) The accused has disputed asset at item No.9 i.e., balance of Rs.1,04,260/- available in UTI Mutual Fund Policy No.200030351001760. It is the evidence of PW8 that the accused has invested a sum of Rs.1,04,260 in mutual fund and received interest from there. But in his evidence, PW8 has also deposed that in Ex.P43 at page No.436, the joining date is shown as 24.03.2000 and target amount was shown as Rs.75,000/- and yearly contribution amount is shown as Rs.5,000/-. Further, a reading of Ex.P43 would show that maturity date was 24.03.2015. In the instant case, the Investigating officer has taken the check period from 23.09.1982 to 22.09.2010. Therefore, from the study of Ex.P43, it is clear that within the check period the said policy was not matured.
15.26. It is the contention of the accused that since Policy No.351001760 was not matured, the Investigating officer is not justified in considering a sum of Rs.1,04,260/- current value as an asset of the accused. The fact that a sum of Rs.1,04,260/- was the 56 Spl.CC 390/2015 notional value of the policy is not in dispute. In fact, in page No.114 of Ex.P74 Final Report at Sl.No.41, the Investigating Officer has considered a sum of Rs.50,000/- as expenditure of the accused.
15.27. It is pertinent to note that when a specific suggestion was directed to PW8 to the effect that once he treat a particular sum as expenditure, the very same sum cannot be treated as an asset, he denied the suggestion. Even if for the sake of arguments outstanding balance of Rs.1,04,260/- is taken as an asset, then also before arriving at the conclusion, it is for the Investigating Officer to deduct a sum of Rs.50,000/- from Rs.1,04,260/-. Admittedly, such an exercise has not been undertaken by PW8. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.1,04,260/- is notional value of the policy. The date of maturity was 24.03.2015. Therefore, within the check period said policy has not been matured. As such, at any stretch of imagination a sum of Rs.1,04,260/- cannot be considered as an asset of the accused. Hence, the accused is justified in contending that the Investigating Officer has committed an error in considering a sum of Rs.1,04,260/- as asset value of the accused.
15.28. Asset at item No.10 iv) Another item of asset which the accused disputed was value of Maruthi Swift Vdi car bearing No.KA 16 N 524, at Rs.5,50,320/-. It is the contention of the prosecution that Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 is benami transaction of the accused. However, it is the contention of the accused that his father Chennaiah was financially sound enough to 57 Spl.CC 390/2015 purchase the car for a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- and accordingly he has purchased the same so as to enable him to travel from Chitradurga to Bengaluru to take treatment. It is relevant to note here itself that during the course of investigation PW8 himself has secured document as per Ex.P15 from Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru. Therefore, PW8 or the prosecution is estopped from taking any contention contrary to its own document.
15.29. A reading of Ex.P15 at page No.477 to 482 clearly reveal the fact that Mr.Chennaiah of Chitradurga has purchased Maruthi Swift Vdi car bearing Chassis No.356387 and Engine No.1124885 from Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.5,50,320/-. This document is collected by the Investigating officer on 02.12.2010. A reading of this document would also reveal the fact that Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru has received Rs.50,000/- by cash on 19.08.2008, Rs.5,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft of ING Vysya Bank Limited and Rs.320/- by cash on 28.08.2008. From the reading of this document, it is crystal clear that Mr.Chennaiah of Chitradurga has paid Rs.50,320/- by way of cash and Rs.5,00,000/- through demand draft.
15.30. The evidence of PW8 would show that while coming to the conclusion that the car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 was purchased by the accused in the benami name of his father Chennaiah, he has assigned 5 reasons, however he has not stated that Chennaiah had no financial capacity to invest a sum of Rs.5,50,320/-.
58 Spl.CC 390/2015 Thus, from the evidence of PW8 it is clear that, he being the Investigating Officer did not dispute the financial capacity of Chennaiah to invest a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- at the time of purchase of the car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524.
15.31. In addition to the above, during the course of evidence of PW8, the explanation offered by the accused was marked at Ex.P56. A reading of Ex.P56, in annexure to statement 19 at page No.184 and 185 would clearly reveal the fact that Chennaiah being LIC agent, has received total commission of Rs.26,16,620/-. It emanates from the evidence of PW8 that before filing of Final Report, the accused has furnished his explanation as per Ex.P56. It is not the evidence of PW8 that the document available in page No.184 and 185 of Ex.P56 is concocted by the accused. Further, after submission of Ex.P56, the Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to verify the records at Life Insurance Corporation of India, Challakere branch to find out the genuineness or otherwise of the figures that were found in the document styled as Calculation of Accrued Liability of Gratuity Payment Payable to Agent. Under such circumstances, absolutely there are no reasons to disbelieve the contention of the accused that his father had sufficient income to purchase car bearing Reg.No.KA 16 N 524. Therefore, financial capacity of Chennaiah to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- is stands proved.
15.32. In fact, at the time of raid to the house of the accused, the Investigating Agency has seized original RC book of car No.KA 59 Spl.CC 390/2015 16 N 524 as per Ex.P7 at page No.406. A reading of this original RC book would show that Mr.Chennaiah.G is the Registered Owner of vehicle No.KA 16 N 524. In addition to it, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected receipt dated 28.08.2010 as per page No.120 of File No.2 and as per page No.122 and 123. As per this document Chennaiah has paid Rs.5,31,362/- to Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Lavella Road, Bengaluru. In fact, for this invoice, Chennaiah has signed. Further, page No.472 to 475 of File No.1 contains the documents sent by R.T.O Bengaluru Central. As per this document, Sale Certificate in Form No.21 stands in the name of Mr.Chennaiah.G. Further, Form-KMV-19 and Certificate of Insurance is also standing in the name of Mr.Chennaiah, the father of the accused.
15.33. The Final Report as per Ex.P74 clearly indicate that the car was purchased on 29.08.2008. It was the contention of the Investigating Officer that the father of the accused by name Chennaiah does not possess Driving Licence and hence it is the accused who has purchased the car in the year 2008 in the name of his father. In order to show that the purchase of car was benami transaction, the Investigating Officer also contended that the car was found in the house of the accused at the time of search. The fact that the car was very much available in the house of the accused at the time of search and that original R.C found in his house is not in dispute. However, based only on these two grounds or on the ground 60 Spl.CC 390/2015 that Chennaiah does not possess Driving Licence, it cannot be said that car is the benami asset of the accused.
15.34. The counsel for the accused has invited the attention of this Court with regard to facts elicited from the mouth of PW8 at the time of cross examination. The evidence of PW8 would indicate that B.C.Manohar in his letter dated 12.06.2013 at page No.121 to 128 of Ex.P56 and particularly at page No.124 at para No.6 has stated that his father Chennaiah was taking treatment for his ailments at Bengaluru. It is also stated in Ex.P56 at page No.125 that so as to enable Chennaiah to travel from Chitradurga to Bengaluru to take treatment, Chennaiah purchased the car in the year 2008. It is pertinent to note that the Prosecution did not dispute above explanation of DW1. Further, the fact that Chennaiah was taking treatment at Bengaluru for his ailments is not in dispute.
15.35. The counsel for the accused has placed reliance on invoice available in Ex.P56 at annexure No.2 statement 19 page No.190. The voucher available at page No.122 of File No.2 and invoice available at page No.190 of Ex.P56 are one and the same. However, in Ex.P56 at page No.190 one entry is made in handwriting to the effect that D.D. No.261177 dated 28.08.2008 for Rs.5,00,000/- from ING Vysya Bank. This entry is inconsonance with Ex.P17 document issued by Mandovi Motors Private Limited at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is crystal clear that 61 Spl.CC 390/2015 Chennaiah has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to Mandovi Motors Private Limited through demand draft of ING Vysya Bank.
15.36. Further, brother of the accused by name G.C.Manohar being DW1 has categorically stated that his father was financially sound enough to purchase Maruthi Car No.KA 16 N 524. DW1 has produced attested copy of Form No.21 and other documents attested by RTO, Chitradurga. As per these documents Maruthi Swift Vdi car was delivered to Chennaiah and Form No.20, 29, 30 and 31 stands in his name. Further, 'B' Register extract as per Ex.D12 would show that after death of Chennaiah, Gangamma was registered as the owner of Maruthi Car and subsequently it was changed in the name of G.C.Manohar. This fact would reveal that the accused has nothing to do with car No.KA 16 N 524.
15.37. The reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer in his Final Report as per Ex.P74 at page No.46 would show that the accused has sold Maruthi 800 car on 23.04.2010 and thereafter he did not purchase any car for his use and similar type of registration number was obtained and the vehicle and RC was found in the house of the accused and Chennaiah did not possess any Driving Licence as he was aged about 75 years in the year 2008 and therefore, above transaction is benami transaction.
15.38. In view of the above contentions, it is just and necessary to place reliance on Section 2(8) of the Prohibition of 62 Spl.CC 390/2015 Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. As per this provision of law, benami property means any property which is the subject matter of benami transactions and also includes proceeds from such property. Further, as per the provisions of this law property means any kind whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes any right or interest or legal documents or instruments evidencing title or interest in the properties and where the property is capable of conversion into some other form, then the property in the name of converted form and also includes proceeds from the property. Therefore, essential ingredients of benami transaction involves (a) property which is the subject matter of any transaction or arrangement (i.e., benami property), (b) a benamidar (the ostensible or apparent owner or owner on record), (c) a beneficial owner (i.e., the real owner who provided consideration or for whose benefits the property is held), (d) a transaction or agreement whereby benami property is transferred or in respect of which a transaction or arrangement is made. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove the above ingredients to establish that Car No.KA 16 N 524 was benami asset of the accused.
15.39. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 620 in the case between State of Haryana V/s Ramsingg and argued that the evidence of DW1 is also worthy to accept and accordingly reliance may be placed on his evidence. In the decision referred above, it was held that the 63 Spl.CC 390/2015 credibility of the defence witness is at par with that of prosecution witnesses and merely because he has been examined by the defence, his evidence will not be diluted or will not loose its importance in any manner. The defence witness is also entitled for equal treatment as that of prosecution witnesses. No doubt the evidence of DW1 is also worthy to accept to the extent relevant. In this case the documents referred to above would clearly establish that Chennaiah was financially sound enough to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- to Mandovi Motors Private Limited. Further, as has been narrated above, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through demand draft drawn on ING Vysya Bank. The above document itself is sufficient to show that it is Chennaiah and he alone has paid entire amount to Mandovi Motors Pvt Limited.
15.40. Further, the counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1991 A.Cr.R 691 in the case between Krishna Narain V/s State of U.P and argued that if statement of defence witness has a ring of truth, the same cannot be discarded. In this case, Ex.P15 and the evidence of DW1 clearly establish that Chennaiah has paid Rs.5,50,320/- to Mandovi Motors Pvt. Limited. Therefore, the evidence of DW1 gains importance.
15.41. In order to ascertain as to whether car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 is benami property of the accused or not, it is just and necessary to place reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Krishnananda Agnihotri V/s State of Madhya Pradesh 64 Spl.CC 390/2015 reported in 1977 (1) SCC 816. In this decision it was held that the burden of showing a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly proves the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly or reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But, such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to the benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjecture or surmises as a substitute for proof. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion, because the Court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence.
15.42. The counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Jaya Dayal Coddar V/s Bibi Hazra reported in AIR 1974 SC 171 and argued that it is for the prosecution to prove circumstances given in the above decision so as to prove that car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 is benami transaction of the accused. As per this decision, when a particular asset alleged to be benami, it is for the Court to consider the following circumstances. i) the source from which purchase money came. In this case, the documents produced by the prosecution as per Ex.P15 itself would 65 Spl.CC 390/2015 indicate that Chennaiah paid entire sale consideration which includes D.D for Rs.5,00,000/-. ii) nature and possession of the property after its purchase. No doubt in the present case at the time of raid car and RC was found in the house of the accused. However the evidence of DW1 that his father used to travel from Chitradurga to Bengaluru to take treatment is not denied by the prosecution. Admittedly, RC owner is none other than the father of the accused. Therefore, no fault can be attached even if car and RC are found in the house of the accused. iii) motive if any for giving the transaction a benami colour. In the instant case, it is proved that Chennaiah has invested a sum of Rs.5,50,320/-. Therefore, there was no motive for the accused to contend that car belongs to his father. iv) the position of the parties and relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar. As has been discussed above, there is cogent evidence which proves financial capacity of Chennaiah. Further, the evidence collected by the prosecution itself is sufficient to hold that Chennaiah has paid a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- at the time of purchase of the car. Therefore, five reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer to come to the conclusion that the car is benami property of the accused is not probable to accept and accordingly rejected. In the result, the above discussed facts and proved circumstances of the case leads to the only conclusion that car No.KA 16 N 524 is not the outcome of benami transaction and therefore the Investigating Officer is not justified in considering a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- as asset value of the accused.
66 Spl.CC 390/2015 Hence, a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- shall have to be excluded from the head of assets of the accused.
15.43: Asset at item No.11: v) The next item of asset which the accused disputed was cash of Rs.7,18,400/-. The Investigating Officer in his Final Report as per Ex.P74 at page No.50 described the fact that on the date of raid, more precisely on 22.09.2010 a sum of Rs.7,18,400/- was found in house No.257 of the accused. The seizure of a sum of Rs.7,18,400/- from the house of the accused under Ex.P4 mahazar is not in dispute. In fact, the accused has contended that the Investigating Officer being PW8 in para No.20 and 21 of his evidence has admitted that Rs.3,78,400/- was traced in the almerah kept in the reading room of house of the accused, but the accused was not a student then. By placing reliance on this portion of evidence it was argued that since Basavakirana was studying in that reading room, he has kept a sum of Rs.3,78,400/-. Based on this evidence, it is highly improbable to accept the contention of the accused that a sum of Rs.3,78,400/- found in the almerah kept in the reading room belonged to Basavakirana. Therefore, it is for the accused to offer probable explanation.
15.44. Further, the counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the evidence of PW8 in paragraph No.21. No doubt PW8 has admitted the fact that in page No.121 to 128 of Ex.P56 explanation there is a letter of the brother of the accused by name G.C.Manohar. A reading of this letter would show that in order to secure 67 Spl.CC 390/2015 Engineering seat to his son Basavakirana he has kept Rs.7,00,000/- in the house of the accused during September, 2010. According to the accused, said Basavakirana completed his PU education in Bengaluru. Though this fact is not denied but based solely on the self serving letter dated 12.06.2013 as available in page No.121 to 128 of Ex.P56 or on the interested testimony of DW1, it is not probable to accept the contention of the accused that his brother G.C.Manohar has kept Rs.7,00,000/-.
15.45. DW1 has deposed that his son Basavakirana by staying in the house of the accused was preparing for CET in Karnataka and after completion of CET, he has sent Rs.3,60,000/- towards payment of college admission and fees. It is also the evidence of DW1 that he had paid Rs.3,40,000/- to his brother the accused herein. In order to substantiate this payment of Rs.3,40,000/-, except the self serving letter dated 12.06.2013 and the interested testimony of DW1, there are no acceptable evidence before the Court. Further, there is no evidence to show that Basavakirana was staying in the house of the accused and was preparing for CET. Even if it is proved that Basavakirana was preparing for CET, then also without securing seat for Engineering, question of keeping huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- that too in the house of the accused does not arise.
15.46. The counsel for the accused has placed reliance on Ex.P56 at page No.160. A copy of Audit Report of Rajalakshmi Traders for the financial year 2009-10 would show that the turnover 68 Spl.CC 390/2015 of the firm was Rs.4,43,945/-, as per page No.167, turnover for the financial year was Rs.12,13,61,918/-. This self serving xerox copy of Audit Report is not authenticated by the Department of Income Tax. Therefore, this inadmissible piece of evidence may not come to the aid of the accused to show that DW1 G.C.Manohar had sufficient source of income so as to keep huge sum of Rs.7,00,000/- that too in the house of the accused. Further, financial capacity of DW1 does not lead to the presumption that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- belongs to him.
15.47. The counsel for the accused has invited the attention of this Court with regard to xerox copy of the balance summary of ING Vysya Bank in respect of account No.103011007193 of M/s Rajalakshmi Traders. As per this document, on 17.04.2010 and 21.04.2010 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were withdrawn. By placing reliance on these two entires it was submitted that by withdrawing Rs.4,50,000/- from account No.103011007193, DW1 has sent a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the accused. As per xerox copy of balance summary a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were withdrawn on 17.04.2010 and 22.04.2010 respectively. Whereas, raid was conducted to the house of the accused on 22.09.2010. Therefore, it is highly improbable to believe that though the amounts were withdrawn on 17.04.2010 and 22.04.2010, the same was kept all along till 22.09.2010 that too in the house of the accused for the payment of college fee and admission fee of Basavakirana.
69 Spl.CC 390/2015 Further, xerox copy of receipt dated 18.09.2010 as per page No.182 of Ex.P56 would show that Basavakirana S/o G.C.Manohar got admitted to I year B.E at S.J.M.I.T Chitradurga. When admittedly Basavakirana secured seat at Chitradurga, the question of his father sending money to Bengaluru that too before securing the seat does not arise. Therefore, the above evidence will not enure the benefit of the accused to show that amount that was found in his house was belonging to his brother G.C.Manohar.
15.48. In addition to the above aspect of the matter, the counsel for the accused has also invited the attention of this Court towards xerox copy of ledger account of Rajalakshmi Traders for the financial year 2011 available in page No.177 of Ex.P56 explanation. This type of xerox copy of ledger account can be created by any body. The explanation attached to Section 13(1) would say that the offence shall be completed when the accused fails to offer satisfactory explanation. The document produced by the accused lacks authenticity. Further, the evidence of DW1 is not supported by any acceptable documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the explanation offered by the accused in Ex.P56 and evidence of DW1 is not worthy to accept and hold that out of Rs.7,18,400/- found in the house of the accused, Rs.7,00,000/- was belonging to DW1 G.C.Manohar. In order to claim that out of Rs.7,18,400/-, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- belonged to G.C.Manohar, it is for the accused to show the financial capacity of G.C.Manohar.
70 Spl.CC 390/2015 Admittedly, as per the Assets and Liability statement of accused for the year 2008-09, this G.C.Manohar borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the accused and Rs.15,00,000/- from Smt.Kusuma. If really, G.C.Manohar was financially sound enough, there was no necessity for him to borrow hand loan of Rs.21,00,000/-. This is yet another strong circumstance to believe that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- found in the house of the accused does not belong to said G.C.Manohar. Hence, it is held that amount of Rs.7,18,400/- was belonging to the accused. Therefore, the investigating Officer is justified in considering a sum of Rs.7,18,400/- as asset value of the accused.
15.49. Asset at item No.12: vi) The next item of the asset which the accused has disputed is the value of gold ornaments found in the house of the accused and in Canara Bank locker to the tune of Rs.3,60,278/- as narrated in page No.46 to 49 of Ex.P74 Final Report on the ground that those gold ornaments were received by his wife by way of gift and hence the same cannot be treated as his assets.
15.50. As per Ex.P4 mahazar dated 22.09.2010 when a search was conducted to house No.257, the raid team was able to unearth 216 grams of gold ornaments and 882 grams of silver articles. The Investigating Officer through one Prakash Chand got examined those gold ornaments and fixed average value at Rs.840/- per gram and total 216 grams of gold was valued at Rs.1,81,440/-. Further, according to the Investigating Officer on 15.12.2011, when a search was conducted, the search team found 230.69 grams of gold 71 Spl.CC 390/2015 ornaments in Locker No.620 of Canara Bank and one Vedamurthachar has valued the same at Rs.2750/- per gram and total value was fixed at Rs.5,72,986/-.
15.51. In order to substantiate the valuation, the prosecution has examined the said Prakash Chand aged about 70 years as PW10. According to him he has valued 216 grams of gold at Rs.840/- per gram and total value was Rs.1,81,440/-. His evidence in cross examination would show that he cannot say exactly as to in which year a particular ornament was prepared by looking at it. However, his evidence would show that while weighing the gold ornaments he excluded the weight of stones and pearls.
15.52. In fact, in so far as valuation 230.69 grams of gold ornaments found in locker No.620 of Canara Bank, Banashankari branch is concerned, the person who has valued the same has not been examined. However, the fact that 230.69 grams of gold ornaments were found in locker No.620 is not in dispute.
15.53. Further, a perusal of Ex.P74 Final Report at page No.46 to 49 would show that the Investigating Officer has considered value of 722 grams of gold ornaments at the rate of Rs.499/- per gram amounting to Rs.3,60,278/-. The discussions that were made in Ex.P74 would show that from 1982 to 1995, the accused has declared 2065 grams of gold ornaments. Further, as per the discussion made therein, during 1994-95 the accused has sold 345 grams of gold for 72 Spl.CC 390/2015 Rs.1,55,250/- and 522 grams of gold for a sum of Rs.1,98,500/-. Further, in page No.48, it is also stated that during 2000 the accused has declared 1520 grams and during 2002, 1920 grams of gold ornaments. In fact, the Investigating Officer has considered only 722 grams of gold ornaments for the purpose of assessing the assets of the accused.
15.54. In the present case, during the course of his investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected Annual Assets and Liabilities statements of the accused from 1982-83 to 2007-08 as per Ex.P18. The genuineness or otherwise the contents of Ex.P18 is not in dispute. A perusal of Ex.P18 would indicate that during 1982 the accused has declared 1720 grams of gold ornaments. In his APR for the year 1994, the accused has declared that he has sold all the gold ornaments received by way of gift. Further, in his APR for the year 1996 to 2007-08, the accused has declared that he is in possession of 192 tholas of gold ornaments.
15.55. In fact, in his explanation at Volume No.3 page No.269 to 272, there are particulars with regard to accused securing permission from his Department to sell 50 tholas i.e., 500 grams of gold ornaments for a sum of Rs.1,91,289.70 so as to enable him to purchase Maruthi Car. Further, receipt issued by Gajalakshmi Jewellery Hall, Bengaluru at page No.271 would show that by sale of 522.368 grams of gold, the wife of the accused received a sum of Rs.1,98,500/-. Thus, from the above documents of the accused, it is 73 Spl.CC 390/2015 clear that during 1994-95 accused has sold 522.368 grams of gold ornaments. According to the accused during the marriage his wife received 172 tholas i.e., 1720 grams of gold ornaments. This is evident from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1983 marked at Ex.P18. If 522.368 grams of gold is deducted from 1720 grams of gold approximately it comes to 1198 grams.
15.56. The counsel for the accused has invited the attention of this Court, with regard to facts elicited from the mouth of PW8 at the time of his cross examination at para No.23. In fact, PW8 has deposed that in his A&L Statement for the year ending 31.03.2000 and 31.03.2002 at page No.137 and 133 of File No.1 the accused did not disclose regarding purchase of any gold ornaments for that year.
15.57. Further, as per Ex.P18, during 1989-90 the accused has declared that he has purchased 20 grams of golden chain. During 1998-99, the accused has declared that he has purchased 2 gold chains of 20 grams. Thus, it is clear that the accused has purchased 40 grams of gold ornaments. During 2002, 2004 and 2005, the accused has declared that he is in possession 192 tholas of gold ornaments and same comes to 1920 grams. As discussed herein above, the accused was in possession of 1198 grams of gold received by his wife at her marriage. As declared in the Annual Property Returns 2005, the accused was in possession of 1920 grams of gold. If, 1198 grams of gold is deducted from 1920 grams of gold, same comes to 722 grams. Further, as declared by the accused, he has purchased 40 grams of 74 Spl.CC 390/2015 gold ornaments. However, Investigating Officer has taken into consideration only 722 grams of gold at the rate of Rs.499/- per gram. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said the Investigating Officer is not justified in considering the asset value at Rs.3,60,278/-. On the contrary, the evidence placed on record itself is sufficient to hold that the Investigating Officer is justified in considering a sum of Rs.3,60,278/- as asset value of the accused. Accordingly, the contention of the accused is negated and rejected.
15.58. Therefore, the following are the assets of the accused required to be considered for the purpose of assessing disproportionate assets.
Sl.No. Assets Value (in Rs.) 1 The site No.31, situated at Shettihalli, 4,68,000.00 Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur in the name of Smt.Kusuma, wife of the accused 2 Amount found in SB Account 75,980.00 No.54024595839 at S.B.M. Vinayakanagara Extension, B.H.Road, Tumkur in the name of the accused 3 Amount found in SB Account 7,60,686.00 No.282810123791 at Canara Bank, B.D.A Campus, Sankey Road, K.P. West, Bengaluru in the name of the accused 4 Amount found in SB Account No.0885202036535 at Canara Bank, 2,74,726/- Yadiyur Branch, Kanakapura Road, Jayanagara 7th Block, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 75 Spl.CC 390/2015 5 Amount found in SB Account 214.00 No.2513101010722 at Canara Bank, Kamakya Complex, 100 feet Road, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 6 Amount found in SB Account 50,000.00 No.20022283711 at State Bank of India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 7 Amount found in SB Account No. 10,048.00 00411000223174 at H.D.F.C Bank, 3rd Main Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru in the name of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 8 Amount found in SB Account 1,04,769.00 No.30005299499 at State Bank of Mysore, Banashankari, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 9 Amount invested on U.T.I Mutual Fund -
ULIF Policy No.200030351001760 10 Value of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.KA -
16 N 524 standing in the name of Si.G.Chennaiah, father of the accused 11 Cash found in the house of the accused at 7,18,400.00 the time of raid 12 Difference of 745 grams of gold ornaments 3,60,278.00 declared by the accused 13 Cash found in Locker N.620, Canara Bank, 50,000.00 Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru 14 Value of the house hold articles found in 2,16,150.00 the house of the accused at the time of raid.
76 Spl.CC 390/2015 15 Amount deposited for obtaining water 2,000.00 connection to the house at Shettihalli village, Tumkur standing in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused.
16 Advance amount paid to the house No.257, 1st Cross, 2nd Block, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 95,000.00 Bengaluru Deposit towards Gas Connection bearing 950.00 Consumer No.30750 to Harikrishna Enterprises, No.257, 1st Cross, 3rd Stage, Bengaluru to the house of the accused 17 Deposit towards Gas Connection bearing 950.00 Consumer No.36832 to Ganapathiraju Enterprises, Bharath Gas Supplier, K.V.Layout, Jayanagara East, Bengaluru to the house of the accused Total 31,88,151/-
16.1. Hence, value of the assets that were found in the possession of the accused during the check period was Rs.31,88,151/-.
16.2. Now let me consider the expenditure of the accused incurred by him during the check period. According to the Investigating Officer the following are the expenditures incurred by the accused and his family members during the check period.
77 Spl.CC 390/2015
Sl.No. Expenditure Amount
(in Rs.)
The expenditure towards Registration and 17,590.00
Stamp duty in respect of purchase of site
1 No.31, Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur in the
name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the
accused
Tax paid to the said house 10,601.00
The expenditure towards registration and 2,363.00
stamp duty at the time of purchase of house-
site No.32, Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur in 2 the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused Commission amount paid to Real Estate 20,000.00 Agent at the time of sale of the property 3 The expenditure towards registration and 75,669.00 stamp duty at the time of purchase of site No.12, Muddenahlli village, Chitradurga District in the name of the of accused.
4 The expenditure towards the rent paid by 7,85,092.00 the accused from the year 1982 to 2010.
5 The expenditure paid by the accused to the 2,900.00 owner of the house during the tenancy period 6 The expenditure towards electricity 97,644.00 consumption charges during the year 1982 to 2010 7 The expenditure incurred towards the 32,665.00 utilisation of gas to the house of the accused 8 Expenditure incurred by the accused for 13,250.00 cable TV 9 Expenditure incurred towards the service of 25,400.00 housemaid 78 Spl.CC 390/2015 10 The expenditure towards education of 2,27,687.00 Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 11 The expenditure towards education of 3,17,998.00 Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 12 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 75.00 Account No.54024595839, State Bank of Mysore, Vinayakanagara Extension, B.H. Road, Tumkur.
13 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 378.00 Account No.282810123791, Canara Bank, BDA Campus, Sankey Road, K.P.West, Bengaluru 14 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 444.00 Account No.0885202036535, Canara Bank, Yadiyur branch, Kanakapura Road, Jayanagara 7th Block, Bengaluru.
15 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 154.00 Account No.2513101010722, Canara Bank, Kamakya Complex, 100 feet road, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of wife of the accused.
16 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. Account No.20022283711, State Bank of 161.00 India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused.
17 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. Account No.00411000223174, H.D.F.C 1,705.00 Bank, 3rd Main Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru standing in the name of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused.
79 Spl.CC 390/2015 18 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. Account No.30005299499, State Bank of 1,982.00 India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 19 The expenditure towards the rent in respect 2,900.00 o Locker No.620, Canara Bank, rd Banashankari 3 stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of wife of the accused 20 The expenditure towards purchase of 2,42,119.00 Maruthi 800 car No.KA 13 N 524 in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused Life Tax and registration fee 10,100.00 amount paid for obtaining fancy number 1,000.00 Purchase of tyre 5,000.00 Maintenance of vehicle and for diesel 1,25,000.00 21 The expenditure towards purchase of 1,11,580.00 Maruthi Swift car No.KA 16 N 524 in the name of Sri.G.Chennaiah, father of the accused and also for obtaining fancy number Maintenance charge 17,500.00 repair charges 7,500.00 for diesel 96,016.00 22 Advance amount paid for purchase of 1,000.00 Honda Unicorn Dazzler 23 The expenditure towards purchase of Honda 45,243.00 Dio bearing No.KA 05 AR 5033 24 The expenditure towards purchase and 31,000.00 maintenance of two wheeler vehicle purchased in the year 1989 80 Spl.CC 390/2015 25 The expenditure towards purchase of Nokio 9,000.00 E 63 in the name of Sri.K.A.Viks @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 26 The expenditure towards premium amount 1,00,143.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.620237267 27 The expenditure towards premium amount 67,168.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.620387796 28 The expenditure towards premium amount 1,09,890.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.622648405 in the name of Sri.Yashorajath, son of the accused 29 The expenditure towards premium amount 59,130.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.611622495 30 The expenditure towards premium amount 68,880.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.620390137 in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 31 The expenditure towards premium amount 21,000.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.625671458 32 The expenditure towards premium amount 51,000.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.720190999 33 The expenditure towards premium amount 18,401.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.629348064 34 The expenditure towards premium amount 42,872.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.622179677 35 The expenditure towards premium amount 7,436.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.620230132 36 The expenditure towards premium amount 33,800.00 in respect of LIC Policy No.620236340 37 Amount deposited in the post office 1,20,000.00 38 Expenditure towards purchase of NSC 81,000.00 81 Spl.CC 390/2015 39 Expenditure incurred towards repayment of 5,24,765.00 loan availed on the LIC policy No.61017315 40 Expenditure incurred towards repayment of 14,984.00 loan availed on the LIC policy No.620337267 41 Expenditure towards purchase of ULIP 50,000.00 Policy 351001760 42 Expenditure towards repayment of loan of 4,10,600.00 Rs.4,07,000/- availed by the accused from the private persons Expenditure towards payment of tax to the 1,49,525.00 Income Tax Department for the year 2009- 43 10 Expenditure towards payment of tax to the 3,06,000.00 Income Tax Department for the year 2009- 10 by Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 44 Expenditure towards the membership at 5,000.00 Country Club 45 Expenditure towards the membership at 61,960.00 Century Club and other expenditure 46 Expenditure for obtaining the passport in 1,600.00 the name of the family members of the accused 47 Expenditure towards the family expenses by 10,18,184.00 the accused and his family members 48 Expenditure towards the celebration of 1,900.00 birthday party of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 49 Expenditure towards the celebration of 3,650.00 birthday party of Sri.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 82 Spl.CC 390/2015 50 Expenditure towards house warming 6,000.00 ceremony in respect of house of the accused Shivalingeswara Nilaya, T.P.Kailasam Road, Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur 51 Expenditure towards the medical treatment 22,905.00 in different hospitals by the accused 52 Expenditure towards the purchase of SBBL- 2,620.00 12 Bore gun 53 Expenditure towrds purchase of Classic Set 41,550.00 purchased from the shop AMC Cookwear (India) Ltd., Yalahanka 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 54 Expenditure towards purchase of Penta Soft 49,510.00 System 55 Expenditure towards purchase of furnitures 17,007.00 from Navakethan Furniture Systems Pvt Ltd 56 Expenditure towards purchase of articles 2,021.00 from Saravana Enterprises 57 Expenditure towards purchase of materials 1,265.00 from Ranjith Trading 58 Expenditure towards purchase of VCD 36,000.00 player during the year 2008-09 59 Expenditure towards purchase of Videocon 22,400.00 21" C.T.V 60 Expenditure towards purchase of V.C.R in 20,000.00 the year 1989 61 Expenditure towards purchase of colour TV 10,000.00 in the year 1988 62 Hand loan advanced to Sri.G.C.Manohar 6,00,000.00 63 Hand loan advance to Sri.G.C.Manohar by 15,00,000.00 the wife of the accused Smt.B.Kusuma 83 Spl.CC 390/2015 64 Expenditure towards the registration 2,000.00 charges in respect of Site at Mysore MUDA 65 Amount paid to S.S.N.S. Trust 95,000.00 Total 81,05,882.00 16.3. It is relevant to make a mention that out of 65 items of expenditure narrated by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P74 at page Nos 111 to 115, the accused has disputed the following expenditures
i) Sl.No.1 to the tune of Rs.17,590/-, ii) Sl.No.21 to the tune of Rs.1,11,580/-, Rs.17,500/-, Rs.7,500/- and Rs.96,016/- respectively,
iii) Sl.No.28 to the tune of Rs.1,09,890/-, iv) Sl.No.38 to the tune of Rs.81,000/-, v) Sl.No.39 to the tune of Rs.5,24,765/-, vi) Sl.No.45 to the tune of Rs.61,960/- and vii) Sl.No.47 domestic expenditure to the tune of Rs.10,18,184/-. Therefore, it is just and necessary to appreciate oral and documentary evidence placed on record and to find out as to whether the Investigating Officer is justified in considering the above seven disputed expenditures as the expenditure of the accused.
16.4. Expenditure at Sl.No.1: i) The fact that site No.31 of Settihalli village was purchased by the wife of the accused Smt.B.Kusuma under Ex.P7 sale deed for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- totally amounting to Rs.90,000/- is not in dispute. However, it is the contention of the accused that sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- and Registration and Stamp Duty of Rs.17,590/- was paid by the Smt.Kamalamma. In fact, PW8 being the Investigating Officer 84 Spl.CC 390/2015 has categorically admitted that "it is true that even the stamp duty and registration expenses of Rs.17,590/- shown in page No.111, Sl.No.1 of Final Report shall have to be reduced from his total expenditure." This evidence of Investigating Officer would show that he has supported the contention of the accused that stamp duty and registration expenses of Rs.17,590/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma.
16.5. This Court while appreciating asset value of site No.31 has held that this property was purchased by Smt.Kamalamma and subsequently same was considered by the Deputy Commissioner by issuing permission dated 23.04.1993. In order to show that registration fee and stamp duty of Rs.17,590/- was paid by Smt.Kusuma, absolutely no evidence was produced by the prosecution. In fact a reading of sale deeds so produced by the prosecution at Ex.P7 would indicate that stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.17,590/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma. In order to discard the contents of the sale deed, there are no reasons before the Court. Further, to show that stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.17,590/- was paid by Smt.Kusuma, the Investigating officer did not examine the Sellers or the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the only option available for this Court is to conclude that stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.17,590/- was paid by Smt.Kamalamma.
16.6. In this case, it is not in dispute that tax of Rs.4,224/- and property Tax of Rs.6377/- was paid during the year 2004-05.
85 Spl.CC 390/2015 Admittedly, property No.31 now stands in the name of Smt.Kusuma wife of the accused. Further, the fact that tax of Rs.10,601/- was paid during the year 2004-05 is not in dispute. So, for the reasons given herein above, Registration Fee and Stamp Duty of Rs.17,590/- shall have to be excluded from the head of expenditure of the accused. But, a sum of Rs.10,601/- shall have to be considered as an expenditure of the accused because, this amount was remitted by the wife of the accused as property tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,601/- is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
16.7. Expenditure at Sl.No.21: ii) It is the contention of the prosecution that Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 is benami asset of the accused. However, it is the contention of the accused that his father Chennaiah was financially sound enough to purchase this car for a sum of Rs.5,50,320/-. It is relevant to note here itself that during the course of investigation PW8 himself has secured document as per Ex.P15 from Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru. Therefore, PW8 or the prosecution is estopped from taking any contention contrary to its own document.
16.8. A reading of Ex.P15 page No.477 to 482 clearly reveal the fact that Mr.Chennaiah of Chitradurga has purchased Maruthi Swift Vdi car bearing Chassis No.356387 and Engine No.1124885 from Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.5,50,320/-. This document would clearly establish the fact that Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru has received Rs.50,000/-
86 Spl.CC 390/2015 by cash on 19.08.2008, Rs.5,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited and Rs.320/- by cash on 28.08.2008. From the reading of this document, it is crystal clear that Mr.Chennaiah of Chitradurga has paid Rs.50,320/- by way of cash and Rs.5,00,000/- through demand draft.
16.9. The evidence of PW8 would show that while coming to the conclusion that car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 was purchased by the accused in the benami name of his father Chennaiah, he has assigned 5 reasons, however, he has not stated that Chennaiah had no financial capacity to invest a sum of Rs.5,50,320/-. Thus, from the evidence of PW8 it is clear that financial capacity of Chennaiah to invest a sum of Rs.5,50,320/- at the time of purchase of car bearing Reg No.KA 16 N 524 was not in dispute. In fact, this Court while assessing the asset value has held that Chennaiah has purchased the car in his individual capacity.
16.10. In Ex.P.74 at Sl.No.21 of page No.113, the Investigating Officer has considered Rs.1,11,580/- towards tax, payment made to secure the fancy number, insurance premium and other expenses. Similarly, according to him, after purchase of car bearing Reg.No.KA 16 N 524, for its maintenance, repair and fuel the accused has spent a sum of Rs.17,500/-, Rs.7,500/- and Rs.96,016/- respectively. However, it is the contention of the accused that the vehicle was purchased by his father in his individual capacity as he had sufficient income as he was working as LIC agent. This fact is 87 Spl.CC 390/2015 substantiated by the accused by producing the document issued by the LIC of India.
16.11. In this case, original R.C of the car is found in page No.406 and 407 of Volume No.5 of Ex.P7. As has been discussed above, Mr.Chennaiah G is shown as registered owner of the vehicle. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has secured documents from Regional Transport Commissioner as per Volume No.2 page No. 121 to 124. The genuineness or otherwise of this document is not in dispute. In addition to it, the Investigating Officer has secured documents from R.T.O Chitradurga and the documents are available in Volume No.I page No.451 to 455. The fact that a sum of Rs.75,990/- was paid as life tax, Rs.25,000/- was paid to secure fancy number and insurance of Rs.10,590/- was paid is not in dispute. Similarly, the Investigating Officer has secured documents from Mandovi Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru as per Volume No.I page No.476 to 482.
16.12. During the course of investigation, PW8 has secured a Report from the RTO,Chitradurga as per Ex.P71. As per this document, in respect of vehicle No.KA 16 N 524, maintenance expenditure was Rs.17,500/-, repair cost was Rs.7,500/- and fuel expense was Rs.96,016/-. The genuineness or otherwise of this document is not in dispute. In fact, the Investigating Officer has placed reliance on this document and come to the conclusion that the accused had incurred total expenditure of Rs.2,32,596/-. When the 88 Spl.CC 390/2015 documents produced by the prosecution itself prove the fact that Chennaiah has paid the purchase money to Mandovi Motors it is not possible to accept its contention that the expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,32,956/- was borne by the accused. In view of the above circumstances expenses of Rs.2,32,956/- shall have to be deducted from the head of expenditure of the accused.
16.13. Expenditure at Sl.No.28: iii) The Investigating Officer has considered payment of LIC premium to the tune of Rs.1,09,890/- in respect of policy No.622648405 standing in the name of A.K.Yashorajath as expenditure of the accused. But the accused has contended that, premium amount of Rs.85,470/- was paid by his father Chennaiah. The discussion made in Ex.P74 page No.71-72 at Sl.No.28 would indicate that the accused in his Annual Assets and Liabilities Statement did not declare that he has paid premium of Rs.1,09,890/- towards LIC policy of his son. Hence, Investigating Officer has considered a sum of Rs.1,09,890/- as expenditure of the accused. In order to substantiate this aspect of the matter, the Investigating Officer has secured Status Report of policy No.622648405 as per page No.152 of File No.2. However, this document was not marked during the course of evidence of the Investigating Officer. In the said document nominee's column is kept blank. However, policy holder's name is shown as Yashorajath A.K son of G.C.Anil Kumar. In fact, by looking into page No.152 of file No.2, PW8 has admitted that policy agency code and address are of G.Chennaiah. But, a perusal of this document would never disclose 89 Spl.CC 390/2015 the name or address of G.Chennaiah. Therefore, the above evidence of PW8 is contrary to contents of Status Report of Policy No.622648405.
16.14. In fact, PW8 during the course of his cross examination has admitted that in the year 2004 the accused was working as Deputy Secretary, BDA, Bengaluru and not residing at Chitradurga. Based only on this evidence it cannot be said that premium amount of Rs.1,09,890/- was paid by Chennaiah. In fact, according to PW8 two installments were paid subsequent to check period. The categorical admission of PW8 would show that he should have considered only Rs.85,470/- and not Rs.1,09,890/-. According to PW8, he has taken Rs.24,420/- as excess expenditure of the accused. Therefore, from the evidence of PW8 it is clear that he ought to have taken only a sum of Rs.85,470/- as expenditure in respect of LIC policy No.622648405.
16.15. Further, a perusal of Annual Assets and Liabilities statement of the accused marked as per Ex.D5, at page No.104 would show that under the head of details of insurance policies as on 30.03.2006, at Sl.No.8 there is a reference with regard to payment of insurance premium in respect of policy No.622648405 in the name of Yashorajath. The declaration made by the accused in the year 2006 would show that he has paid annual premium of Rs.12,210/- directly to LIC in respect of LIC policy No.622648405. The perusal of Ex.D5 also disclose the fact that total sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/- and date of maturity was 26.03.2024. When accused has declared that he 90 Spl.CC 390/2015 has been paying insurance premium in respect of policy No.6226478405, he is estopped from contending that his father has been paying insurance premium.
16.16. Further, the contention that premium were paid by G.Chennaiah is not substantiated by any acceptable piece of evidence. On the other hand, the document produced by the prosecution and marked by the accused as per Ex.D5 clearly establish the fact that he has been paying insurance premium. Further, the accused did not declare the payment of insurance policy premium of Rs.85,470/- in his Annual Assets and Liabilities Statement. Therefore, a sum of Rs.85,470/- shall be included to the head of expenditure of the accused instead of Rs.1,09,890/-.
16.17. Expenditure at Sl.No.38: iv) According to the prosecution the accused has purchased NSC to the tune of Rs.81,000/- during 1983 to 2003-04 and hence, he has incurred expenditure of Rs.81,000/-. The evidence of PW8 is that at page No.114 Sl.No.38 of Final Report as per Ex.P74 he has shown NSC certificates worth Rs.81,000/- and given explanation as per page No.76 of the Final Report. According to Investigating Officer he has considered a sum of Rs.81,000/- as expenditure of the accused.
16.18. The counsel for the accused has placed reliance on Ex.P18 at page No.111. As per this declaration, during the financial year ending 31.03.2004, the accused has purchased NSC of 91 Spl.CC 390/2015 Rs.2,300/-. It is his submission that the Investigating Officer mistakenly shown the amount as Rs.23,000/- instead of Rs.2,300/-. The evidence of PW8 would show that in Assets and Liabilities Statement ending 31.03.2004 at Sl.No.2 accused has shown purchase of NSC during the year at Rs.2,300/-. It is the categorical admission of PW8 that instead of showing the said amount as Rs.2,300/- mistakenly he has shown Rs.23,000/- in page No.101 of Final Report as per Ex.P74.
16.19. In this case, during the course of investigation the accused has submitted his explanation as per Ex.P56. In Ex.P56 Statement 15-B at page No.55 the accused has declared movable assets acquired by him from 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010. The amount shown as purchase value is calculated and the same amounts to Rs.60,050/-. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the actual value of NSC purchased by the accused during the check period was only Rs.60,300/-. Therefore, it is just and necessary to consider expenditure at Sl.No.38 at Rs.60,300/- instead of Rs.81,000/- as expenditure of the accused. Accordingly, it is held that accused has spent Rs.60,300/- for the purchase of NSCs.
16.20. Expenditure at Sl.No.39 v) It is the contention of the prosecution that in respect of LIC policy No.61017315, the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the prosecution, this loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was considered as income of the accused. It is contended by the prosecution that accused has repaid 92 Spl.CC 390/2015 loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest of Rs.3,24,765/-, totally amounting to Rs.5,24,765/-. In order to substantiate this fact, the prosecution has placed reliance on 2 receipt numbers 1161901, 1166744 as per page No.177 and 178 of File No.2. As per the information available in page No.181 of File No.2, G.C.Anil Kumar accused herein had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from LIC Housing Finance Limited. As per the receipt at page No.177 and 178, a sum of Rs.3,715 and Rs.1,26,000/- was paid to LIC Housing Finance Limited.
16.21. The evidence of PW8 would show that there is no document to show that accused has repaid loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest of Rs.3,24,765/-. In fact, the accused himself has submitted his explanation as per Volume No.4 at Ex.P56. A perusal of Ex.P56 at page No.18 would clearly indicate that the wife of the accused Smt.Kusuma had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from LIC Housing Finance Limited. This explanation as provided under explanation attached to Section 13 of the P.C.Act would clearly establish that the wife of the accused has not only repaid principal loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- but also has paid interest of Rs.3,24,765/-. Therefore, any amount of argument contrary to the explanation offered at the earliest point of time is of no avail. Hence, the evidence of PW8 that there is no document to show that the accused has repaid loan of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at Rs.3,24,765/- shall not come to the aid of the accused to seek for exclusion of Rs.5,24,765/- from the head of expenditure of the accused. In the 93 Spl.CC 390/2015 result, it is held that the accused has spent a sum of Rs.5,24,765/- towards loan borrowed from LIC House Finance Pvt Limited. Accordingly, this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
16.22. Expenditure at Sl.No.45 vi) It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has incurred expenditure of Rs.61,960/- in respect of Membership of the Century Club. But, the accused has denied this expenditure. In the present case, in order to substantiate this aspect of the matter, at trial, M.S.Giridhar is examined as PW5. This PW5 was Honorary President of Century Club, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru during 2010-11. According to him, at the instance of police at Lokayukta he has issued documents as per Ex.P13. The genuineness of Ex.P13 is not denied by the accused. According to PW5, accused has spent a sum of Rs.33,460/- and Rs.16,000/- as a member of Century Club, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru.
16.23. Further, the prosecution has examined one U.B.Bhat, President of Century Club, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru during 2011-12 as PW6. According to this witness, accused has paid Rs.6000/- towards entrance fee and Rs.12,500/- towards permanent membership application and accused has spent Rs.33,460/- over entertainment. This witness has deposed that in response to the letters of Lokayukta police he has issued the documents as per Ex.P35. The evidence of PW6 is in accordance with documentary evidence furnished by him to the Investigating Officer. Further, the evidence of this witness would 94 Spl.CC 390/2015 show that based on the documents that were available at Century Club, he has deposed facts and figures before this Court. Hence, to disbelieve his evidence there are no reasons. Further, the fact that the accused was the member of Century Club is not in dispute.
16.24. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that as per the evidence of PW5 and PW6, the accused has paid only Rs.11,000/-, however, Investigating Officer has surprisingly considered a sum of Rs.61,690/- as his expenditure. But, in the present case concept of exclusion of oral evidence by way of documentary evidence comes into play. The statement available in Ex.P13 at page No.192 to 198 from January, 2006 to November, 2010 would show that net debit was Rs.33,460/-. Further, the document available as per Ex.P35 would clearly indicate that G.C.Anil Kumar has paid entrance fee of Rs.2000/-, caution deposit fee of Rs.5000/- each and renewal fee of Rs.2,000/- each. Therefore, any amount of evidence elicited from the mouth of PW5 and PW6 which is contrary to the undisputed documents is of no avail. As per Ex.P35 accused has paid total sum of Rs.16,000/- in addition to a sum of Rs.33,460/-. Further, as per page No.191 of Ex.P13 accused has paid Rs.12,500/- for Permanent Membership of the Club. Therefore, above amount of Rs.16,000/-, Rs.33,460/- and Rs.12,500/- totally amounting to Rs.61,960/- shall have to be considered as expenditure of the accused. Thus, it is held that the Investigating Officer is justified in considering a sum of Rs.61,960/- as expenditure of the accused.
95 Spl.CC 390/2015 16.25. Expenditure at Sl.No.47 vii) Another disputed amount under the head of expenditure is house maintenance charges. The Investigating Officer has shown a sum of Rs.10,18,184/- as the house maintenance expenditure. In page No.80, Sl.No.48 of Ex.P74 Final Report, the prosecution has given explanation for showing the domestic expenditure of the accused and his family during the check period as Rs.10,18,184/-. As per the said explanation, the Investigating officer has secured a Report in the form of statistical information from the Joint Director of Statistics Wing of Karnataka Lokayukta and on the basis of which, domestic expenditure of the accused was considered as Rs.10,18,184/-.
16.26. In order to establish the fact that the domestic expenditure of the accused during the check period was Rs.10,18,184/- said Joint Director is examined as PW7. It is his definite evidence that he was directed by Lokayukta Police to assist them to prepare the invisible expenditure of the family of the accused. Though, PW7 was working in the Statistical Wing of Lokayukta nothing was elicited from his mouth to show that only to help the prosecution he has given a false Report.
16.27. According to this witness, Investigating Officer has furnished information and accordingly he has calculated the total invisible expenditure of the accused and his family at Rs.10,18,184/- and he has given Work Sheet and Report pertaining to the calculation as per Ex.P36.
96 Spl.CC 390/2015 16.28. As per Ex.P36, PW7 has calculated total invisible and non verifiable expenditure of the accused and his family members for the check period for the house hold food and non food items at Rs.10,18,184/-. The evidence of PW7 is inconsonance with the Report as per Ex.P36. It is not at all the contention of the accused that the contents of Ex.P36 does not depict true picture of his domestic expenditure. Similarly, it is also not the contention of the accused that Ex.P36 was issued at the instance of the prosecution. The evidence of PW7 in cross examination would show that based on Sample Survey of Income and Expenditure conducted by the Government of Karnataka during 2009, he has calculated the domestic expenditure of the accused. This evidence of PW7 is not at all challenged by the accused. Therefore, to disbelieve or to discard the testimony of PW7 there are no reasons.
16.29. In fact, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that according to PW7, Ex.P36 is an estimate and not based on actual figures and hence there is exaggeration in showing a sum of Rs.10,18,184/- as domestic expenditure of the accused. However, to show that the domestic expenses of the accused were less than Rs.10,18,184/-, absolutely, there is no evidence or basis. Merely on the ground that the accused has denied the estimation made by PW7, it itself is not sufficient to dislodge the contents of Ex.P36.
16.30. It is settled proposition of law that 33% of the income can be considered as expenditure. In this case, it is proved that the 97 Spl.CC 390/2015 income of the accused during the check period was Rs.89,95,458/-. If 33% of the same is taken into consideration, the amount shown by PW7 in Ex.P36 is very meager. It is very relevant to note that the expenditure of the family always depends upon the number of persons in the family and the standard of living and cost of living of members of the family.
16.31. In this case, the Investigating Officer being PW8 has reiterated that based on Ex.P36 Report of the Joint Director he has quantified the domestic expenditure of the accused at Rs.10,18,184/-. No doubt, the evidence of this witness to show that while assessing the value of movables found in the house at the time of raid he has considered a sum of Rs.13,150/- towards cable TV connection expenses, Rs.25,400/- towards wage of housemaid and Rs.2,16,150/- as value of household articles consisting of slippers, electrical items, clothings and bath room items as expenditure of the accused. However, suggestion that there is duplication of a sum of Rs.42,300/- and Rs.25,400/- in Ex.P36 is denied. The learned counsel for the accused has contended that while assessing expenditure of the accused, the Investigating Officer has taken into consideration of Rs.32,665/- towards utilisation of gas to the house of the accused, Rs.13,250/- towards cable TV connection and Rs.25,400/- expenditure incurred towards the service of housemaid and therefore the above amounts shall be deducted from domestic expenditure of the accused and if not the same will amount to duplication. It is very relevant to note that Ex.P36 is an estimate and not based on actual 98 Spl.CC 390/2015 figures. Further, PW7 did not consider item wise expenditure of the accused. Therefore, the above referred amount cannot be deducted from total domestic expenditure of Rs.10,18,184/-. Further, check period consists of 341 months and hence for food items itself a family consisting of 4 members may require more than Rs.10,18,184/-. This observation is made because as per the explanation submitted by the accused, he did not receive any food items from his father's house. Therefore, it is clear that throughout, the accused has purchased food items from the market.
16.32. Admittedly, the family of the accused was consisting of himself, his wife Smt.Kusuma and two sons by name A Thippesh and Yashorajath. Therefore, the family of the accused was consisting of four members and the check period was 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010, which consists of 341 months. At the rate of Rs.10,18,184/- for the check period and for 341 months, per month domestic expenditure would be Rs.2,985/-. Admittedly, during the check period for considerable period accused and his family members were residing in District places. Therefore, a family consisting of four members do require more than Rs.2985/- per month. Hence, one cannot say that domestic expenditure shown as Rs.10,18,184/- is unscientific, unreasonable or irrational. More over, when the said authority discharged its official function as an Expert in the field as per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, Court has to presume the correctness of the Report at Ex.P36 unless the contrary is proved. In the present case, contrary has not been proved by the accused by way of offering 99 Spl.CC 390/2015 satisfactory explanation. Therefore, presumption contemplated under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is drawn and accordingly, Ex.P36 Report is presumed as genuine. Under these circumstances, to accept the contention of the accused that the domestic expenditure of his family was much less than what is stated in Ex.P36, there are no reasons. On the contrary, this Court is of the opinion that the Investigating Officer has rightly considered a sum of Rs.10,18,184/- as domestic expenditure of the accused by placing the reliance on Ex.P36.
16.33. Hence, for the reasons and discussions made herein above, the following are the expenditures incurred by the accused during the check period:
Sl. Expenditure Amount
No. (in Rs.)
The expenditure towards Registration and -
Stamp duty in respect of purchase of house
1 No.31, Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur in the
name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused
Tax paid to the said house 10,601.00
2 The expenditure towards registration and 2,363.00
stamp duty at the time of purchase of house-
site No.32, Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused Commission amount paid to Real Estate Agent 20,000.00 at the time of sale of the property 100 Spl.CC 390/2015 3 The expenditure towards registration and 75,669.00 stamp duty at the time of purchase of site No.12, Muddenahlli village, Chitradurga District in the name of the accused.
4 The expenditure towards the rent paid by the 7,85,092.00 accused from the year 1982 to 2010.
5 The expenditure paid by the accused to the 2,900.00 owner of the house during the tenancy period 6 The expenditure towards electricity 97,644.00 consumption charges during the year 1982 to 2010 7 The expenditure incurred towards the 32,665.00 utilisation of gas to the house of the accused 8 Expenditure incurred by the accused for cable 13,250.00 TV 9 Expenditure incurred towards the service of 25,400.00 housemaid 10 The expenditure towards education of 2,27,687.00 Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 11 The expenditure towards education of 3,17,998.00 Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 12 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 75.00 Account No.54024595839, State Bank of Mysore, Vinayakanagara Extension, B.H. Road, Tumkur.
13 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 378.00 Account No.282810123791, Canara Bank, BDA Campus, Sankey Road, K.P.West, Bengaluru 101 Spl.CC 390/2015 14 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 444.00 Account No.0885202036535, Canara Bank, Yadiyur branch, Kanakapura Road, Jayanagara 7th Block, Bengaluru 15 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. 154.00 Account No.2513101010722, Canara Bank, Kamakya Complex, 100 feet road, rd Banashankari 3 Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of wife of the accused 16 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. Account No.20022283711, State Bank of 161.00 India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 17 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. Account No.00411000223174, H.D.F.C Bank, 1,705.00 3rd Main Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru standing in the name of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of the accused 18 The expenditure incurred in respect of S.B. Account No.30005299499, State Bank of 1,982.00 India, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 19 The expenditure towards the rent in respect of 2,900.00 Locker No.620, Canara Bank, Banashankari 3rd stage, Bengaluru standing in the name of wife of the accused 20 The expenditure towards purchase of Maruthi 2,42,119.00 800 car No.KA 13 N 524 in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused Life Tax and registration fee 10,100.00 amount paid for obtaining fancy number 1,000.00 Purchase of tyre 5,000.00 Maintenance of vehicle and for diesel 1,25,000.00 102 Spl.CC 390/2015 21 The expenditure towards purchase of Maruthi Swift car No.KA 16 N 524 in the name of Sri.G.Chennaiah, father of the accused and also for obtaining fancy number
--
Maintenance charge repair charges for diesel 22 Advance amount paid for purchase of Honda 1,000.00 Unicorn Dazzler 23 The expenditure towards purchase of Honda 45,243.00 Dio bearing No.KA 05 AR 5033 24 The expenditure towards purchase and 31,000.00 maintenance of two wheeler vehicle purchased in the year 1989 25 The expenditure towards purchase of Nokio E 9,000.00 63 in the name of Sri.A.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 26 The expenditure towards premium amount in 1,00,143.00 respect of LIC Policy No.620237267 27 The expenditure towards premium amount in 67,168.00 respect of LIC Policy No.620387796 28 The expenditure towards premium amount in 85,470/-
respect of LIC Policy No.622648405 in the name of Sri.Yashorajath, son of the accused 29 The expenditure towards premium amount in 59,130.00 respect of LIC Policy No.611622495 30 The expenditure towards premium amount in 68,880.00 respect of LIC Policy No.620390137 in the name of Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 31 The expenditure towards premium amount in 21,000.00 respect of LIC Policy No.625671458 103 Spl.CC 390/2015 32 The expenditure towards premium amount in 51,000.00 respect of LIC Policy No.720190999 33 The expenditure towards premium amount in 18,401.00 respect of LIC Policy No.629348064 34 The expenditure towards premium amount in 42,872.00 respect of LIC Policy No.622179677 35 The expenditure towards premium amount in 7,436.00 respect of LIC Policy No.620230132 36 The expenditure towards premium amount in 33,800.00 respect of LIC Policy No.620236340 37 Amount deposited in the post office 1,20,000.00 38 Expenditure towards purchase of NSC 60,300/- 39 Expenditure incurred towards repayment of 5,24,765.00 loan availed on the LIC policy No.61017315 40 Expenditure incurred towards repayment of 14,984.00 loan availed on the LIC policy No.620337267 41 Expenditure towards purchase of ULIP Policy 50,000.00 351001760 42 Expenditure towards repayment of loan of 4,10,600.00 Rs.4,07,000/- availed by the accused from the private persons Expenditure towards payment of tax to the 1,49,525.00 Income Tax Department for the year 2009-10 43 Expenditure towards payment of tax to the 3,06,000.00 Income Tax Department for the year 2009-10 by Smt.B.Kusuma, wife of the accused 44 Expenditure towards the membership at 5,000.00 Country Club 45 Expenditure towards the membership at 61,960.00 Century Club and other expenditure 104 Spl.CC 390/2015 46 Expenditure for obtaining the passport in the 1,600.00 name of the family members of accused 47 Expenditure towards the family expenses by 10,18,184.00 the accused and his family members 48 Expenditure towards the celebration of 1,900.00 birthday party of Sri.A.Thippesh, son of accused 49 Expenditure towards the celebration of 3,650.00 birthday party of Sri.Vikas @ A.K.Yashorajath, son of the accused 50 Expenditure towards house warming 6,000.00 ceremony in respect of house of the accused Shivalingeswara Nilaya, T.P.Kailasam Road, Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur 51 Expenditure towards the medical treatment in 22,905.00 different hospitals by the accused 52 Expenditure towards the purchase of SBBL-12 2,620.00 Bore gun 53 Expenditure towrds purchase of Classic Set 41,550.00 purchased from the shop AMC Cookwear (India) Ltd., Yalahanka 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 54 Expenditure towards purchase of Penta Soft 49,510.00 System 55 Expenditure towards purchase of furnitures 17,007.00 from Navakethan Furniture Systems Pvt Ltd 56 Expenditure towards purchase of articles from 2,021.00 Saravana Enterprises 57 Expenditure towards purchase of materials 1,265.00 from Ranjith Trading 58 Expenditure towards purchase of VCD player 36,000.00 during the year 2008-09 59 Expenditure towards purchase of Videocon 22,400.00 21" C.T.V 105 Spl.CC 390/2015 60 Expenditure towards purchase of V.C.R in the 20,000.00 year 1989 61 Expenditure towards purchase of colour TV in 10,000.00 the year 1988 62 Hand loan advanced to Sri.G.C.Manohar 6,00,000.00 63 Hand loan advance to Sri.G.C.Manohar by the 15,00,000.00 wife of the accused Smt.B.Kusuma 64 Expenditure towards the registration charges 2,000.00 in respect of Site at Mysore MUDA 65 Amount paid to S.S.N.S. Trust 95,000.00 Total 78,00,576.00 16.34. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the expenditure of the accused during the check period was Rs.78,00,576/-.
16.35. In view of the above discussion, the findings of this Court regarding the income, asset, expenditure and value of disproportionate assets are as follows:
I. Income of the accused accrued during Rs.90,05,408/-
the check period
II. Assets of the accused during the check
period Rs.31,88,151/-
III. Expenses of the accused during the Rs.78,00,576/-
check period
IV. Total of the assets and expenditure is Rs.1,09,88,727/-
V. Value of disproportionate assets found Rs.19,83,319/-
with the accused is
VI. Percentage of disproportionate of 22.02%
assets is
106 Spl.CC 390/2015
16.36. In the decision reported in LAWS (MAD) 2007-12- 547 R.Kannappan & K.Chandrashekaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, it is held that, " similarly, after finding out that there is any disproportionate wealth in the hands of the public servant beyond his known source of income, the accused must be given an opportunity to explain the same. Failure to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the same is fatal to the case of prosecution". Here, in the present case as the Investigating Officer called upon the accused to furnish his explanation, he has furnished the same as per Volume No.3 and 4 marked at Ex.P56.
16.37. In this case, as required under law, the Investigating Officer has given opportunity to the accused to explain the source of disproportionate assets. The accused has offered the explanation as per Volume No.3 and 4. However, for the reasons assigned herein-
above, the explanation of the accused to the extent referred above is not worthy to accept. In addition to it, the prosecution by way of cogent and convincing evidence proved that the accused was in possession of assets worth Rs.19,83,319/- i.e., 22.02% disproportionate to his known source of income of Rs.90,05,408/-, but not the extent it alleged. Thus, considering the above proved facts and circumstances my thoughtful view is that guilt of the accused regarding criminal misconduct so as to convict him for the offences punishable U/sec. 13(1)(e) r/w sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is proved by the prosecution beyond 107 Spl.CC 390/2015 reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
17. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on the point No.1 in the affirmative, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The accused is found guilty.
Acting under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond executed by the accused and that of his surety stands discharged.
Call on for hearing on quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused/offender.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer on computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 12th day of November, 2021).
Sd/-12.11.2021 (GOPALAKRISHNA RAI.T) LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru.
(CCH-79).
C/c LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru.
(CCH 77) 108 Spl.CC 390/2015 ORDER WITH REGARD TO IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE TO THE OFFENDER
1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri.C.G.S Advocate appearing on behalf of the Offender on sentence to be imposed to the Offender.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that offender being a public servant has committed serious offence and was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account, he was involved in corrupt practices and therefore maximum punishment is to be imposed. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the property of the offender may be attached to the extent of disproportionate assets.
3. Per contra, Sri.C.G.S, advocate appearing on behalf of the Offender has submitted that the Offender has already retired from service and suffering from age old ailments and he has to look after huge family and in view of above mitigating circumstances leniency may be shown and minimum imprisonment may be imposed. Further, it is submitted that the Court is required to impose sentence as prescribed in the unamended P.C.Act as the incident has taken place prior to the amendment.
4. By virtue of the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 2317 in the case between N.Bhagavan Pillai V/s State of Kerala and in 2006 AIR SCW 5267 in the case between The State V/s Prathiban, 109 Spl.CC 390/2015 the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act do not apply to the offence punishable under the penal provisions of the P.C.Act 1988.
5. It is rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Offender that since the charge leveled against the Offender pertains to the incident prior to the introduction of amendment to the P.C.Act in the year 2018, the Court has to award sentence as per the punishment prescribed under the old Act. The present case is the outcome of an incident that had taken place on 22.09.2010 in respect of check period commencing from 29.03.1982 to 22.09.2010. Therefore, undoubtedly, the penal provision of unamended P.C.Act is applicable. Indisputedly, the alleged criminal misconduct described under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act is punishable under section 13(2). As per the unamended provisions of the P.C.Act, the imprisonment prescribed for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C.Act was imprisonment for One year but may extend to Seven years and shall also liable to fine.
6. In the present case, the prosecution has proved that the Offender possessed properties and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.19,83,319/- disproportionate to his known source of income and for which he could not satisfactorily account for such excess possession of properties and resources. At this juncture, it is relevant to place reliance on Section 16 of the P.C.Act. As per this provision of law while imposing sentence of fine for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, the Court shall take into 110 Spl.CC 390/2015 consideration the amount or the value of the property for which the offender is unable to account satisfactorily. It is proved by the Prosecution that the offender has found in possession of pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.19,83,319/-. Therefore, in view of mandate of law, it is just and necessary to impose fine of Rs.19,83,319/-.
7. In 2003 (4) Crimes 6 (SC) in the case between State of M.P V/s Ghanashyam Singh, the Apex Court has held that the Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime. Further, in 2004 (4) Crimes 175 (SC) in the case between Aduram V/s Mukna and others it was held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would be more harmful to justice delivery system rather than upholding its dignity and majesty. In addition to the above proposition of law, in the case between Nirajan Hemachal Sashittal V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 (4) SCC 642, the Apex Court has made the following observation; it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that, corruption is not judged by the degree, for corruption mother's disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the consciousness, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic growth of the Country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of the governance.
8. Thus, keeping the above proposition of law, and also looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, seriousness of 111 Spl.CC 390/2015 the offence and its consequences on the society, this Court is of the opinion that the Offender shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.19,83,319/- (Rupees Nineteen lakh, eighty three thousand, three hundred nineteen only) for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for One year. In view of this finding, this Court has not resorted for the invocation of section 452 of Cr.P.C and to confiscate ill-gotten properties. If this is done, it will sub-serve justice and intent of the provisions of the P.C.Act 1988. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The Offender is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Two years and to pay fine of Rs.19,83,319/- (Rupees Nineteen lakh, eighty three thousand, three hundred and nineteen only) for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one year.
The Offender was not in custody either during the crime stage or during the trial and therefore question of extending the benefit under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C., does not arise.
The office is hereby directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Head of the Department of Offender as provided under Rule 103 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.
112 Spl.CC 390/2015 Furnish free copy of this judgment to the Offender forthwith.
Sd/-12.11.2021 (GOPALAKRISHNA RAI.T) LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru.
(CCH-79).
C/c LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru.
(CCH 77) ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.No. Name 1 H.S.Manjunath 2 Deepak K.N 3 S.C.Puttaswamy 4 B.Sudhakar 5 M.S.Giridhar 6 V.B.Bhat 7 Jayadeva Prakash 8 N.G.Shivashankar 9 Mruthyunjaiah 10 Prakash Chand LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FO PROSECUTION:
Exhibit Date of the
Description of the document
No. document
1 Source Report 15.12.2010
113 Spl.CC 390/2015
1a Signature of PW1 15.12.2010
2 Authorisation letter 22.12.2010
3 FIR 22.12.2010
3(a) Signature of PW9 22.12.2010
4 Mahazar (Certified copy) 22.09.2010
5 Search Warrant 21.09.2010
5(a) Signature of PW2 21.09.2010
6 PF No.57/2010 22.09.2010
7 Volume No.5 entire file 02.11.2011
8 House Valuation Report Nil
9 Notice to accused for furnishing 14.09.2011
schedules
9(a) Signature of PW1 14.09.2011
10 Copy of sale deed 02.09.2011
11 Letter dated 04.10.2010 04.10.2010
Sale deed copy, tax paid receipt,
12 20.11.2010
possession certificate
13 Information received from Secretary 22.11.2010
13(a) Signature of PW5 22.11.2010
14 Letter from Revenue Officer 26.11.2010
15 Details of purchase of swift car 29.11.2010
16 Letter from Branch Manager, SBI 14.01.2011
17 Letter from Deputy Commissioner 20.02.2011
Certified copies of Annual Property 25.06.2011
18
Returns of the accused
19 Education expenditure of sons of accused 01.07.2011
Information from JSS Public School,
20 08.07.2011
Mysore
Information from Chethana Vidya
21 09.07.2011
Mandir
114 Spl.CC 390/2015
Information from RNS Institute of
22 04.05.2011
Technology
Details of expenditure incurred for
23 09.07.2011
education of son of accused
24 Salary details of accused 12.07.2011
25 Information from St.Mary's School 09.07.2011
Details of expenditure incurred for
26 22.07.2011
education of son of accused
Details of expenditure incurred for
27 28.07.2011
education of son of accused
28 Salary details of the accused 28.07.2011
Details of expenditure incurred for
29 03.08.2011
education of son of the accused
30 Salary details of accused 30.09.2011
Letter from Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM furnishing details of 31 20.11.2010 expenditure incurred for getting electricity connection 8 diaries, note book, a Project Report of 02.02.2013 32 S.S.N.S. Trust and a sheet of paper 33 Photographs 15.11.2011 34 Letter and Valuation Report 22.08.2012 34(a) Signature of PW4 22.08.2012 34(b) Signature of PW9 22.08.2012 35 Letter/ details of statement of accounts of 20.01.2012 the accused (Country club) 35(a) Signature of PW6 20.01.2012 36 Family Expenditure Report 05.05.2012 36(a) Signature of PW7 05.05.2012 37 Written Order (Lokayukta) 16.11.2011 115 Spl.CC 390/2015 38 Letter 15.12.2011 38(a) Signature of PW8 15.12.2011 39 Copy of the mahazar 15.12.2011 40 Report 15.12.2011 41 Salary particulars of accused 30.01.2012 42 B-Register Extract & documents 09.02.2012 43 UTI mutual fund documents -
43(a) UTI mutual fund policy 11.03.2010
44 Income Tax returns of the accused 09.02.2012
Medical expenses of accused and his
45 18.02.2012
family members
46 Documents from Shankar Nethralaya 25.02.2012
47 Pay particulars of accused 08.03.2012
48 Documents from Shriya Opticals 27.02.2012
Medical expenses of accused and his
49 24.02.2012
family members
Copies of Annual assets and liabilities
50 13.03.2012
statement of accused
51 Post Office documents 20.03.2012
52 HDFC bank accounts statement 21.02.2012
52(a) Relevant portion 30.09.2010
53 Particulars of LIC policies 05.04.2012
54 LIC documents 28.03.2012
55 LIC documents from Chitradurga 20.04.2012
56 Family expenditure of accused Nil
Letter from MUDA Mysore and
57 01.06.2012
documents
11.06.2012
58 Documents from PES college
116 Spl.CC 390/2015
Information and documents in respect of
59 06.03.2012
PUC education of children of accused
60 Documents in respect of Gas 04.07.2012
Expenses incurred by the accused and his
61 family members towards Country Club, 24.03.2011
Bengaluru
Statement Nos 1 to 16B submitted by the
62 28.02.2013
accused to the Government.
63 Silicon Motors documents 15.05.2013
Letter and documents from Karnataka
64 11.05.2013
Bank Limited
65 Particulars of LIC policy 14.05.2013
Particulars of bank account of the
66 16.05.2013
accused
67 Letter and LIC documents. 21.05.2013
68 LIC policies of the accused 23.05.2013
69 Documents from Honda Unicorn 21.05.2013
70 Documents from Passport office 24.05.2013
71 Documents from RTO Chitradurga 17.06.2013
72 Documents from Sagar Automobiles 27.06.2013
73 Sanction Order 27.10.2014
74 Final Report 17.07.2014
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.No. Name
1 G.C.Manohar
117 Spl.CC 390/2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Exhibit Description of the document Date of the
No. document
1 Certified copy of FIR 21.09.2010
2 Letter dtd 15.12.2011 15.12.2011
3 Letter and documents from Canara 10.02.2012
Bank
4 Statement of account 03.01.2011
5 Copy of statement of assets and 25.06.2011
liabilities
6 Statement of accused 19.06.2007
6(a) Relevant entry 18.08.2006
7 Income Tax returns of wife of accused 28.10.2013
8 Income Tax returns of wife of accused 28.10.2013
9 Photocopy of the letter dtd 8.8.2012 08.08.2012
10 Death certificate of father of accused 19.08.2011
11 Attested copies of Form Nos 21, 20, 29.08.2008
31, 29 (consisting of six sheets)
12 'B' extract of the vehicle 14.10.2019
13 Certificate issued by Chartered 21.01.2020
Accountant with copies of IT returns
PIL Account and balance sheet
Sd/-12.11.2021
(GOPALAKRISHNA RAI.T)
LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru.
(CCH-79).
C/c LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru.
(CCH 77) 118 Spl.CC 390/2015