Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs Jayarama 28 Yrs on 19 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2015
PRESENT :SRI VENKATARAMAN BHAT
B.Sc.,LL.B.(Spl),
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.24108/2007
Date of offence : 29-5-2006
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Halasurugate PS
Accused : Jayarama 28 Yrs
S/o Narayanappa
R/at Dodda Kammanahalli,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore South Taluk.
Offence : U/s.419, 420 of IPC
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 19-8-2015.
** ** **
2 CC.No.24108/2007
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Police Sub Inspector of Halasurugate
Police Station submitted charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable U/s.419,
420 of IPC.
2. One Nagesh S/o Madappa is the accused
No.4 in Cr.No.252/2005 (U/s.143, 146, 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, 427, 307 r/w 149 of IPC) of
Bannerghatta police station. According to the
prosecution, Bannerghatta police had arrested
accused Nos.2 and 3 of this case on 29-5-2006
and produced before CJM., Bangalore Rural
District. When accused Nos.2 and 3 were produced
before CJM, Bangalore Rural District, accused
No.4 by name Nagesh had surrendered before CJM
Court through his advocate. Accused Nos.2 to 4
were remanded to JC till 12-6-2006 by then CJM,
Bangalore Rural District. Thereafter a
requisition was sent to CJM Court to the effect
3 CC.No.24108/2007
that accused No.4 by name Nagesh S/o Madappa did
not surrender before the court on the other hand
one Jayarama s/o Narayanappa personated as
Nagesh s/o Madappa and surrendered before the
court. A preliminary inquiry was held on this
aspect. On the basis of preliminary enquiry it
was found that this accused impersonated accused
No.4 by name Nagesh S/o Madappa in
Cr.No.252/2005 of Bannerghatta police station.
On the basis of this the then CJM., Bangalore
Rural District lodged a complaint before
Halasurugate police station. FIR has been
registered at Cr.No.221/2006 of Halasurugate
police station.
3. During the course of investigation this
accused was arrested and produced before the
court. Later he was enlarged on bail.
4. After submission of charge sheet
cognizance of the offences have been taken.
4 CC.No.24108/2007
Copy of the charge sheet was furnished as
contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Charge was
framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. CWs.1 to 11 witnesses have been cited in
the charge sheet. During the course of the trial
PWs.1 to 10 were examined and EX.P--1 to Ex.P-15
got marked.
6. After closing the prosecution side
evidence, statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded. Accused did not adduce any defence
evidence.
7. Heard argument of Sr.APP and learned
counsel for the accused.
8. It discloses that one Sri K.S. Biligi
was working as CJM., Court, Bangalore Rural
District, at the relevant pint of time. He was
examined as PW.3. PW.3 is a material witness in
5 CC.No.24108/2007
the case on hand. PW.3 has deposed regarding
surrender of one Nagesh who was accused No.4 in
Cr.No.252/2005 of Bannerghatta police station
through his advocate on 29-5-2006. According to
PW.3, one Krisha Das and Nagesh advocates filed
vakalath and surrender application on behalf of
accused No.4 by name Nagesh. PW.3 has further
deposed that since alleged offence was under
Sec.307 of IPC, accused Nos.4 was remanded to JC
till 12-6-2006. According to PW.3 a requisition
has been received on 6-6-2006 from Banerghatta
police station to the effect that real accused
No.4 Nagesh S/o Madappa did not surrender before
the court on 29-5-2006. On the other hand one
Jayarama S/o Narayanappa surrendered before the
court as Nagesh. That report was supported with
documents. According to PW.3 a preliminary
inquiry was held and the surrendered accused
brought before the court and inquiry was held.
PW.3 has further deposed to the effect that on
6 CC.No.24108/2007
inquiry being conducted it disclosed that one
Jayarama S/o Narayanappa impersonated as
accused No.4 Nagesh s/o Madappa in
Cr.No.252/2005 of Bannerghatta police station.
According to PW.3 advocates Sri Krishna Das and
Nagesh filed a memo to the effect that as per
the instructions of accused No.3 they believed
that surrendered accused was Nagesh S/o
Madappa. PW.3 filed a complaint before
Halasurugate police station as per Ex.P-1. PW.3
was subjected into cross examination by
Advocate for the accused.
9. One K. Somashekar Rao was examined as
PW.4. According to PW.4 they were waiting out
side the central prison. According to PW.4 this
accused came out of Central Prison at about 1-
30PM and when inquiry was conducted he disclosed
his name as Jayaram s/O Narayanappa. This
accused was produced before IO.
7 CC.No.24108/2007
10. PW.5 was examined as PW.7. PW.7 was
working as ASI, Bannerghatta police station at
the relevant point of time. PW.7 has deposed to
the effect that accused Nos.2 and 3 by names
Ananth and Jagadish were arrested on 29-5-2006
in connection with Cr.No.252/2005 of
Bannerghatta police station. PW.7 has further
deposed that on the same day one Nagesh
surrendered before the court. But according to
PW.7 he was not accused No.4 by name Nagesh. On
the other hand one Jayarama S/o Narayanappa
surrendered before the court as Nagesh S/o
Madappa. PW.7 has deposed regarding the enquiry
conducted by him and submission of the report to
CJM., Bangalore Rural District.
11. PW.10 was working as Police Constable
in Bannerghatta police station at the relevant
point of time. PW.10 has deposed regarding
surrender of Jayarama S/o Narayanappa on 29-5-
8 CC.No.24108/2007
2006. According to PW.10 he escorted accused
Nos.2 tO 4 to Central Prison, Bangalore, since
they were remanded to JC till 12-6-2006.
According to PW.10 also one Jayarama S/o
Narayanappa surrendered before CJM Court,
instead of Nagesh S/o Madappa. Accused No.4
of Cr.No.252/2005 of Bannerghatta police station
by name Nagesh S/o Madappa was examined as PW.9.
PW.9 did not support the prosecution. PW.5 was
working as Bench Clerk, in CJM Court, Bangalore
Rural District on the date of incident. PW.5 has
deposed regarding surrender of one Jayarama S/o
Narayanappa before court on 29-5-2006. PW.8 was
working as PSI of Halasurugate police station.
PW.8 deposed regarding the investigation
conducted by him. PW.6 deposed regarding
submission of charge sheet against the accused.
12. Now the question for consideration is
whether prosecution is able to prove that this
9 CC.No.24108/2007
accused impersonated one Nagesh S/o Madappa who
was accused No.4 in Cr.No.252/2005 of
Bannerghatta police station. Next question is
whether prosecution further proves that this
accused impersonated Nagesh and surrendered
before CJM Court, Bangalore Rural District on
29-5-2006. Ex.P-1 is the complaint lodged by
CW.1. CW.1 is none other than the then CJM.,
Bangalore Rural District. According to the
complaint one Jayarama S/o Narayanppa aged about
28 years R/of Dodda Kammanahlli, impersonated
accused No.4 Nagesh S/o Madappa in the court
proceedings of Cr.No.252/2005 of Bannerghatta
police station. It can be noticed that on the
basis of complaint, FIR has been registered
U/s.419, 420 of IPC. PW.3 has deposed the same
fact in his oral evidence also. Ex.P-3 is the
photos of Jayarama and Nagesh. On the face of
the record it discloses that Jayarama is a
different person and Nagesh is a different
10 CC.No.24108/2007
person. Of course both are residents of Dodda
Kammanahalli Village. Ex.P-4 is the certified
copy of order sheet in Cr.No.252/2005 of
Bannerghatta police station. On the perusal of
the order sheet it discloses that accused No.4
surrendered before CJM Court, on 29-5-2006
through his advocate and he was remanded to JC
till 12-6-2006. It can be noticed that a
requisition was submitted by Bannerghatta police
on 6-6-2006 to the effect that surrendered
accused is not Nagesh, but he is Jayarama. It
can be noticed that SHO., Bannerghatta police
station was directed to produce identification
records of Jayarama and Nagesh. Accordingly
photos and other related documents were
produced. In the mean time Sri Krishna Das
advocate filed a memo to the effect that as per
the instructions of accused No.3 they believed
that surrendered accused is Nagesh S/o Madappa.
It is pertinent to note that on 13-6-2006 the
11 CC.No.24108/2007
real accused No.4 by name Nagesh S/o Madappa
surrendered before the court and he was remanded
to JC till 26-6-2006. When Jayarama and Nagesh
are two different persons, there is every reason
to believe that the surrendered accused on 29-5-
2006 is none other than one Jayarama S/o
Narayanappa. Of course it is the defence to the
effect that Jayarama is also being called in the
village as Nagesh. Learned advocate for the
accused submitted that in the village he is
being called as Jayarama @ Nagesh. He would
submit that due to pressure of the police he
surrendered before the court as Nagesh. There is
convincing evidence to show that this accused
and accused No.4 in Cr.No.252/2005 of
Bannerghatta police station are two different
persons. That being the position prosecution
proved that the name of surrendered accused on
29-5-2006 is One Jayaram S/o Narayanappa. But
this is not sufficient to convict the accused.
12 CC.No.24108/2007
As it was already stated according to PW.3
during the course of criminal proceedings this
accused impersonated as Nagesh S/o Madappa.
Charge sheet came to be filed U/s.419, 420 of
IPC. Sec.205 of IPC specifically deals with
false personation for the purpose of act or
proceeding in suit or criminal prosecution. It
is extracted as under:
"205. False personation for purpose of act or
proceeding in suit or prosecution-Whoever falsely
personates another, and in such assumed character
makes any admission or statement, or confesses
judgment, or cause any process to be issued or
becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any
suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
13 CC.No.24108/2007
As per Sec.195(1)(b)(i) "No court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely
Sec.193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in
relation to, any proceedings in any court except on the
compliant in writing of the that Court or by such
officer of the court as that court may authorise in
writing in this behalf or some other court to which
that court is subordinate". In the case on hand
there is material to show that alleged
offence/impersonation took place in a criminal
proceeding i.e., Cr.No.252/2005 of Bannerghatta
police station. Complaint is defined under
section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand
the then CJM., Bangalore Rural District lodged a
complaint before Halasurugate police station.
But complaint is required to be filed before
competent Magistrate court. Any complaint lodged
14 CC.No.24108/2007
before the police station is not come within the
purview of definition of complaint U/s.2(d) of
Cr.P.C. When Sec.205 of IPC deals with false
impersonation in a criminal proceeding, the then
CJM., Bangalore Rural District ought have filed
complaint before competent court. On the other
hand complaint lodged before concerned police
station is against provisions of Sec.195 of
Cr.P.C. As per section 195 of Cr.P.C no court
shall take cognizance of offence U/s.205 of IPC
except of on the written complaint by the court
or authorized officer. Appropriate section is
205 of IPC. Under these circumstances cognizance
taken on the charge sheet filed by Investigation
Officer is illegal and same is not curable
U/s.465 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-1-complaint does not
disclose any dishonest intention of the accused
so as to cheat the court. Necessary ingredients
of offence of Sec.420 of IPC are not covered
either by the evidence of prosecution nor
15 CC.No.24108/2007
complaint discloses the essential conditions of
offence of cheating. Under these circumstances
Sec.420 of IPC is not attracted. As far as
Sec.205 of IPC is concerned it is not the
essential condition that accused should with
dishonest intention committed the offence. The
only requirement is whoever falsely personates
another and in such assumed character does any
other act in any suit or criminal prosecution.
In my view Sec.205 of IPC is squarely applicable
to the case on hand. Once Sec.205 of IPC is
attracted there is bar to take cognizance of the
said offence except upon the complaint in
writing by that court or by any authorized
person. In the case on hand such a complaint was
not filed before competent Magistrate Court. On
the other hand complaint was filed before
Halasurugate police station. When Sec.205 of IPC
deals with commission of offence of false
personation for purpose of act or proceeding in
16 CC.No.24108/2007
suit or prosecution, there is no question of
applicability of Sec.419 of IPC. It can be
noticed that Sec.419 of IPC as well as 205 of
IPC is punishable with 3 years imprisonment.
When appropriate section is 205 of IPC, entire
proceedings are vitiated. Under these
circumstances though it is proved that accused
impersonated the person by name Nagesh S/o
Madappa, but he cannot be convicted. There is no
alternative except to acquit the accused.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.419, 420 of IPC.
Accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
17 CC.No.24108/2007The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 19th day of August 2015).
(VENKATARAMAN BHAT) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city.
Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 K.N. Narayanaswamy PW.2 Hanumantharao PW.3 Kallappa PW.4 K. somashekara Rao PW.5 Vishwanath PW.6 Rudresh PW.7 M. Chikkathimmaiah PW.8 Narasimhaiah PW.9 Nagesh PW.10 Appaji.
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Complaint
EX.P-2 FIR
Ex.P-3 Photo
Ex.P-4 Photo
18 CC.No.24108/2007
Ex.P-5 Surrender application
Ex.P-6 Vakalath
Ex.P-7 Memo
EX.P-8 Report
EX.P-9 Election ID
EX.P-10 Tax paid receipt EX.P-11 Report EX.P-12 Report EX.P-13 Affidavit EX.P-14 FIR EX.P-15 Compliant.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.19 CC.No.24108/2007
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.419, 420 of IPC.
Accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.20 CC.No.24108/2007 21 CC.No.24108/2007
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.