Bangalore District Court
Mahadevapuram P.S vs Parthasarathi And Otehrs on 8 April, 2026
KABC0D0001932011
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
TRAFFIC COURT-I AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Present : Smt. Neelam Nitin Rao
Judicial Magistrate First Class
Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru
DATED 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
C.C. No. 670/2011
Complainant : Mahadevapura PS
Bangalore
(Rep by: State by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused : 1. Parthasarathy
S/o. Venkataramaiah
Aged about 36 years
R/at: No.4-155, Main road,
Jonagiri, Tungali Mandalam
Kurnool District
Andrapradesh
(Rep by Adv. Sri. ANR)
2. Nagaraj Ramanjan @
Nagaraj @ Raju
S/o. Narappa
Aged about 30 years
R/at No. 5/194, 5th Cross
New Town, Anantapura
Andrapradesh
(Rep by Adv. Sri. SKN)
3. Venkatesh
S/o. Tangavelu
Aged about 36 years
R/at No. 105, H Block
2
C.C. No. 670/2011
Champion Leap, KGF
Kolar
(On bail)
4. Umesh
S/o. Chikkathimmegowda
Aged about 28 years
R/at No. 9/1, 1st Main
1st Cross, Behind Ganesha
Temple, Sheshadripura
Native: Keralasandra
Malagala Post
Kanakapura Tq
Ramanagara Dist
(Split up)
1. Date of commission of offence : 27.02.2009
2. Offence alleged : U/s.25 of the Antiquities
and Art Treasures Act
1972.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 10.12.2018
4. Date of Judgment : 08.04.2026
JUDGMENT
The PI of Mahadevapura PS has filed a charge sheet against accused nos. 1 to 4 in Cr No. 82/2009 for the alleged offence punishable under section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:
The accused nos. 1 to 4 had given valuable stones and one pot to the accused no. 2 without any license or permission from the Archaeological Department. The accused nos. 2 to 4 were in illegal possession of the same, with the intent to sell 3 C.C. No. 670/2011 them and make an illegal gain. On 27.02.2009 at 10.30 am, CW.1 received credible information that the accused nos. 2 to 4 were trying to sell these valuable ancient articles to the public without any license or permission from the Archaeological Department. The CW.1 conducted the raid, detained the accused nos. 2 to 4, and seized valuable stones and ancient articles. They reported the articles to the court under PF no. 23/2009. The accused numbers 1 to 4 have no permission or license to deal with these ancient articles and treasures. They thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Antiquities, Arts and Treasures Act, 1970.
3. After receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer registered the case and visited the spot, conducted a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Inquired and obtained statements of witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the IO has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Antiquities, Arts and Treasures Act, 1970.
4. After receipt of the Charge Sheet, this court has verified all the prosecution records and considering that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused, cognizance for the alleged offence punishable under section 25 of the Antiquities, Arts and Treasures Act, 1970 was taken. A criminal case was registered against the accused in a register no. III, and the process was issued against the accused.
5. The accused appeared through his counsel and availed bail. Prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC. As there are no grounds 4 C.C. No. 670/2011 to discharge the accused. The substance of the accusation was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, in the language best known to them. The accused pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. This case is split against accused no. 4, and the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6(a). After the completion of the prosecution's evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is recorded, read over, and explained to accused nos. 1 to 3. The accused specifically denied possession of all incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution's evidence. However, he did not choose to lead the defence evidence. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
7. Heard arguments canvassed by learned Sr APP and learned counsel for the accused. Meticulously perused the documents placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration; Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were in illegal possession of valuable stones and one pot, which are the ancient antiquities and treasures, and that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were trying to sell them without a license or permission from the Archaeological Department. Thereby, the accused nos. 1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
5C.C. No. 670/2011 Point No.2: What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per the foregoing
for the following reasons
REASONS
10. Points No.1: The facts of the instant case are already narrated supra. Hence, without repeating once again, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on record. In the instant case, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The prosecution shall establish that the seized articles are ancient antiquities and treasures and that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were selling them without a license or permission from the Archaeological Department.
11. Learned Senior APP argued that the articles are very valuable. It is proven from the records. To date, the accused have not proved the legal possession of these valuable articles. The articles were stolen, and for illegal gain, the accused nos. 2 to 4 were selling them. Hence, prayed for the conviction.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. Only official witnesses were examined. PW.1 has not tendered for cross-examination. They have made contrary statements. The search and seizure were not proved. Hence, prayed for the accused's acquittal.
6C.C. No. 670/2011
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made from both sides. Let me consider the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
14. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to 6. MO.1 to 15 were marked. CW.4, Sri. Manjunath was examined as PW.1. In his chief evidence, he stated that approximately 8 to 9 years ago, he signed one document. The seizure mahazar was marked as Ex.P.1, and his signature was marked as Ex.P.1(a). However, he stated the Police have not drawn any spot mahazar in his presence. Treating this witness as hostile, learned senior APP fully cross-examined him. However, he denied the suggestion that on 27.02.2009, the Police, in his presence, drew a seizure mahazar and seized the articles. Thereby, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure mahazar.
15. The prosecution examined CW.1, Sri. Mohammad Rafiq as PW.2. He was the then PI of the Mahadevapura PS. He received information that on 27.02.2009 at 9.30 a.m, when he was at a SHO station, in front of KR. At the railway station near the New Life Hotel, 3 unknown persons were selling valuable diamonds and colored stones. After visiting this information, he, along with CW. 5 to 9, went to the spot at 10.30 a.m. 3 persons kept the items in a bag. One person was holding a walking stick and trying to sell something. When he went near those persons, they tried to escape from the spot. When they caught hold of the accused, one person informed that his name was Nagaraju S/o. Narappa. When the PW.2 searched in person of that accused, he found an emerald stone of five corners. He also 7 C.C. No. 670/2011 found other emerald stones, diamonds, and other gems. They also detailed another person, Umesh, S/o. Chikka Thinme Gowda. From there, he seized a ruby necklace, three ruby stones, 21 diamond pearls, 36 stones and one Panchaloha pot. Another person's name is Venkatesh, S/o. Thangavelu. They found one walking stick in his possession, along with a saffron stone, an emerald stone, two emerald stones, eight saffron stones, and three green-coloured emerald stones. When the PW.2 inquired, they did not give any satisfactory answers. They seized these articles in the presence of CW.2 and 3 and prepared the mahazar from 11:00 a.m to 1.30 p.m. He reported these articles to the court in PF no. 23/2009. The mahazar was marked as Ex.P.1. He filed a report, marked as Ex.P.2, and a FIR was marked as Ex.P.3. The seized articles were also marked as MOs 1 to 15.
16. During cross-examination, he admits that on the seized MOs, there was no signature of the mahazar witnesses, and it bears only his signature. He has mentioned in SHD. He has not produced the SHD before the court. They went to the spot in their government jeep. 5 people accompanied him. When they left the station, it was 9.30 a.m. The incidental spot is 1 to 1.5 kilometres away. They reached within 10 minutes. When asked who the accused was selling to, he stated that at that time, there were no purchasers. They summoned the mahazar witnesses before he seized the articles. He has given notice to the Mahazar witnesses; however, he has not released them. On the spot, there was heavy traffic and a lot of public movement. He had no difficulty summoning the public as witnesses. He admits that he himself filed the report and 8 C.C. No. 670/2011 registered an FIR against the accused. He admits that he has not mentioned through whom he has sent the emerald stones for examination. He admits that, after investigation, he has filed the charge sheet in this case. Other suggestions he denied. Though the accused counsel recalled the witness for further cross-examination, as PW.2 was bedridden due to an accidental illness, he was not secured and was unable to depose further.
17. The prosecution has examined CW.8, Sri. Harshavardhan as PW.3. He is one of the raiding party. He deposed that on 27.02.2009 at 9.30 am, the CW.1 called him along with CW. 5, 6, 7 & 9 and informed him that near KR. At Puram Railway Station near New Light Hotel, 3 people were illegally selling valuable diamonds and stones. They went to the spot. They arrived at 10:30 am. When they saw the 3 unknown people trying to sell an item resembling a walking stick, they tried to detain them, but they escaped. They caught hold of them. They informed the name as Nagaraj. They detained certain stones similar to diamonds and rubies, as well as ancient artefacts. It appears that these items were stolen. Another person's name is Vinay, and he didn't remember the other person's name. They detained valuable stones and diamonds. Seized the red and another seized valuable stones, diamonds, a walking stick, and other items from these accused.
18. Treating this witness as partly hostile, learned Senior APP partly cross-examined him, and it was suggested that the valuable stones and diamonds were seized along with one Panchaloha pot. He admits these suggestions. During cross- examination by the defence side, he stated that the CW.1 9 C.C. No. 670/2011 informed him at 8.45 am. They reached the incidental spot at 10:00 a.m. 6 people accompanied CW.1. The incidental spot is 4 to 5 kilometres away. They took 15 minutes. He stated there was a public movement on the spot. However, no persons were there to purchase those items. They all detained the accused persons. The CW1 has given a notice to the Mahazar witnesses. He cannot certainly depose as to which items were seized from which person. Other suggestions he denied.
19. On careful perusal of the entire oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it could be seen that PW1 completely turned hostile to the prosecution case, though he stated that the police had obtained his signature; however, the purpose for which the signature was obtained is not forthcoming. He specifically denied drawing any seizure mahazar in his presence. The PW.2, the complainant who conducted the raid, received the information; he himself investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. Though he deposed the seizure mahazar, the necessary aspects of the investigations are not forthcoming from the evidence of this witness. PW.3 is a raiding party member. Though he stated the distance from the station to the spot and the timing are distinct, the defence argued that he made a contrary statement. Certain minor inconsistencies or distinct statements may be overlooked; however, the very seizure mahazar is not proved by the prosecution in this case.
20. When the cases were alleged, it was alleged that the accused was in illegal possession and was trying to sell these valuable articles to the public. The prosecution ought to have established that the accused was selling these items.
10C.C. No. 670/2011 Admittedly, there were no purchases at the time the raid was conducted, nor does the prosecution allege that the accused were caught in the act of selling articles. No independent witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution's case. The documents placed on record, including MO.1 to 5, are indeed valuable. As the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution, the burden to prove that the accused had a license or possessed these ancient treasures, antiquities, or valuable stones lies on the accused persons, as it is within their personal knowledge. When the prosecution alleges that the accused lacks a license or permission, it is for the accused to establish the contrary. The accused, all of whom have remained mum, have not established that they have such a license. Be that as the case may be. The records reveal that, initially, the case was registered against the accused under section 41(2) read with 102 Cr.PC, 379 IPC read with 25 Antiquities Act and Art Treasures Act 1972, and 39, 40, 44, 49 B and C, 51 of Wildlife Animal Act 1972. At the time of filing the charge sheet, the investigating officer filed it under sections 25 of the Antiquities Act and 25 of the Art and Treasures Act. Thus, according to the investigating officer, the accused have not stolen these articles.
21. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972. It reads as follows.
Section 3: Regulation of export trade in antiquities and art treasures.
(1) On and from the commencement of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person, other than the Central Government or any authority or agency authorized by the Central Government in this behalf, to export any antiquity or art treasure.11
C.C. No. 670/2011 (2) Whenever the Central Government or any authority or agency referred to in sub-section (1) intends to export any antiquity or art treasure, such export shall be made only under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued for the purpose by such authority as may be prescribed.
Section 5: Antiquities to be sold only under a licence.
[As from the date of expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of this Act] no person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling or offering to sell any antiquity except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under section 8.
Explanation.--In this section and in sections 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18, "antiquity" does not include ancient and historical records other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance.
Section 25. Penalty.
(1) If any person, himself or by any other person on his behalf, exports or attempts to export any antiquity or art treasure in contravention of section 3, he shall, without prejudice to any confiscation or penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) as applied by section 4, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. (2) If any person contravenes the provisions of section 5 or section 12 or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 13 or section 14 or section 17, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both, and the antiquity in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation.
(3) If any person prevents any licensing officer from inspecting any record, photograph or register maintained under section 10 or prevents any officer authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 23 from entering into or searching any place under that sub-section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
22. As observed by Supra, though, the prosecution has failed to establish the essentials; however, at the same time, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have not made out any ground to claim custody of these valuables. As in a criminal case, the proof 12 C.C. No. 670/2011 required is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the seizure mahazar is not proved. The accused cannot claim custody of these articles, as they belong to the Archaeological Department or the state. The prosecution failed to prove the case, which does not entitle the accused to claim the property. They have to establish the lawful custody of the seized articles. Be that as the case may be. In the case, the accused no. 4 was split against. Under such circumstances, no order has to be passed in respect of the valuables, which, though the accused nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to acquittal, they are not entitled to the property. They need to be submitted to the state for further action. Considering all these aspects, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
23. Point No.2: For myriad reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
Acting U/sec 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused nos. 1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
Bail bonds of accused no.1 to 3 and that of their surety bond shall continue till the expiry of the appeal period.
As the case has been split against the accused no 4, the property mentioned in the PF No. shall be preserved for further trial against him. Hence, no order as to the disposal of the seized properties.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 08th April 2026). NEELAM Digitally signed by NEELAM NITIN RAO NITIN Date:
RAO 2026.04.29
12:12:04 +0530
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore
13
C.C. No. 670/2011
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. Manjunath
2. PW.2 : Sri. Mohammad Rafiq
3. PW.3 : Sri. Harshavardhan LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2 : Report
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Ex.P.3(a) : Signatures of PW.2
Ex.P.4 : Statement of A.3
Ex.P.5 : Report dated 02.04.2009
Ex.P.6 : Report of Walking Stick
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.2
LIST OF MOS MARKED:
MO.1 : ವಾಕಿಂಗ್ ಸ್ಟೀಕ್(ಎರಡು ಭಾಗಗಳಿದ್ದು ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೂಡಿಸುವಂತಹ ಬಿಳಿ ಬಣ್ಣದ
ಕಟ್ಟಿಗೆ)
MO.2 : ಪಂಚ ಭುಜಾಕೃತಿಯ ಒಂದು ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣದ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.3 : ಚತುರ್ಭುಜಾಕೃತಿಯ ಒಂದು ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣದ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.4 : ಡೈಮಂಡ್ಆಕೃತಿಯ ಒಂದು ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣದ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.5 : ಅರ್ಧ ದತ್ತಾಕಾರದ ಎರಡು ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣದ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.6 : ಚಪ್ಪಟೆಯಾಕಾರದ ಒಂದು ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣದ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.7 : ಒಂದು ರೂಬಿ ಹಾರ
MO.8(a to : 3 ರೂಬಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
c)
14
C.C. No. 670/2011
MO.9 : 21 ಡೈಮಂಡ್ಹರಳುಗಳು
MO.10 : 36 ಮಣಿಗಳಿರುವ ಒಂದು ಮುತ್ತಿನ ಹಾರ
MO.11 : ಪಂಚಲೋಹದ ಚಂಬು
MO.12 : 8 ಸಣ್ಣ ಗಾತ್ರದ ಸಫ್ರಾನ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.13 : 2 ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣ ಎಂರೈಡ್ ಮಾದರಿಯ ಕಲ್ಲು
MO.14 : 3 ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿಯ ರಾಶಿ ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳು
MO.15 : ಶಿವಲಿಂಗಾಕೃತಿಯ ಎರಡು ಹಸಿರು ಬಣ್ಣದ ಎಂರೈಡ್ಮಾದರಿ ಕಲ್ಲು
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 08th April 2026). NEELAM Digitally signed by NEELAM NITIN NITIN RAO Date: 2026.04.29 RAO 12:11:55 +0530 (Neelam Nitin Rao) JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore