Bangalore District Court
Girinagar Police Station vs Unknown on 11 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
C.C. No.16588/2012
Present: SRI. CHINNANNAVAR R. S.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
COMPLAINANT : Girinagar Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
K.N. Manjunathkumar, @
Manja S/o. Late K.N.
Narayanashetty, Aged about
54 years, R/o.No. 1, 7th
Cross, Mookambika Temple
Street, Hosakerehalli, BSK 3rd
Stage, Bengaluru.
(Reptd. by Sri. N.M.P., Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF OFFENCE : 10.12.2010
DATE OF ARREST
OF THE ACCUSED : During the crime stage
accused are released on
bail.
OFFENCE ALLEGED : U/s.420 of IPC and
Section 4, 76 of Chit
Funds Act.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF EVIDENCE : 16.02.2015
DATE OF CLOSING OF
EVIDENCE : 23.07.2015
2 C.C.No.16588/2012
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(Chinnannavar R. S.)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The Girinagar PSI has filed charge sheet against
accused for the offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC and
Section 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
It is alleged that, prior to 10/12/2010 in
Hosakerehalli, Dattatreya Nagara, 7th Cross, Near
Muneshwara Temple, in H.No.01 accused without obtaining
permission from the Government was running chit fund
business and has collected amount from complainant and
CW.4 to 7 by assuring them to repay the amount, but
without repaying it has cheated complainant and Cw.4 to
11 and induced them to deliver amount of Rs.6,48,500/-
and not repaid the said amount and thereby cheated them
and committed offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC and
Section 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act.
3. The first information has been lodged by the
complainant Smt. Padma Priyadarshini on 30/03/2012 at
3.00 p.m. with about said allegations before PSI Girinagar
police station. On the basis of written complaint PSI
registered crime No.64 of 2012 for the offences punishable
U/s.420 of IPC and Section 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act and
3 C.C.No.16588/2012
sent FIR to the court. Later he visited the spot, conducted
spot panchanama, seized 5 books from the shop of the
accused, recorded the statements of the witnesses and
after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against
the accused for the above said offences.
4. On perusing the charge sheet the court has
taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.420 of
IPC and Section 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act as against
accused. During crime stage accused is released on bail.
5. The copy of the charge sheet and other materials
has been supplied to the accused as required U/s. 207 of
Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing both sides the charge for the
offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC and Section 4, 76 of
Chit Funds Act has been framed. Accused has denied the
charge and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the case the prosecution has
examined PW.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 8. Inspite of
coercive steps Cw.7, 8, 10 to 14 are not secured and hence
they are dropped. The prosecution side was closed.
8. The 313 Cr.P.C. statement has been recorded
and accused denied the incriminating evidence and not
chosen to lead his evidence.
4 C.C.No.16588/2012
9. I have heard both side and perused the
materials on record and bail bond of the accused has been
obtained as per U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
10. The following point arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, prior to 10/12/2010 in
Hosakerehalli, Dattatreya Nagara, 7th Cross,
Near Muneshwara Temple, in H.No.01 accused
without obtaining permission from the
Government was running chit fund business and
has collected amount from complainant and
CW.4 to 7 by assuring them to repay the
amount, but without repaying it has cheated
complainant and Cw.4 to 11 and induced them
to set amount of Rs.6,48,500/- and not repaid
the said amount and thereby cheated them and
committed offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC
and Section 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act ?
2. What order ?
11. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 - In the Negative.
Point No.2 _ As per final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1:
12. Accused has denied the case of the prosecution
total denial is his evidence. Burden is upon the prosecution
5 C.C.No.16588/2012
to prove its case. In order to discharge the said burden it
relied upon evidence of PW.1 to 7 and Ex.P.1 to 8. PW.1 is
the complainant, Ex.P.1 is the complaint. PW.2 is pancha
to seizure panchanama-Ex.P.2. PW.3 to 7 are the victims.
PW.1 complainant has turned hostile she denied that, she
has invested amount in the chit fund business of the
accused. She denied the contents of the complainant itself.
So the learned APP treated her as hostile and cross-
examined at length and suggested the case of the
prosecution but she denied all the suggestions. So nothing
is elicited through her cross to prove complaint-Ex.P.1.
13. The victim PW.5 has also turned hostile and not
at all supported the case of the prosecution. So his
evidence is also not available to the case of the
prosecution. He denied that, he has given statement
before the police as per Ex.P.8.
14. PW.3, 4, 6 and 7 have deposed that, they have
invested their amount in the chit fund business of the
accused and has not repaid the said amount but during
their cross-examination by defence counsel they have
specifically admitted that, they do not have any documents
to show that, they have invested the amount with the
accused and accused is running chit fund business. During
their cross by defence counsel they have given go bye to
the case of the prosecution.
15. PW.3 during her cross by defence counsel has
specifically admitted as under;
6 C.C.No.16588/2012
DgÉÆæ eÉÆvÉ aÃn ºÁQzÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯Áw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
CªÀgÀ°è aÃn ºÀt PÀnÖzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ aÃn §gɹPÉÆAr®è, CªÀjUÉ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ZÉPï CxÀªÁ rr ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. CªÀjUÉ
ºÀt PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà aÃn §ÄPï£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è,
DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ aÃn ªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ°è ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ
¸ÀévÀB ¥ÉÇð¸À oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉn ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ nÖ¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÆ
£ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ MnÖUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀzÀÄÝ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÆ a®ègÉ CAUÀr
ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d.
PW.6 during her cross has specifically admitted as
under;
£Á£ÀÄ ºÉƸÀPÉgɺÀ½îAiÀÄ°è 20 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¸À EzÉÝãÉ.
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ
¤d. £ÁªÀÅ DgÉÆævÀgÀ §½ aÃn ºÀt PÀlÄÖwzÀÝ §UÉÎ CxÀªÁ
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À«ÄäAzÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ §gɹPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀ°®è.
ºÁUÉAiÉÄà £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ §½ aÃn ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, EµÀÄÖ ºÀt
PÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ EvÁå¢AiÀiÁV §gÉzÀÄ ElÄÖPÉÆAr®è. £Á£ÀÄ
ºÉdüÀĪÀ aÃn ªÀåªÀºÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ £À£Àß°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ zÁR¯É
EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ aÃn ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ZÉPï CxÀªÁ rr ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
DgÉÆævÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖ®è. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CAUÀr
ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ.
PW.7 has specifically admitted as under;
7 C.C.No.16588/2012
£Á£ÀÄ ºÉƸÀPÉgÉ ºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À EzÉÝãÉ. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ
CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ Rjâ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ºÁUÁV
CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀìgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. DgÉÆævÀgÀ §½ aÃn
ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ §ÄPï£À°è §gɹPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛãÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß
£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸À oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆnÖ®è aÃn ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ZÉPïCxÀªÁ rr
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è, £Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ aÃnºÀt PÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JµÀÄÖ
PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ EvÁå¢AiÀiÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è §gÉzÀÄ
ElÄÖPÉÆAr®è.
So looking to the above said admissions I hold that,
the evidence of all these witnesses is also not sufficient to
the case of the prosecution to prove its case.
16. All these witnesses have specifically admitted
that, they have no any documents to show that, they have
given amount to the accused. PW.2 pancha to seizure
panchanama has turned hostile the learned APP cross
examined him at length and suggested that, police have
seized 5 books from the possession of the accused but he
denied said suggestions. So the seizure panchanama is
not proved through this witness. The prosecution has
failed to examine the investigating officer and other
witness. So the evidence on record is not sufficient to
attract ingredients of the offence alleged.
17. It is well settled position of law that, prosecution
has to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt but the
8 C.C.No.16588/2012
prosecution has not all proved its case through the
evidence of PW.1. It is also well settled position of law but
if there exists any reasonable doubt in the case of the
prosecution then the benefit of the doubt shall be given to
the accused. In this case there is no evidence against the
accused. Hence I hold that, prosecution has not proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt and I extend benefit of the
doubt to the accused by answering point No.1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2 :
18. In view of my answer to point No.1 in negative I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/s. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted from the offences punishable U/s.420 of IPC and Section 4, 76 of Chit Funds Act.
The bail bonds of the accused and their surety stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of February, 2016) (Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Padma Priyadarshini 9 C.C.No.16588/2012 PW-2 : Sudeendra Singh PW-3 : Noodan Lakshmi PW-4 : Mamatha PW-5 : Manikanta PW-6 : Savitramma PW-7 : Lakshmi Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Statement of Complainant-PW.1 Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-2 : Seizure panchanama Ex.P-2(a) : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P-3 to 7: Note Books Ex.P-8 : Statement of Witness of PW.5.
Witnesses examined for the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the accused:
-NIL-
(Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.