Bangalore District Court
Lokayukta vs C.Ramalingaiah on 29 June, 2024
KABC010193832015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 29th day of June, 2024
:PRESENT:
K.M. RADHAKRISHNA B.A.LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Special C.C.No.380/2015
Complainant : The State of Karnataka, represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police3, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru Urban Division,
Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused : Sri. C. Ramalingaiah,
S/o. Late Channegowda, 56 years,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Bengaluru Electric Supply Company,
Bengaluru.
On deputation to Public Works
department, Technical Assistant,
Electric Division,
Office of the PWD, K.R. Circle,
Bengaluru.
2 Spl. C.C.380/2015
R/a.No.1988, 12th Cross, 1st D Main
Road, R.P.C. Layout, Vijayanagara,
2nd Stage,
Bengaluru 40.
(By Sri P.N. Hegde, Advocate)
Date of offence From 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011
Date of report of
offence 29.11.2011
Date of arrest of
the accused 20.4.2012
Date of release
on bail 23.4.2012
Total period of
custody 4 days
Name of the
complainant Sri. N.G. Shivashankar
Date of
commencement
of recording 7.8.2017
evidence
Date of closing
14.3.2024
of evidence
Offences Under Section 13(1)(e) read with section
complained of 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the
As per the order
Judge
Sd/ 29/6/24
(K.M. RADHAKRISHNA),
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
3 Spl. C.C.380/2015
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City division has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the PC Act) in Crime No.45/2011.
2. Allegations in brief are that, the accused has joined in the Karnataka Electricity Board as the Assistant Engineer on 28.3.1984. He was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act and served in various capacities. In the year 2011 he was working as the Technical Assistant, Electrical division of PWD at K.R. Circle, Bengaluru on deputation. After registering the suo moto case on the strength of source information report, the Lokayukta police have conducted the raid upon the house of the accused on 30.9.2011 and seized several documents. His check period is from 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011. During the said period, the accused had accumulated the total assets worth Rs.1,03,26,142.51/ (44.61%) disproportionate to his known sources of an income. Therefore according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offence under the provisions of the PC Act as referred in the opening sentence of this judgment.
4 Spl. C.C.380/2015
3. After complying the mandate under Section 191(b) of Cr.P.C. and registration of the case, the presence of the accused was secured. He was represented by a counsel and got enlarged on bail. Having complied the requirement under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. this court has framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act read over and explained the same in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty but claims to be tried.
4. To prove it's allegation, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses as Pw.1 to 19 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P73. After closure of the prosecution evidence and getting compliance under Section 437 (A), the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded, read over and explained the same to the accused. He denies the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
5. The defence of the accused is the total denial of the prosecution case. To substantiate the same, the accused has examined 10 witnesses and himself as Dw.1 to 11 respectively. The documents at Ex.D1 to to D12 are got marked.
5 Spl. C.C.380/2015
6. Heard arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and written arguments from the learned defence counsel. After meticulously going through the record, the following point would arise for consideration.
1 Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused being a public servant had accumulated the assets worth Rs.1,03,26,142.51 i.e. 44.61% disproportionate to his known sources of an income during the check period from 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section13(2) of the PC Act, 1988?
7. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: Admittedly the accused was appointed as the Junior Engineer in the then Karnataka Electricity Board on 28.3.1984. In the year 2011, he was working as the Technical Assistant in the office of the Public Works Department at K.R. Circle, Bengaluru on deputation. The Police Inspector of the Karnataka Lokayukta Pw.16 Sri. N.G. Shivashankar having conducted the preliminary enquiry has prepared the source report 6 Spl. C.C.380/2015 vide Ex.P28 dtd.23.9.2011 with the information as if the accused was possessing the assets worth Rs.67,00,000/ i.e. 134% disproportionate to his known source of an income during the check period from 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011.
9. Pw.12 Sri. Abdul Ahad the Dy.S.P. has got registered the Crime against the accused vide the F.I.R. at Ex.P29 with the administrative approval of the officer in the cadre as specified under Section 17 of the PC Act. On the basis of the search warrant at Ex.P1, he has conducted the raid upon the houses of the accused and his relative Pw.15 Sri. Veerabhadraiah on 30.9.2011 under 2 separate panchanamas as per Ex.P2 and 3 respectively. Subsequent to the raid, himself and the officer of the equal rank Pw.13 Smt. Ashwini are seen to have investigated the crime in part. Pw.11 Sri. M.Narayan the Dy.S.P. states to have submitted the charge sheet through the Police officer Pw.14 Sri. K.Ravishankar to the court after conclusion of the remaining part of the investigation. The allegations therein in specific are that, the accused has acquired the assets worth 44.61% disproportionate to the known sources of an income as per the following details: Total Assets Rs. 1,08,50,46600 Expenditure Rs. 2,26,18,37630 Total Rs. 3,34,68,84200 7 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Income Rs. 2,31,42,699.79 DA Rs. 1,03,26,142.51 Percentage 44.61%
10. It is not in dispute that, the accused was a public servant. The check period applicable to him is 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011. Ex.P10 dtd.16.6.2015 is the prosecution sanction order under Section 19 of the P.C. Act obtained from the competent authority to prosecute the accused. Pw.3 Sri.Ramakrishna the then Managing Director of KPTCL asserts that, he had issued it. Though the learned defence counsel has crossexamined him, but his competency, the correctness and validity of Ex.P10 is not under the challenge. Therefore, no further discussion is a matter of necessity in this regard.
11. Pw.1 Sri. Santhosh Kumar the employee of the Health department is one of the panch witness to the raid dtd.30.9.2011 and a signatory to the search mahazars at Ex.P2 and 3. The assets/property as detailed therein found in the possession of the accused during the search is not disputed by him except the value of certain properties. Ex.P21 is the investigation report. It's author Pw.11 in the evidence reiterates it's recitals relating to the assets, expenditure and the income acquired by the accused during the check period. While taking me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record, the 8 Spl. C.C.380/2015 learned Public Prosecutor contends that, the accused has committed the offence of criminal misconduct as alleged. The same is countered by the accused with reference to his evidence and schedule 1 to 23 submitted by him before the investigation officer. He contends that he has not committed any offence.
12. The learned defence counsel has pointed out the legal and evidentiary burden casted upon the prosecution to establish the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. He has relied on the following authorities in support of his contention.
1 (1981) 3 SCC 199 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar 2 (1992) 4 SCC 45 - M.Krishna Reddy Vs. the State by Dy.S.P., Hyderabad 3 (2017) 14 SCC 442 - Vasant Rao Guhe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh No doubt, generally the burden of establishing the charge in the criminal trial lies upon the prosecution and that never shifts. While dealing with the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) r/w. Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and corresponding Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act 1988, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforereferred authorities has reiterated the obligation of the prosecution to prove mainly 4 ingredients against the accused to prove the offence i.e. he must be a 9 Spl. C.C.380/2015 public servant, the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property found in his possession, his income known to the prosecution and that such resources or property of the accused are disproportionate to his known source of an income.
13. However as an exception to this general rule, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that, once the 4 ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct gets completed unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. Further that, this burden resting upon him cannot be so higher than that of the prosecution as he can prove his defence on strength of the preponderance of probabilities. This proposition of law has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Subhash Kharate Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2000 SCC OnLine MP 423 with the observation that, "the accused is not required to prove his defence by strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt but can destroy the presumption under Section 4 on the strength of probability." With this background the assets, expenditure and income of the accused is to be dealt in detail with reference to both oral and documentary evidence on record to prove the alleged disproportionate or otherwise.
10 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Assets of the accused
14. The evidence of Pw.11 and the recitals of his final report at Ex.P21 (page No.58 to 82) discloses the acquisition of assets by the accused under 35 different heads worth Rs.1,08,50,466/ during his check period from 28.3.184 to 30.9.2011 as hereunder:
Table No. I (Assets) Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs.) No. Site bearing No.1998 situated at 1 st D 1 main road, R.P.C. layout, Vijayanagara, 2nd 4,90,000.00 Stage, Bengaluru.
2 Value of the Building 9,18,142.00 BDA Site No.1502 situated at 1 st Block, Sir 3 24,00,000.00 M. Visveswarayya extension, Bengaluru. Site No.8/61/2, situated at 2nd Stage, 4 Kadarenahalli Layout 11,808.75 (Padmanabhanagara),Bengaluru. 5 Value of the building 21,82,42900 Site bearing No.A9, derived from Site No.16/3 under comprehensive 6 development scheme of Mangalavarapete, 67,250.00 Channapattana town city council, Ramanagara Dist.
0.20 guntas of Landed property in Sy.No.151/1B of Shyanubhogana halli 7 30,000.00 village, Kootagal hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk.
Landed property in 3rd stage of Sy.No.147 measuring 3.38 guntas at 8 0.00 Dannayakanapura village, Kootagal hobli, Ramanagara taluk.
S.B. Account No.P3/640 at State Bank of 9 Mysore, Mudagere branch, Channapattana 0.00 taluk.
S.B. Account No.1112811427 at Central 10 Bank of India, Sheshadri Road, 0.00 Bengaluru.
11 S.B. Account bearing No.6197 at Janatha 4,812.24 Seva Cooperative Bank Limited, No.9, 1 st 11 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Main, Vijayanagara 2nd stage, Bengaluru 40 S.B. A/c.No.1052500110466901 at 12 35,295.00 Karnataka Bank Limited.
S.B. A/c.No.1052500110522101 at
13 3.50
Karnataka Bank Limited.
S.B. A/c.No.118001011001309 at Vijaya 14 Bank, C.M.C. complex, B.M. Road, 15,60400 Ramanagara Dist.
FD in Pearless General Finance and 15 Investment Company Limited Social 52,200.00 Welfare Scheme's Certificate No.E5257507 16 FD Certificate No.EOB 10408/930 26,850.00 Amount remitted to U.T.I. Mutual fund 17 75,000.00 membership No.UL 200130311000509 Safety bond No.K 100000497 of ICICI 18 20,000.00 Limited Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA02MF 19 12,53,080.00 6453 20 Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.KA02P6453 4,20,254.00 Hero Honda CD 100 two wheeler bearing 21 17,000.00 No.CKW 3212 Honda Dio two wheeler bearing No.KA02 22 38,667.00 ET6891 23 Cash on hand 2,08,686.00 24 Golden ornaments weighing 1222.46 gms. 10,32,166.50 25 Silver ornaments weighing 8.300 k.g. 1,41,100.00 26 Household articles 12,30,156.00 NSC Certificate No.32AA 733963, 32AA 733964, 27BB 327904, 27BB 327905, 27 26BB 577446, 49CC 572064 and 26BB 3,200.00 577362 Water charges in connection with RR No. W186040030 of house No.1998, 1st D 28 225.00 main road, RPC Layout, Vijayanagara 2nd stage, Bengaluru.
Amount deposited towards Electricity charges in connection with RR NCH42655 29 10,788.00 of house No.1998, 1st D main road, RPC Layout, Vijayanagara 2nd stage, Bengaluru. Amount deposited towards electricity 30 meter charges of house No.8/61/2, 2 nd 16,800.00 stage, Padmanabhanagara, Bengaluru. Amount deposited towards Vijayanagara 31 1,00,000.00 club membership 32 Amount deposited towards Regency 20,000.00 12 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Institute of Sports Achid Culture ® Amount deposited towards membership 33 25,000.00 fees of Karnataka Engineers Academy ® Amount deposited towards availing HPC 34 gas connection bearing Consumer 950.00 No.609045 35 BSNL Telephone No.23382840 3,000.00 Total 1,08,50,466.00 As seen in the evidence and at para39 of his written arguments, the accused is not disputing the acquisition of assets at Sl.No.1, 3, 4, 6 to 23, 25, 27 to 29 and 31 to 35 worth Rs.54,70,773.49. Hence, no need to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the related documents to that extent. The only dispute of the accused is with regard to the value of assets at Sl.No.2, 5, 24, 26 and 31 worth Rs.53,79,693.50 considered by Pw.11. Therefore, the decision on the item wise value of these disputed assets demands the discussion in detail with reference to the evidence on record.
15. Sl.No.2 : This item is in respect of the construction cost of the building bearing No.1998 at R.P.C. Layout consisting of the ground, first and second floors. According to Pw.11, this building was constructed in the year 2002 at the cost of Rs.9,18,142/. To prove it, the prosecution has produced the report of the expert at Ex.P13 (Page No.164, Book No.I). It's author Pw.6 Sri. N. Nagaraj the Assistant Engineer from the Public Works Department confirms its recitals. He deposed to have 13 Spl. C.C.380/2015 issued the report after inspection of the building. But no material is placed to prove the construction of this building in the year 2002. Rather, the date of getting power supply in the name of the accused to the house with effect from 2.7.2002 as seen in the document of the prosecution at Ex.P54 is evident to accept the defence that, the building was constructed in the year 2001. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.6 and Pw.11 to that extent has to rule out.
15.1 The defence of the accused is that, he had availed the loan of Rs.5,70,000/ from the Canfin bank. With this amount and the business income of his wife Smt. Shakunthala, the accused states to have constructed the building at the total cost of Rs.7,00,000/ only. That means, the difference amount of Rs.2,18,142/ is in real dispute. To that extent, the learned defence counsel has questioned the sanctity and reliability of the evidence adduced by Pw.6 so also his report at Ex.P13. According to him, Ex.P13 renders to be an incomplete assessment report for the reason that, its author has not estimated the construction cost based on the rates fixed by the government in force at the relevant year. He too gets admitted in the crossexamination of Pw.6 at para5 that, ನನ ಕಟಟ ಡದ ಮಲಲ ವನನ ದರದ ಪಟಟ ಯಲಲ ರವ ದರವನನ ಅನಸರಸ ಮಲಲ ಮಡಲಲ ಎಎದರ ನಜ. Rather he claims that, he had adopted the notification issued by the 14 Spl. C.C.380/2015 department of Registration and Stamps meant for the registration of immovable properties.
15.2 The facts to be noted are that, as admitted by Pw.6 in the crossexamination he has not personally acquainted with the building except the information given by the Lokayukta police prior to his inspection. He has not taken any information from the accused or his family members at the time of his visit and inspection. Under the circumstances there is no other go but to accept the defence that, Ex.P13 being the incomplete report cannot be relied upon in its entirety. This indeed would not be a ground to accept the costs at Rs.7,00,000/ as asserted by the accused. The reason is that, the construction of 3 floors RCC building in a site with the dimension of 30 x 40 ft. at the cost of just Rs.7,00,000/ that too at Bengaluru city cannot be expected even in the year 2001. Moreover, Ex.P13 does not speak about the construction related labour charges. In that view of the fact, the costs at Rs.9,18,142/ estimated by Pw.6 is truly at the lower side as rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor.
15.3 The accused while asserting to have constructed this building under the selfsupervision of himself and his wife claims the reduction of 10% out of the total cost. It is true that, the crossexamination admission of Pw.6 at para4 that, ಮಲಕರ ತಮಮ ಸಸ ಎತ 15 Spl. C.C.380/2015 ಮಲಸ ಚರಣಯಎದ ಕಟಟ ಡ ಕಟಟ ದರ ಕಟಟ ಡದ ಮಲಲ ದಲಲ ಶಕಡ 10 ರಷಟ ರಯಯತ ಕಡಬಕ ಎಎದರ ನಜ can be made applicable only if the owner's exclusive supervision is proved. Here admittedly, the accused was a public servant in the relevant year and attending his office regularly. It is not his defence that, his wife was having the construction related experience and knowledge to supervise. Thus, naturally and in the absence of the supporting evidence, the mason who put up and completed the construction work could have been the competent person rather than the accused facing the allegations to prove this fact. Therefore, the self supervision cannot be said to have proved nor the entitlement for the reduction of 10% as sought for by the accused be accepted. However and in the light of the above, I am inclined to extend the benefit of the incomplete report of Pw.6 to the accused to the little extent. Resultantly I hold that, if the costs at Rs.9,00,000/ is fixed in between rather than the costs indicated by either parties. So that, it gets justification.
16. Sl. No.5: is pertaining to the construction cost of the building in Site No.8/61/2 of Kadarenahalli (Padmanabha Nagara), Bengaluru belongs to the accused. Pw.11 has considered its cost at Rs.21,82,429/ as detailed at page61 of Ex.P21 on the basis of the expert report at Ex.P14 (page No.168, 169 of book No.1). Its author Pw.7 Sri. G. Shivaprakash the Assistant Engineer 16 Spl. C.C.380/2015 from the Public Works Department admits his inspection of the building on 14.6.2012 and the opinion given therein. It is not in dispute that, the construction of this RCC building with the granite flooring consisting of the ground, 1st and 2nd floors in the year 2007. But the cost computed by Pw.7 is in serious dispute. On the basis of his Schedule 13(A) and the oral evidence, the accused states to have constructed the building at the cost of Rs.18,00,000/ only. Therefore according to him, the valuation report at Ex.P14 being an unscientific in nature is not reliable. Thus obviously the dispute is in respect of the difference amount of Rs.3,3,82,429/ only.
16.1. In fact, Pw.7 admits in his crossexamination at para4 that, he has not adopted any scientific method or the rate list of the relevant year issued by the government though available in his office. He admits that, he has adopted the Notification of the government issued for the purpose of registration. Further admission that :
ಕಎದದ ದಯ ಮಲಲ ಮಪನ ಸಮತ, ನಎದಣ ಮತತ ಮದದ ಎಕ ಇಲಖಯ ದರದ ಪಟಟ ಯಎದ ಕಟಟ ಡ ಕಟಟ ಲ ಆಗರವ ವಚಚ ವನನ ಕಡಹಡಯಲ ಬರವದಲಲ ಎಎದರ ನಜ.
Therefore needless to say that, Ex.P14 does not inspire to accept and believe his opinion in it's entirety. It does not mean that, the defence of the accused to the extent of the cost at Rs.18,00,000/ stands proved. The reason is that, Pw.6 has not considered the construction related labour
17 Spl. C.C.380/2015 charges in his report. Even a layman can understand that, the construction of 3 floors RCC building with granite flooring in the year 2007 cannot be expected at the cost of not less than Rs.21,82,429/.
16.2. Therefore and taking the existing rates of the building materials fixed by the government at the relevant year so also the applicable labour charges might have incurred by the accused into consideration, I am to hold that the construction costs considered by Pw.11 being reasonable cannot be interfered with. Further claim of the accused for reduction of 10% relating to construction under selfsupervision deserves to be rejected for reasons and discussions already made at para15.3 above.
17. Sl. No.24: it is in respect of the golden ornaments of 1572.46 gms. of the accused. Their description is in page No.73 of the investigation report at Ex.P21. The search mahazar at Ex.P2 is in respect of 198.61 gms. of golden ornaments found in the house of the accused. The mahazar at Ex.P3 is relating to 1374.300 gms. golden ornaments of the accused found in the house of his relative Pw.15 Sri. Veerabhadrayya. Out of the total ornaments of 1572.46 gms. admittedly, Pw.11 has excluded 350 gms. of ornaments on the ground that, the accused had acquired them by way of gifts during his marriage. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 18 Spl. C.C.380/2015 namely Pw.1, 2, 4, 11, 12 and also the accused to that extent does not require any discussion. Now the dispute is with regard to the value of the remaining 1222.46 gms. of ornaments. Pw.11 deposed to have estimated the total value at Rs.10,32,166/ on the strength of the information provided by the accused and opinion given by goldsmiths (Pw.2 and 4).
17.1 The reasons for the accused to dispute is that, the goldsmiths have ignored the age, carat in gold of the ornaments and fixed the value on the gross weight without excluding the stones, wax and nongold items. Hence, he sought for 25% i.e. Rs.2,58,041/ reduction out of the total value. Interestingly, his crossexamination admission at para47 that, ನನನ ಮತತ ವದರಭದದ ಯಲ ನವರ ಮನಯಎದ ಪಲದಸರ ಅಮನತತ ಪಡಸಕಎಡ ಚನನ ಮತತ ಬಳಳ ಯ ಸಸ ತತ ಗಳನನ ಪರಣತರಎದ ತಕ ಮಡಸದರ ಎಎದರ ಸರ.
ನಗಧಪಡಸದ ಮಲಲ ಗಳ ಸರ ಇಲಲ ಎಎದ ಮಹಜರಗ ಸಹ ಮಡವ ಮದಲ ನನ ತಕರರ ಮಡಲಲಲ etc.
corroborates the evidence of the investigation officer that, he got fixed the value through the goldsmiths on the information of the accused in the presence of panchas.
17.2. The conduct of the accused in not raising any objections relating to the fixation of prices before subscribing his signature to the mahazars goes to the root of his defence that, ಪಲದಸರ ದಳ ಮಡದಗ ಮನಯಲಲ ದದ 19 Spl. C.C.380/2015 ಚನನ ದ ಆಭರಣಗಳ ಹಗ ಬತ ಮತತ ಯವ ದನಎಕ ಖರದದಸದದ ದನಎದ ವಚರಣ ಮಡಲಲಲ . ಚನನ ದ ಆಭರಣಗಳ ಬಲಯನನ ನನನ ಬಳ ಕಳಲಲಲ . In para16 of his evidence the accused admits the total value of his golden ornaments found in the house of his relative Pw.15 Veerabhadraiah alone was Rs.9.55 lakh. Out of them, he claims to have purchased the ornaments worth Rs.4.17 lakh apart receiving the rest of the ornaments from his relatives during the birth day celebrations of his daughter. Interestingly, no material is placed by him to prove the purchase, its date nor examined his socalled relatives to prove the factum of gift. Therefore and in the absence explanations, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him.
17.3. Mainly, the learned defence Counsel has argued as if the prosecution has not placed any evidence to prove the date of purchase and the prices of the relevant years in respect of the golden ornaments purchased by the accused periodically during the check period every now and then. In this context, he has relied on the authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.V.S. Lingam Vs. State of A.P. reported as 1998 SCC OnLine AP 752 to contend that, the average market value prevailing in the relevant years should be the basis to calculate the actual value. Pw.11 in his crossexamination at para93 admits the submission of Schedule14A by the accused with the 20 Spl. C.C.380/2015 information that, the total value of ornaments found in the house of his relative was Rs.9,55,415/, the worth of the ornaments found in his house at Rs.2,03,281/, the ornaments he deposed to have purchased were at the cost of Rs.1,50,171/ and rest were informed to have received by way of gifts.
17.4. The above information of the accused in the absence of positive circumstance is without any basis. The declaration of 150 gms. ornaments by the accused in his APR for the year 2005 and 986 gms. of ornaments in the APR of 2006 without reflecting their value is not in dispute. Therefore, the adverse inference has to draw that, the accused must have purchased the total ornaments of 1136 gms. out of 1222.46 gms. in between 2005 and 2006. The rest of 86.46 gms. of ornaments does not find place in the APRs. Therefore the contention of the accused is that, there is no evidence to prove the purchase date and prices bears no meaning. As per the chart of gold prices furnished by the accused, the price of gold per every 10 gms. was Rs.7,000/ in the year 2005 and 2006. Thus, Rs.7,000 x 113.6 = 7,95,200/. In respect of the remaining 86.46 gms. if the average price of 10 gms. is taken into consideration during the check period, it would be Rs.55,238 + 7,95,200/ = Rs.8,50,438/ stands proved towards the value of the golden ornaments. Out of which, if Rs.3,438/ is deducted towards stone and wax etc. it 21 Spl. C.C.380/2015 works out at Rs.8,47,000/. That means, the difference amount of Rs.1,85,166/ has to be deducted out of the total value of Rs.10,32,166/ considered by the investigation officer.
18. Sl. No.26: is in respect of the household articles of the accused. Mainly the electric, electronic items, furnitures and the other utensils are amongst the household articles in item No.26. Pw.12 deposed to have discussed with the accused in the presence of panchas and fixed the value at Rs.12,30,156/ at the time of search. The grievance of the accused is that, Pw.12 has not taken him into confidence in the matter of fixing the value nor has considered the actual value of Rs.9,66,586/ informed in Schedule14(A). It is true that, the pancha witness Pw.1 does not speak anything about the value of articles in his evidence as rightly noticed by the learned defence counsel. Admittedly, the value came to be fixed by the investigation officer without any documentary proof and the assistance of the expert. The accused says that, he has purchased the articles worth Rs.7,89,536/ out of his income. Hence, he sought for reduction of Rs.4,40,620/ out of the total value determined by the investigation officer.
18.1. The grievance of the accused is that, he was not taken into confidence while fixing the value of the household articles. But has not assigned any reason as to 22 Spl. C.C.380/2015 why he has not opposed the valuation at the spot itself before he subscribes his signature to the search mahazars? Admittedly, the accused has declared 18 items of household articles in his APR for the relevant year 2006 but not reflected their purchase value nor made available the bills or purchase invoices of these articles. According to the investigation officer, this situation made him to estimate the value at Rs.12,30,156/ as a result of discussion with the accused and panchas. That means, it is on the basis of the guess work. In the circumstances, the possibility of inflating the value is bound to occur. It is very difficult to decide the exact value of the household articles in the absence of purchase bills. Therefore and having considered the purchase of these articles over a period of time every now and then by the accused, I am inclined to extend the benefit of 30% i.e. Rs.3,69,046/ reduction out of the total value. In other words, Rs.8,61,110/ is considered as the value of household articles under Sl.No.26.
19. Sl.No.31: is relating to membership of the accused at Vijayanagara club. Admittedly, he became the club member on 19.8.2005 by depositing Rs.1,00,000/. The Secretary of the said club Pw.17 Dr. Ramachandra K.R. confirms the same on the basis of the document at Ex.P34 issued to that extent. Pw.11 states to have considered the deposited amount as an asset for reasons in 23 Spl. C.C.380/2015 page No.79 of his report at Ex.P21. Whereas, the accused demands to exclude this amount from the assets on the ground that, his friend Dw.5 Sri. Harish has deposited it through a cheque bearing No.204822 of his bank account. Dw.5 in his evidence admits the same. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor asserts as if the accused has got deposited his own money through Dw.5 and urged that it be considered to be the asset of the accused. This cannot be denied for the reason that, the accused being the public servant has not explained the necessity to get deposit this amount through Dw.5 by simply saying that he was not having money by the time. Admittedly he has not declared the same in his APR statement for the relevant year.
19.1. No doubt, the learned defence counsel has tried his level best in his reply arguments to convince that, whatever amount deposited by Dw.5 towards the life time membership of the accused was repaid in the year 2013 i.e. subsequent to the check period. Therefore, according to him, it cannot be considered either as an asset or an expenditure. Interestingly, no document is placed to prove the repayment of Rs.1,00,000/ to Dw.5 except the oral assertion. Even otherwise, the acquisition of lifetime membership by the accused in the club at the cost of Rs.1,00,000/ assumes the status of an asset and accordingly proved. In view of the same, no fault be indicated with Pw.11 in considering it accordingly. In 24 Spl. C.C.380/2015 other words, the defence of the accused is obviously meritless.
19.2. As a result of the discussion and findings at para15 to 19.1 above, I am to indicate the following proved value of the disputed and admitted assets.
Sl.No. 2 5 24 26 31 Total
In Rs. 900000 2182429 847000 861110 100000 4890539.00
Value of the admitted assets : 5470773.49
Total : 10361312.49
20. The following 43 different heads are the expenditure details of the accused and his family during the check period as per the investigation report marked at Ex.P21. [ Table No. II (Expenditure) ] Sl.
Particulars Amount (in Rs.) No.
Registration fees incurred towards Site bearing No.1998 situated at 1st D main 1 71,330.00 road, R.P.C. layout, Vijayanagara, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru.
Registration fees incurred towards BDA 2 Site No.1502 situated at 1st Block, Sir M. 2,28,300.00 Visveswarayya extension, Bengaluru. Registration fees incurred towards Site No.8/61/2, situated at 2nd Stage, 3 243.00 Kadarenahalli Layout (Padmanabhanagara),Bengaluru.
Registration fees incurred towards Site bearing No.A9, derived from Site No.16/3 4 under comprehensive development scheme 6,880.00 of Mangalavarapete, Channapattana town city council, Ramanagara Dist.
25 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Registration fees incurred towards 0.20 guntas of Landed property in 5 Sy.No.151/1B of Shyanubhogana halli 6,780.00 village, Kootagal hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk.
Landed property bearing Sy.No.147/2 measuring 3.35 guntas at 6 2,61200 Dannayakanapura village, Kootagal hobli, Ramanagara taluk.
Revenue expenditure incurred towards 7 house No.1998/43, Hampinagara, 44,029.00 Vijayanagara.
Revenue expenditure incurred towards 8 house No.8, 7th cross, Jayanagara HBCS 38,538.00 1st stage, Padmanabhanagara, Bengaluru. Water charges in connection with RR No. W186040030 of house No.1998, 1st D 9 70,116.00 main road, RPC Layout, Vijayanagara 2 nd stage, Bengaluru.
Toyata Innova Car bearing No.KA02MF 10 3,34,760.00 6453 11 Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.KA02P6453 5,51,390.00 Hero Honda CD 100 two wheeler bearing 12 767.00 No.CKW 3212 Honda Dio two wheeler bearing No.KA02 13 78,100.00 ET6891 14 BSNL Telephone No.23382840 2,07,526.00 Repayment of loan along with interest to 15 M/s.Karunadu Finance and Investments 0.00 Pvt.Ltd.
Repayment of loan towards the amount borrowed for dairy purpose from State 12,872.00 16 Bank of Mysore, Mudagere branch, 12,915.00 Channapattana taluk Repayment of loan towards the amount borrowed for construction of house at 17 No.1998, 1st D Main road, RPC Layout, 8,79,931.00 Vijayanagara, Bengaluru from Canfin Homes Limtied (Canara Bank) Repayment of loan towards purchase of 18 Toyata Innova Car bearing No.KA02MF 98,850.00 6453 Repayment of loan towards purchase of 19 4,00,000.00 Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.KA02P 6453 20 Repayment of loan towards purchase of 10,20,922.00 26 Spl. C.C.380/2015 BDA Site No.1502 situated at 1 st Block, Sir M. Visveswarayya extension, Bengaluru. Repayment of loan towards construction of house at Site No.8/61/2, situated at 2nd 21 8,03,761.00 Stage, Kadarenahalli Layout (Padmanabhanagara),Bengaluru.
Repayment of loan borrowed by the AGO 22 70,65,200.00 from Maaba Corporate Service Pvt.Ltd. Repayment of loan borrowed by the AGO's 23 wife Smt.R. Shakunthala from Maaba 18,14,055.00 Corporate Service Pvt.Ltd.
Premium amount paid on LIC Policy 24 0.00 No.362037029 Premium amount paid on LIC Policy 25 0.00 No.61167940 Premium amount paid on LIC Policy 26 1,20,000.00 No.616346399 Premium amount paid on LIC Policy 27 3,05,380.00 No.721163084 Premium amount paid on LIC Policy 28 0.00 No.610230491 Premium amount paid on Reliance 29 0.00 Insurance Policy No.15272531 Premium amount paid on Metlife 30 11,187.00 Insurance Policy No.1200600176214 31 Income tax on PAN No.AGOPR70744 0.00 32 Income tax on PAN No.AYGPS 8354P 53,800.00 33 Domestic expenses 9,36,518.00 Maintenance expenses of 3 year old Kakar 34 Spyanil and German Sheffard dogs by the 1,58,800.00 AGO 35 Usage of HPC Gas Consumer No.609045 47,892.30 Education expenses of AGO's daughter 36 13,34,500.00 Kum.Harshitha R. 37 Expenses incurred at Vijayanagara Club 8,15,537.00 Expenses incurred at Regency Institute of 38 5,875.00 Sports and Culture ®.
Expenses incurred at Karnataka Engineers 39 2,548.00 Academy ® Foreign tour expenses incurred by the wife 40 70,000.00 and daughter of AGO 41 2 Bond paper expenses of 200 each 400.00 42 Computer Service charges 6,062.00 Advance money paid to Udaya Developers 43 50,00,000.00 towards purchase of Site Total 2,26,18,376.30 27 Spl. C.C.380/2015 20.1. The accused is not disputing the correctness of the expenditure at Rs.1,50,78,031/ in respect of Sl.No.1 to 10, 12, 14 to 32, 35, 36, 38 to 42. But his dispute is relating to the expenditure of Rs.75,40,345/ in respect of Sl.No.11, 13, 33, 34, 37 and 43 with the contention that, it is incorrect and baseless. Hence, the item wise disputed expenditure needs to decide with reference to the evidence available on record.
21. Sl.No.11: is pertaining to expenses incurred by the accused in respect of the fuel and maintenance of his Zen Car bearing No.KA 02 P 6453. Admittedly it was purchased on 10.10.2001. The payment of lifetime tax at Rs.30,891/, the registration charge of Rs.300/ and insurance premium of Rs.10,334/ in all Rs.41,525/ so also the total distance of 1,42,953 kms. run by this car till the date of raid on 30.11.2011. These details be seen in page No.89 and 90 of the final investigation report at Ex.P21. Pw.11 deposed to have considered the fuel expenses of Rs.4,36,865/ and maintenance charge of Rs.73,000/ including the undisputed amount of Rs.41,525/ in all Rs.5,51,390/ based on the expert report at Ex.P43. It's author Pw.18 Sri. C. Surendra the Motor Vehicle Inspector has asserted the recitals of his report. On the contrary, the accused claims to have spent Rs.2,71,000/ towards fuel and Rs.15,000/ towards maintenance in all Rs.2,86,000/ only. The justification of 28 Spl. C.C.380/2015 the accused is that, his car was giving the mileage of 18 kms. per litre petrol. Therefore, he sought for reduction of the difference amount to the extent of Rs.2,66,390/.
21.1. The very contention of the accused itself makes it clear that, the admitted amount of Rs.41,525/ spent towards the lifetime tax, registration charge and insurance premiums is not included by the accused in his calculation. No doubt in the crossexamination, Pw.18 the author of Ex.P43 admits that he has not personally seen and inspected the car. According to him, on the basis of the total distance he has computed the average fuel and maintenance charges. Needless to say that, the constant rate of mileage continuously over a period of 10 years is unbelievable. Naturally as the age grows to the vehicle, the mileage would gets reduced. Moreover even as rightly admitted by the accused in his written arguments at page No.19 that, the mileage depends upon the expertise of the driver, condition of the vehicle, geographical feature i.e. road condition etc. Therefore, the mileage of 18 kilometers per litre from the date of its purchase till the date of raid is without any basis.
21.2, In view of the above, the average of 15 kilometers per litre considered by Pw.18 cannot be looked into with any fault. So far as the prices of the fuel in the year 2001 in Karnataka is concerned, it was Rs.33.49 and 29 Spl. C.C.380/2015 gradually increased to Rs.63.37 per litre upto the year 2011 as can be seen from the then existing prices. Obviously, Pw.18 has taken the below average rate of petrol at Rs.45.84 per litre. Thus, 142953 / 15 = 9530.2 X 45.84 = Rs.4,36,864/. Therefore, the defence of the accused holds no force. That apart, his claim that his car was in good condition even in the year 2011 itself is evident to believe the timetotime service and maintenance got done by the accused. Normally, a service for every 10,000 kms. would be a matter of necessity to ensure the good condition of the vehicle. Therefore, if the total kms. are taken into consideration, the expenditure of Rs.73,000/ towards its maintenance including the service and repair charges etc. is very reasonable. Therefore no hesitation to say that, the maintenance and fuel charge of the car at Rs.5,09,865+41,525/ in all Rs.5,51,390/ stands proved by the prosecution.
Sl.No.13: The expenses relating to Deo two wheeler bearing No.KA 02 ET 6891.
22. The details and description of this vehicle can be seen at page91 of Ex.P21. Admittedly, it was purchased by the accused on 25.10.2005. The payment of lifetime tax of Rs.2,978/, registration charge of Rs.60/ and insurance premium of Rs.1,350/ in all Rs.4,388/ by the accused is not in dispute. The total distance of 46,892 kms. run by this vehicle upto 30.9.2011 is not under the challenge.
30 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Pw.11, on the basis of the report at Ex.P44 has considered the total expenditure at Rs.78,100/ towards fuel and maintenance which includes the undisputed amount of Rs.4,388/. The author of Ex.P44 i.e. Pw.18 Sri. C. Surendra asserts correctness of his opinion on the expenses. While disputing the prosecution stand the accused contends that, the expert opinion is baseless and arbitrary. On the contrary, his defence is that he has spent Rs.41,000/ only as the vehicle was giving mileage of 55 kms. per litre. On this ground, he sought for reduction of Rs.26,712/ out of the total expenses. Of course, it may not have been denied by the learned Public Prosecutor during the crossexamination of the accused.
22.1. But the fact to appreciate is that, the correctness of the expert opinion has to appreciate with reference to the total distance, prevailing rates of the fuel, amount might have spent towards the maintenance including the timetotime repairs depending upon the distance run by the vehicle. Mainly the accused has not disputed the maintenance charge of Rs.6,000/ estimated by Pw.18. His dispute is only in respect of the fuel expenses. According to Pw.18, the vehicle has consumed 1172.3 litres petrol at the average rate of 40 kms. per litre over a period of more than 6 years. As discussed on item No.11 herein before at para 21.2, the price of fuel in the year 2005 and there afterwards was not less than Rs.45/ 31 Spl. C.C.380/2015 per litre and gradually increased to Rs.63.37 upto the year 2011. Thus, obviously no fault be found with Pw.18 in taking average price of Rs.45.84 per litre. In other words, 1172.3 x 45.84 = 53,738+6,000+4388 would be Rs.64,126/ spent by the accused towards fuel and maintenance charges stands proved. Therefore, the difference amount of Rs.13,974/ has to be deducted and given its benefit to the accused.
Sl.No.33: per capita monthly expenditure of the accused and his family.
23. This head includes 9 visible/verifiable expenses like fuel, light, education, medical, conveyance, rent, durable goods, taxes and misc.consumer services so also 19 invisible/nonverifiable household items for the purpose of computing per capita expenditure. The prosecution has relied on the report at Ex.P20 issued by the Deputy Director, the department of Statistics by name Sri. Tulasiram to substantiate the total expenditure of Rs.9,36,518/ during the check period commencing from 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011. Unfortunately, the author of this report has not been examined by the prosecution as he was reported to be dead. However, the learned defence counsel while noticing many defects in the report has got admitted them in the crossexamination of the investigation officer Pw.11 at para99. With this, he 32 Spl. C.C.380/2015 contends that the accused and his wife being from Agriculturist family were growing daily consumables. They do not have the habit of consuming the Tobacco, Alcohol, Pan etc. Now his grievance is that, Pw.11 had ignored all these facts while estimating the domestic expenses at an inflated rates.
23.1. At this stage I am to reflect at the cost of repetition that, the appointment date of the accused as a public servant on 28.3.1984 and the date of his marriage on 24.7.1984 is not in dispute. Admittedly, the 1 st daughter of the accused by name Harshitha was born on 4.9.1991. The wife of the accused went to her parents house 3 months prior to the birth of the child for the delivery. She returned with the child to the house of the accused 6 months after the birth. That means, almost 89 months i.e. from Feb1992 the wife of the accused and the child from 4.9.1991 till their return were not residing with the accused. The defence of the accused is that, all the expenses of his wife and the child during the said period was borne by his parents inlaw is not disputed. Interestingly and as can be seen at page No.61 of Ex.P20, it's author has wrongly considered the family size as 2 from 24.7.1984 upto Feb1992 and computed the expenditure.
23.2. That apart, the expenditure of the child at Rs.12,930/ is seen to have considered from 4.9.1991 itself 33 Spl. C.C.380/2015 on par with the expenses of adults as rightly noticed by the learned defence counsel. The investigation officer admits this truth in his crossexamination. Now the accused contends that, himself and his family members were purely vegetarians. But it gets contradicted by his own statement at page265 of the charge sheet where he admits to be nonvegetarian. Inspite of these circumstances, the expert is seen to have inflated the expenses in his report and hence renders to be incomplete and cannot be relied upon on its entirety. Therefore and having taken the discussion herein before into consideration, I am inclined to accept the entitlement of the accused in part for reduction of Rs.1,87,303/ at the rate of 20% out of the total expenditure of Rs.9,36,518/. In other words, the conclusion of Pw.11 stands modified as the family expenditure of the accused at Rs.7,49,215/ during the check period is proved.
Sl.No.34: Expenditure towards the maintenance of Dogs.
24. Admittedly, 2 dogs were rearing by the accused in his house. As per the panchanama at Ex.P2 and the evidence of Pw.11, those dogs were Cocker Spaniel and German Shepherd/GSD of 5 years age each. Though the accused in his evidence at para27 claims as if one among them is a local dog and another is a Pomeranian dog. Interestingly, he himself got admitted in the cross 34 Spl. C.C.380/2015 examination of Pw.11 at para101 with the suggestion that:
ದಳ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಆರದಪಯ ಮನಯಲಲ ಕಕರರ ಸಸ ನಯಲ ಮತತ ಜಮರನ ಷಫರರ ಜತಗ ಸರದ ನಯಗಳ ಕಡಬದದದ ವ ಎಎದರ ಸರ. It is seen that, Pw.11 deposed to have got estimated the approximate costs and expenses of both the dogs upto the age of 3 years vide the report at Ex.P73 through Pw.19 Dr. H.A. Upendra the Dean of Veterinary University of Hebbal as hereunder:
Cocker Spaniel German Shepherd
1 Cost of dogs Rs. 2,00000 Rs. 2,00000
2 Feeding cost @ Rs.30/ Rs. 54,75000 Rs. 91,25000
day, Rs.50/day
3 Vaccination @ Rs.400/ Rs. 2,40000 Rs. 2,40000
vaccine
4 Other Medical expenses Rs. 2,00000 Rs. 2,00000
Total Rs. 61,15000 Rs. 97,65000
24.1. Pw.19 has justified the above estimated expenses of both the dogs @ Rs.1,58,800/ for 3 years. No doubt, in the crossexamination he admits to have not personally seen the dogs of the accused before the estimation. However clarified that, he did it by his vast experience with the category of dogs and other pet animals.
But the accused disputes the estimation on the ground that, his friend has given the Pomeranian dog free of cost and was feeding both the dogs with home food only. With this, he claims to have spent Rs.65,000/ only towards the 35 Spl. C.C.380/2015 maintenance. But his failure to reflect the name of his friend and examine him to prove free of cost is noteworthy.
24.2. The further defence of the accused in his written arguments is as if Pw.19 has not specified in his report with regard to the nature of food (commercial or home, vegetarian or nonvegetarian), the type of vaccination provided by the accused to the pet animals etc. However, he himself admits the same by way of suggestion in the crossexamination of Pw.11 at para101 that:
ವರದಯನನ (Ex.P73) ಪಡದಕಎಡ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ನಯಗಳಗ ಕಡತತ ದದ ರಡಮಡ ಆಹರಗಳಗ (Commercial food) ಅಎದ ಜರಯಲಲ ಇದದ ದರಗಳನನ ಅನಸರಸ ವರದಯನನ ನದಡರತತ ರ ಎಎದರ ಸರ. Needless to say that even an ordinary person can understand that, the cost of the Cocker Spaniel and German Shepherd dogs would not be less than Rs.2,000/. As rightly noticed by the learned Public Prosecutor, this kind of dogs are not expected to rear with home food. Under the circumstances, the expenses of both the dogs estimated by Pw.19 for upto 3 years as against their age of 5 years cannot be unreasonable. Therefore, I am declined to find fault with the estimation of Pw.19 and to extend the benefit of reduction as sought for by the accused. In other words, I am to hold that the expenditure towards the maintenance of both the dogs at Rs.1,58,800/ stands proved.
36 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Sl.No.37: Cost incurred towards the Jayanagara Club:
25. The expenses of Rs.8,15,537/ incurred towards the club during the period from 13.7.2005 to 30.9.2011 under the membership account of the accused is not in dispute. The club Secretary Pw.17 Dr. K.R. Ramachandra and his document at Ex.P34 confirms the same. But the accused denies the payment of these expenses by him or his family members. According to him, his friends Dw.2 Sri. Veeregowda, Dw.3 Sri. Umesh, Dw.4 Sri. Shivaramu and Dw.7 Dr. Ramalingaiah were availing the club facilities under his membership card and paid the expenses of Rs.1,50,000/, Rs.1,30,000/, Rs.1,50,000/ and Rs.3,00,000/ respectively in all Rs.7,30,000/ therefor. His assertion is that, these expenses were incurred in his absence by the time when he was working at Bellary, Gulbarga and Munirabad during the year 2006 to 2008. On this ground, he is disputing the acts of Pw.11 in taking this amount into his account of expenditure. No doubt, Dw.2 to 4 and 7 in their evidence supports the defence of the accused and admits the payment of Rs.7,30,000/ out of their own wallet.
25.1. The noteworthy is the crossexamination admission of Dw.2 to 4 and 7 that, no documents are available to prove their usage of club facilities and the payment therefor. They are not able to answer cross 37 Spl. C.C.380/2015 examination questions as to what are all the facilities they were getting in the club. Even the evidence of Pw.17 and the document at Ex.P34 would not reflect it. Rather indicates the expenses incurred by the accused not only prior to 2008 but also there afterwards till the date of raid on 30.9.2011. As admitted by Dw.7 at para3 of his crossexamination, he is also one of the member in the club. When the reality as such, his failure to explain the necessity of getting the club facilities under the account of the accused and paying Rs.34 lakh therefor is evident to rule out his story. Interestingly, the crossexamination admission of the accused that: ನನನ ಕರರ ಸಬಧ ಏನ ಖರರ ಬದರ ಅದ ನನನ ಖತಯಎದಲ ಕಡತವಗತತ ತತ ಎಎದರ ಸರ (page52). ಕರರ (membership) ಯವಗಲ ನನನ ಬಳ ಇರತತ ತತ ಎಎದರ ಸರ (para51) etc. substantiates the evidence of Pw.17 at para2 that: ನಮಮ ಕಲ ಬಗ ಯರದರರ ಗಸಟ ಬರಬಕದರ ಸದಸಲ ರ ಜತಯ ಬರಬಕಗತತ ದ. ಸದಸಲ ರ ಜತ ಬರವ ಅತಥಗಳ ಖರರ ವಚಚ ಗಳನನ ಸದಸಲ ರ ಪವತ ಮಡಬಕಗರತತ ದ. ಕಲ ಬ ನಯಮಗಳ ಪದ ಕರ ಬಲಗ ಸದಸಲ ರ ಸಹ ಖಡರ ಯವಗರತತ ದ.
25.2. No doubt, the learned defence counsel gets an admission in the crossexamination of Pw.17 to the extent that: ಸದಸಲ ರ ಅನಪಸಸ ತಯಲಲ ಅವರಗ ಸಬಧಪಟಟ ಗಸಟ ಗಳ ಕಲ ಬಗ ಬದಲಲ ಸದಸಲ ತಸ ದ ಕಡರನನ ತದರಸ 2012 ಅಕಟ ದಬರ ತಎಗಳವರಗ ಬರಲ ಅವಕಶ ಇತತ . But the cross examination admission of the accused that, ಕರರ 38 Spl. C.C.380/2015 (membership) ಯವಗಲ ನನನ ಬಳ ಇರತತ ತತ ಎಎದರ ಸರ is evident to rule out the using of his card by Dw.2 to 4 and 7 in his absence. The allegation of the prosecution is that, the expenses of Rs.8,15,537/ were incurred by the accused during the period from 13.7.2005 to 30.9.2011. Therefore, the accused cannot maintain his defence and deny the expenses only on the ground that, he was working outside Bengaluru from July2006 to March2008. The evidence of Dw.2 to 4 and 7 so also their affidavits filed before Pw.11 does not inspire to trust their evidence. Deposing falsehood by them being the relatives and friends of the accused to help him cannot be ruled out. The circumstances emanating from the above discussion demonstrates that, the defence of the accused with no force is obviously an afterthought as rightly argued by the learned prosecutor. Therefore and on the strength of the above discussion I am to hold that, the prosecution has become successful in establishing the expenses of Rs.8,15,537/ incurred by the accused in the club beyond the reasonable doubt.
26. Sl.No.43: Admittedly, the cash bill copies bearing receipt No.103, 101 and 102 issued by the Udaya Developers were found in the house of the accused during the search on 30.9.2011. The originals of them produced by the accused are marked at Ex.D12, Ex.D10 and Ex.D11 respectively. According to the prosecution, the accused 39 Spl. C.C.380/2015 through his wife Smt. Shakuntala has paid Rs.1,00,000/ under Ex.D10 dated 12.12.2010, Rs.19,00,000/ under undated Ex.D11 and Rs.30,00,000/ under Ex.D12 dated 25.3.2011 in all Rs.50,00,000/ to Udaya Developers of Sri. K. Puttanarasappa for purchase of the residential sites. Pw.11 deposed to have considered it as an expenditure of the accused. The accused is not disputing the payment of Rs.20,00,000/ under Ex.D.10 and 11. His dispute is with regard to payment of Rs.30,00,000/ under Ex.D12. According to him, he paid only Rs.3,00,000/ thereunder but not Rs.30,00,000/ as alleged. Therefore, now the question to decide is whether it is Rs.3,00,000/ or Rs.30,00,000/ ?
26.1. The plain perusal of Ex.D12 reveals the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ written in figures and Rs.30,00,000/ in words. This is the main reason for the dispute. As noticed by the learned defence counsel, Pw.11 admits in his crossexamination at para103 to 105 that he has not enquired the Udaya Developers on this count. Here, the fact to appreciate is that, the accused is not disputing the payment under Ex.D10 to D12. Generally, no person is expected to write upon any document the more amount in words as against the lesser amount received. Whereas, quoting lesser amount in figures against the higher amount received is possible and that happens some times even at the hands of well educateds 40 Spl. C.C.380/2015 unknowingly. The receipt at Ex.D10 is the best example. Where the amount in figures is written as Rs.10,000/ as against the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ in words admittedly received by the Udaya Developers. It is not in dispute that, all the 3 receipts are issued by the same person. However, the accused admits Ex.D10 for Rs.1,00,000/ without any dispute.
26.2. In the circumstances, the failure of Pw.11 to examine the Developers alone would not be the ground for the accused to take an advantage of this situation and deny the payment of Rs.30,00,000/ under Ex.D12 written in the words. Therefore the defence of the accused in this regard bears no meaning. Hence, I am to uphold the contention of the prosecution that, it was the accused who paid Rs.50,00,000/ under Ex.D10 to 12 through his wife. Thus, the question of accepting his entitelment for reduction of Rs.27,00,000/ as sought for would not arise. On the strength of the findings at para21 to 26.2, I am to hold that the prosecution has established the following expenditure of the accused and his family:
Sl.No. 11 13 33 34 37 43 Total
In Rs. 551390 64126 749215 158800 815537 5000000 7339068.00
The admitted expenditure : 15078031.00
Total : 22417099.00
41 Spl. C.C.380/2015
27. The following are the income details of the accused and his family as per the prosecution.
Sl.
Particulars Value (in Rs.) No. 1 Salary income 47,69,239.94
House bearing No.8/61 at 2nd Cross, 2 Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru consisting 18,64,550.00 of 2 floor 4 houses.
Agricultural income from the ancestral 3 68,055.25 property of AGO Agricultural income from the landed 4 20,06,000.00 property of AGO's wife Agricultural income from the ancestral 5 1,25,301.60 property of AGO Loan borrowed from M/s.Karunadu 6 0.00 Finance and Investments Pvt.Ltd.
Loan Account No. ATL 1/9 5,000.00
7
Loan Account No. ATL 1/59 5,000.00
Loan borrowed for construction of house at No.1998, 1st D Main road, RPC Layout, 8 5,70,000.00 Vijayanagara, Bengaluru from Canfin Homes Limited (Canara Bank) Loan borrowed for purchase of Toyata 9 10,00,000.00 Innova Car bearing No.KA02MF6453 Loan borrowed for purchase of Maruthi 10 3,65,127.00 Zen Car bearing No.KA02P6453 Loan borrowed for purchase of BDA Site 11 No.1502 situated at 1st Block, Sir M. 10,00,000.00 Visveswarayya extension, Bengaluru. Loan borrowed for construction of house at Site No.8/61/2, situated at 2 nd Stage, 12 10,00,000.00 Kadarenahalli Layout (Padmanabhanagara),Bengaluru.
Loan borrowed by the AGO from the 13 72,00,000.00 Maaba Corporate Service Pvt.Ltd.
Loan borrowed by the AGO's wife Smt. R. 16,50,000.00 14 Shakunthala from the Maaba Corporate Service Pvt.Ltd.
S.B. Account No.P3/640 at State Bank of 15 Mysore, Mudagere branch, Channapattana 87.00 taluk.
S.B. Account No.1112811427 at Central 16 0.00 Bank of India, Sheshadri Road, Bengaluru.
42 Spl. C.C.380/2015 S.B. Account No.6197 at Janatha Seva Co 17 operative Bank Ltd., No.9, 1st Main, 2,942.00 Vijayanagara 2nd stage, Bengaluru40 S.B. A/c.No.1052500110466901 of 18 1,224.00 Karnataka Bank Limited.
S.B. A/c.No.1052500110522101 of
19 298.00
Karnataka Bank Limited.
S.B. A/c.No.118001011001309 of Vijaya 20 Bank, C.M.C. complex, B.M. Road, 354.00 Ramanagara Dist.
21 LIC Policy No.362037029 1,20,000.00 22 LIC Policy No.616346399 0.00 23 LIC Policy No.721163084 0.00 24 LIC Policy No.610230491 9,845.00 25 Reliance Insurance Policy No.15272531 0.00 Metlife Insurance Policy No. 26 0.00 1200600176214
Maturity amount of U.T.I. Mutual fund 27 1,02,310.00 membership No.UL 200130311000509 Amount given by AGO's motherinlaw to 28 50,000.00 the wife of AGO as gift 29 Business income of AGO's wife 7,77,366.00 Loan obtained for construction 2 floor 30 building bearing No.1998 situated at RPC 4,50,000.00 Layout, Bengaluru.
Total 2,31,42,699.79
28. The accused is not disputing the income of Rs.1,84,26,728.40 under the heads at Sl.No.1, 5 to 28 and
30. The real dispute is pertaining to the income of Rs.47,15,971.25 computed by Pw.11 under the heads at Sl.No.2, 3, 4 and 29 only. Therefore, no need to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the related documents to the extent of admitted income. The discussion on the item wise disputed heads as hereunder is to be dealt with to decide the correctness or otherwise.
43 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Sl.No.2 : House rent income of the accused 28.1. It is not in dispute that, the house of the accused bearing No.8/61/2 at Padmanabhanagara of Bengaluru city consisting of the ground, 1st and 2nd floors was constructed in the year 2007. Pw.11 has considered the rental income of the accused at Rs.18,64,550/ during the check period for his reasons in para116 of the report at Ex.P21. On the other hand, the accused on the strength of the information he has given in scheduleII and his ocular evidence claims that, his rental income was Rs.24,01,400/. Thus, the difference amount of Rs.5,36,850/ is in dispute.
28.2. According to the accused, he has let out his house for rent to different tenants and derived the income as hereunder:
Floor Tenant Agreement Total Rent per Total rent Advance No. Name /lease months month received received date (in Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.) 1 Deepak 13.7.2007 17 11,000 1,87,000 1 Prasanna 15.1.2009 3 yrs. 9,00,000 9,00,000 Kumar Lease G Deveera 13.7.2007 36 6,000 2,16,000 ppa G Sandeep 21.7.2010 14 6,500 91,000 40,000 kumar II Ameer 10.8.2007 35 3,85,000 1 lakh & 5,74,000 9.7.2010 15 1,89,000 III Fahaad 1.8.2011 1 3,150 3,150 30,000 Abbas Total Rs.21,41,150/ 44 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Admittedly, Sri. Sandeep Kumar, Ameer and Fahaad were tenants from the dates of their respective agreements till the date of raid on 30.9.2011 as seen at Ex.P67(a) (d), page No.64 of Ex.P68 and Ex.P67(c) respectively. The prosecution is not disputing the rents and security deposits of Rs.17,38,150/ received by the accused from Sri. Prasanna Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Ameer and Fahaad Abbasi as detailed in the table.
28.3. The only dispute is with regard to rents allegedly received from tenants namely Sri. Deepak and Sri. Deveerappa. Here, except the submission of his schedule to the investigation officer and ocular evidence adduced before this court, the accused has not placed any material to prove that Sri. Deepak was a tenant for a period of 17 months and Sri. Deveerappa for a period of 36 months. Therefore and in the absence of supporting material, there is no option but to indicate his failure to prove the payment of rent by them to the extent as indicated in the above table. Rather, their respective rent agreements relied upon by the accused are evident to say that, both of them were tenants under the accused for a period of 11 months each. Thus the rent of Rs.1,21,000/ @ Rs.11,000/ per month paid by Sri. Deepak and Rs.66,000/ by Sri. Deveerappa at the rate of Rs.6,000/ per month in all Rs.1,87,000/ is obvious. If the 45 Spl. C.C.380/2015 undisputed rent and deposits of Rs.17,38,150/ is added, it works out at Rs.19,25,150/ and to that extent, the conclusion of Pw.11 stands modified.
Sl.No.3: the Agricultural income of the accused as detailed at page No.117 of the investigation report at Ex.P21.
29. Admittedly, 5 acres 5 guntas of an agricultural land in Sy.No.25/3, 43/3, 21/4, 412/3, 408/1, 169/2 an 15/3 of Sogala village of Channapatna taluk are the undivided agricultural properties belongs to the family of the accused. After the death of his father by name Channegowda, the revenue entries were got effected in the name of Smt. Huchamma the mother of the accused. They had 4 sons including the accused. Pw.13 Dr. Ashwini M. the then Dy.S.P. being one of the investigation officer deposed to have got estimated the total agricultural income from the aforesaid lands through the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Pw.5 Smt. Vani) vide the report at Ex.P12. Admittedly, this estimation is for the period from 1997 to 2011. Pw.5 reiterates these details in her evidence stating that, the total gross income was Rs.4,10,820/ and the net income was Rs.2,72,221/ after deduction of expenses at Rs.1,38,599/. According to this witness, she has estimated the average income based on the RTC's of the lands and the personal inspection.
46 Spl. C.C.380/2015 29.1. The fact that, all the lands are monsoon based and growing of Ragi, groundnut, horsegram etc. therein is not under the challenge. Hence, out of the total net income of Rs.2,72,221/, Pw.11 deposed that, he has considered 1/4th at Rs.68,055/ as the income of the accused. On the other hand, the accused in his written arguments at page33 is disputing the same on the ground as if Pw.11 ought to have considered the income for 28 years from 1984 to 2011 at the average rate of Rs.4,537/ p.a. It is true even as admitted by Pw.11, he has considered the income for 15 years from 19972011 only on the basis of the income declared by the accused in the APR's from 1997. The report at Ex.P12 of Pw.5 and the information therein at page 109 (report page4) that, no crops were grown from 199091 to 199495 so also from 200203 to 200708 for 11 years as seen at page No.111 is not disputed by the accused. Therefore, the defence of the accused does not assume any justification as no crops were grown for 11 years. Moreover, the regular and solid income cannot be expected from the monsoon based agriculture. Hence, the average income estimated by Pw.5 cannot be looked with fault.
29.2. Whatever income known to the prosecution is brought to light as rightly argued by the learned prosecutor. That means, it is for the accused to give accounts as to the income he was having prior to 1997 47 Spl. C.C.380/2015 and reasons for not having declared it in the APRs. of the relevant years. As cited already, the accused and his other 3 living brothers are the children to his parents. In the circumstance, considering 1/4th share of net income at Rs.68,055/ out of Rs.2,72,221/ bears no wrong on the part of Pw.11 nor it be said to be unscientific. At the same time, needless to say that, when the accused is entitle for the agricultural income, he cannot deny his liability of sharing the expenses proportionately. But Pw.11 failed to take note of it as rightly pointed out by the learned Prosecutor. In other words, 1/4th expenses at Rs.34,649/ out of the total expenses of Rs.1,38,599/ has to be added to the head of expenditure. With this, the prayer of the accused to add Rs.58,981/ to the head of income is rejected.
Sl.No.4: the Agricultural and Horticultural income of Smt. Shakunthala the wife of the accused (details at page 118 and 119 of Ex.P21)
30. It is not in dispute that, the wife of the accused had acquired 3 acres 35 guntas of an agricultural land with mango trees in Sy.No.147/2 of Danayakanahalli village, Ramanagara taluk in 2001 from her mother Smt. Kemparasamma vide a testamentary document. In 2002 she has purchased 20 Guntas of land in Sy.No.155/6 of Shanuboganahalli village consisting a borewell with mulberry crop. Pw.9 Sri. D. Apsar Babu is the Assistant 48 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Director of Sericulture, Ramanagara and Pw.10 Sri. V. Hanumantharayappa is the Tahsildar of Ramanagara Taluk. The investigation officer Pw.12 deposes that, she had secured the report at Ex.P17 from Pw.9 relating to the sericulture income of Smt. Shakuntala from 20 guntas of land. Pw.9 while reiterating the recitals of his report asserts the income of Rs.1,20,000/ per year from 2003 to 2011 in all Rs.8,05,448/ after deduction of the expenses at Rs.3,45,192/. Whereas, the evidence of Pw.10 and his report at Ex.P18 indicates the agricultural income at Rs.2,30,000/ p.a. from the Mango crop and Rs.50,000/ p.a. from Ragi in all Rs.2,80,000/ p.a. Similarly, the sericulture income of Rs.1,20,000/ p.a. from 20 Guntas of land in Sy.No.155/6 for the period from 200304 - 2011
12. 30.1. In fact, the accused is disputing the estimation of Pw.9 and his report as baseless. However, he admits the correctness of the total sericulture income of Rs.10,80,000/ at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/ p.a. for 9 years so also the agricultural income of Rs.28,00,000/ at the rate of Rs.2,80,000/ p.a. for a total period of 10 years estimated by Pw.10 in his report. Here as rightly pointed by the learned Public Prosecutor, Pw.10 has not specified the expenses and actual net income in his report. Obviously, there exists no basis for his estimation except the guess work report of the Revenue Inspector attached to 49 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Ex.P18 so also to the estimation of Pw.9 at Ex.P17. As observed herein before, no one can expect the regular and solid income from the agriculture and horticulture. It is all depends upon the yield, quality and quantity of crops, seasons, prices in the market, expenses incurred to grow etc. These aspects does not find place in the reports and evidence of Pw.9 and 10. Therefore, they cannot be basis to arrive at any conclusion. Perhaps, it may be the reason for Pw.11 to admit at para115 of his evidence that he has not considered the reports at Ex.P17 and 18.
30.2. However, deposed to have taken the agriculture and horticulture income of Rs.20,06,000/ declared by the wife of the accused in her IT returns for the year 200203 to 201012 (Book2, Page 112155). The declaration as such is not disputed by the accused. This declaration itself disproves his defence that his wife had derived the total income of Rs.38,80,000/. However, the learned defence counsel in his written arguments at page33 took a contention that, though the declaration of this Agriculture and Horticulture income is not mandatory, it was declared for the computation of an income on the presumptive basis. This kind of defence holds no force for the reason that, the declaration of the income by his wife in her IT returns at an undisputed point of time could be the best piece of evidence than the guess work reports of experts. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the defence 50 Spl. C.C.380/2015 theory in this regard shall fail as the prosecution has become successful in establishing the income of Rs.20,06,000/ under the head at Sl.No.4.
Sl.No.29 : Business income of the wife of the accused.
31. Pw.11 has considered the business income at Rs.7,77,366/ for the years 200203 to 201112 as detailed at page137 of his report marked at Ex.P21. The basis for his calculation is the Income Tax Returns at page43 to 66, Book No.3 (Ex.P.62) admittedly submitted by the wife of the accused for the aforesaid period. On the contrary, the accused asserts the income at Rs.11,69,400/. The defence of the accused in his written arguments at para 36 is that, Pw.11 has considered only the taxable income after standard deductions under ChapterVI of the Income Tax Act. Therefore according to him, the very calculation is patently wrong and difference amount of Rs.3,92,034/ has to be added as an income. Here, I am declined to accept the defence contention for the reason that, the net business income would be the actual income of an assessee. Pw.11 has on the basis of IT returns rightly considered the net income in his report vide Ex.P21 and re iterated the same in the evidence. Therefore, no wrong is seen but to hold that Sl.No.29 relating to the business income of Rs.7,77,366/ stands established.
51 Spl. C.C.380/2015
32. The following are the details of left out income admittedly not considered by Pw.11 as an income of the accused:
Sl.No.1: Income of the accused from LIC Policy No.610230491 The contention of the accused that, the maturity amount of Rs.9,895/ under this policy was not considered as his income by Pw.11. Admittedly it was matured on 23.12.2011 as per the document at page219 of Ex.P40 after the check period. Hence, the question of considering would not arise.
Sl.No.2: Income of Manjula from the beauty parlour 32.1. Admittedly she (Dw.9) is the sisterinlaw of the accused and sister of his wife. She being a spinster was residing with them since 1996 for sometime. She is the holder of a beautician Certificate as per Ex.D5. In the evidence, she claims to have derived the salary income of Rs.10,01,000/ as an employee in Signorina Beauty Parlour at Malleswaram during the period from 20002001 to 20092011. A Certificate at Ex.D6 is produced to that extent. In the year 2000, admittedly she had acquired 2 acres of Mango garden, 1 acre of coconut garden, 14 guntas of other land and a site with the dimension of 30 x 40 ft. to her share in a family partition vide the document at Ex.P50. She was having regular income from the agriculture and horticulture.
52 Spl. C.C.380/2015 32.2. Now the defence of the accused on the one hand is that, Dw.9 was giving her salary income to him and the same was not considered as his income by Pw.11 in spite of the information provided in his schedule. On the other hand he states as if Dw.9 was his dependent.
Therefore, the question to decide is as to whether the income of his sisterinlaw would be the income of the accused ? In this context it is made clear that, when Dw.9 was having sufficient income as admitted by the accused, it cannot be said that she was his dependent. Further that, if really he was receiving her income, he should have declared the same either in his APRs. submitted to his department or in the income tax returns of the relevant years. Admittedly, no such declaration has made by him so far. Moreover, his failure to indicate Dw.9 as one of the unit in his family for the purpose of computing the domestic expenses so also the expenses he might have spent towards her in the family expenditure. The above facts, inspires this court to discard the defence of the accused with the opinion that, the income of Dw.9 cannot be considered as the income of the accused only for the reason that she was staying in his house for sometime.
33. Sl.No.3 to 7: According to the accused, the hand loans obtained by his wife Smt.Shakunthala from private 53 Spl. C.C.380/2015 persons as hereunder has not considered by Pw.11 though the same has been declared in the scheduleVI (Ex.P68).
1) Nissar Rs. 6,00,000/
2) Kantharaju Patil Rs. 8,00,000/
3) Veeregowda Rs. 6,00,000/
4) Chikkegowda Rs. 5,00,000/
5) Lakshmi Rs.15,00,000/
Total Rs.40,00,000/
Here needless to say that, the burden is upon the accused to prove these loans. Interestingly, except the affidavits of respective persons at Sl.No.1 to 5 above, the accused has not placed any documentary evidence to prove the loan transactions. However, Sri. Veeregowda, Sri. Kantharaju Patil and Smt. Lakshmi have been examined as Dw.2, 8 and 10 respectively. In the evidence they deposed to have lent loans to the wife of the accused in the year 2006, 2006 and 2010 respectively. But no material has been placed before the court to substantiate the same and prove their respective source of an income. No doubt, Dw.8 states as if he was having income of Rs.56 lakhs per annum from his 72 acres of garden land. Similarly, Dw.10 that she was doing the medical and ambulance business with the help of 10 vehicles etc. does not assume any weightage to believe in the absence of proof.
33.1. According to Dw.2, 8 and 10, the wife of the accused has repaid the loans to them in the year 2011, 2014 and 2012 respectively. However, Dw.10 says as if 54 Spl. C.C.380/2015 she got executed the demand promissory note and an agreement along with a cheque bearing No.116050 from the wife of the accused. In fact, these documents are not produced before the court except the xerox copies found at page258 to 260 of Ex.P68. Her clarification as if she has torned and destroyed them is unbelievable. The failure of the accused to examine Nissar and Chikkegowda so also the borrower of the alleged loan is noteworthy. Now the question is, if really the loan transaction is true, the accused being the public servant should have declared it either in the APRs. or in the income tax returns.
33.2. That apart, the wife of the accused being the income tax assessee, should have reflected either the said hand loan transaction or the repayment of the loans including the source in her IT Returns of the relevant years. Admittedly no such declaration is made by both of them in respect of these hand loans while declaring their other income. No explanations are forthcoming in this regard. More importantly, the wife of the accused who had allegedly borrowed the loan of Rs.40,00,000/ is not examined before the court to prove it or its repayment so also the source therefor. The huge loan transaction to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/ in the absence of proof is unbelievable. In the circumstances, the affidavits and oral evidence adduced by Dw.2, 8 and 10 does not assume the place of proof nor it substantiates the defence of the 55 Spl. C.C.380/2015 accused. In other words, I am to indicate the failure of the accused to prove the private loans.
33.3. Therefore I must accept the contention of the learned prosecutor that, the story of private loans is an afterthought and invented for the purpose of the defence so as to justify the illegal acquisition of assets by the accused as a public servant. Hence, no reasons exists to find fault with Pw.11 in not considering the loans as the income of the accused and his family. In the light of the discussion at para28 to 33.2 above, I am to reflect the following proved income in respect of disputed heads.
Sl.No. 2 3 4 29 Total
In Rs. 1925150 68055 2006000 777366 4776571
The admitted income : 18426728
Total : 23203299
34. The overall evaluation of the discussion, considered findings with reference to the evidence of both side on record conclusively demonstrates the assets acquired by the accused during the check period from 28.3.1984 to 30.9.2011 disproportionate to his known source of an income in the manner as hereunder:
Heads Amount (in Rs.)
A. Assets acquired 1,03,61,312.00
B. Expenditure including the 2,24,51,748.00
Agricultural expenses of
Rs.34,649/ as discussed at para
56 Spl. C.C.380/2015
29.2.
C. Total assets and expenditure 3,28,13,060.00
D. Income 2,32,03,299.00
E. Assets disproportionate 96,09,761.00
35. Thus, A+B = C - D = 41.41% of the assets and receipts acquired by the accused as a public servant during the check period disproportionate to his known source of an income is successfully established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. No reasons are forthcoming to extend the benefit of doubt in his favour. In view of the same, the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnanada Agnihotri reported as (1977) 1 SCC 816 that, "less than 10% of assets disproportionate to the known source of an income would not be basis to convict the accused have no application to the case on hand." Also referred (1997) 6 SCC 171 and the authority of the Hon'ble Andhrapradesh High Court at Hyderabad reported as 1999 Crl.LJ. 1026. Therefore, the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the authorities relied on by the learned defence counsel as reflected at para12 of this judgment is aptly applicable to the prosecution stand rather than the defence theory of the accused. The foundational facts emanating from the factual discussion constitutes the essential ingredients which attracts the offence punishable under Section 13(1) 57 Spl. C.C.380/2015
(e) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention Corruption (Amended) Act, 1988 against the accused. In other words, the accused is found guilty. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence defined under Section 13(1)(e) and punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
His bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.1 directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of June, 2024) Sd/ 29/6/24 (K.M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him in the presence of his counsel. The accused submits that, he is an innocent. He he is a retired person with heart disease. He is the only person to take care of his aged wife and sisterinlaw. He sought for the leniency in imposing the minimum punishment. He has
58 Spl. C.C.380/2015 sought for the set off for a period of 4 days from 20.4.2012 to 23.4.2012 during which he was under
detention before obtaining the bail in this case. His submission is placed on record. The plea of the accused that he is an innocent cannot be accepted for the findings in the judgment. As observed by the Honorable Apex Court in the cases of N Bhargavan Pillai vs State of Kerala reported as AIR 2004 SC 2317 and The State V/s A Parthiban reported as 2006 AIR SCW 5267, the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be made applicable to the accused since he is found guilty in respect of offences under the PC Act. Of course, no criminal antecedents are noticed against him.
2. The offence came to be committed by the accused is in the year 2011 i.e. before coming into force of the amended Act 2018. Therefore, the punishment prescribed under the preamended Act is applicable to the accused.
The conduct of the accused being the public servant in accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known source of an income truly demands an appropriate sentence of imprisonment as a message not only to the accused but also the public servants of this nature involving in deep rooted corrupt activities and playing with the lives of common people.
59 Spl. C.C.380/2015
3. Needless to say that since recent past, the word public servant itself has become the licence for the person like the accused herein to courageously and openly demand the bribe or illegally acquiring the assets in the matter of discharging the official duties. Particularly, the poor, voiceless, helpless and downtrodden people who are the backbone of the society becoming real victims at the hands of corrupt public servants. Totally the corruption from bottom to top in the system has become the biggest challenge not only to the healthy society but also the developing countries like ours. Because of this situation, the people are losing the faith in the administrative mechanism of the government. Therefore I am of the opinion that, stringent punishment particularly in the cases of corruption is the need of hour to ensure the sincere devotion and attention by the public servants in discharging the official functions honestly in the larger interest of the society. With these observations and having regard to the age of the accused, I pass the following:
ORDER The offender Sri. C. Ramalingaiah the retired Assistant Executive Engineer is sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,00,000/ (One Crore only) for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) 60 Spl. C.C.380/2015 r/w.Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default to pay the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
The accused is entitle for 4 day set off for reasons at page58 of this judgment.
The default sentence shall run separately.
Office is directed to furnish the true copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.1 directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of June, 2024) Sd/ 29/6/24 (K.M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Santhosh Kumar
PW 2 : Nikhil
PW 3 : Ramakrishna
PW 4 : Sudhakar
PW 5 : Vani
PW 6 : Nagaraj N.
PW 7 : G. Shivaprakash
PW 8 : S.L. Nagarajaiah
PW 9 : Afsar Babu
PW 10 : Hanumantharayappa
61 Spl. C.C.380/2015
PW 11 : M. Narayan
PW 12 : Abdul Ahaad
PW 13 : Dr. Ashwini M.
PW 14 : K. Ravishankar
PW 15 : Veerabhadraiah
PW 16 : N.G. Shivashankar
PW 17 : Dr. K. Ramachandra
PW 18 : C. Surendra
PW 19 : H.A. Upendra
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P1 : Search Warrant
Ex P1(a) : Signature of the Pw.1
Ex P1(b) : Signature of the Pw.12
Ex P2 : House Search Mahazar dt.30.9.2011
Ex P2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex P2(b) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex P2(c) : Signature of Pw.12
Ex P3 : House No.2032 Search mahazar
Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex P3(b) : Signature of PW.12
Ex P3(c) : Signature of PW.15
Ex P4 : Appraiser report dtd.30.9.2011
Ex.P5 : 23rd meeting of the Board
Ex.P6 : Letter of Delegation of Powers
Ex P7 : Meeting attendance register extract
Ex P8 : Order of delegation of powers
dtd.20.3.2002
Ex P9 : Schedules of KPTCL dtd.28.9.2011
62 Spl. C.C.380/2015
Ex.P10 : Sanction order
Ex P10(a) : Signature of Pw.3
Ex P11 : Receipt of Pw.4
Ex P11(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P12 : Agriculture report
Ex P12(a) : Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P13 : Building valuation report
Ex P13(a) : Signature of Pw.6
Ex P14 : Building valuation report No.8/61/12
Ex P14(a) : Signature of Pw.7
Ex P15 : Letter dt.30.3.2013 of Assistant Director
of Agriculture, Ramanagar.
Ex P16 : Letter dtd.25.4.2013
Ex P16(a) : Agriculture report
Ex P17 : Letter dtd.17.4.2013 and report
Ex P17(a) : Signature of Pw.9
Ex P18 : Report of Tahsildar and Mahazar
Ex P18(a) : Signature of Pw.10
Ex P19 : Proceedings of SP, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru.
Ex P20 : Family expenditure report
Ex P21 : Final report
Ex P22 : SubRegistrar, Vijayanagar/Registration
documents dtd.12.12.2012
63 Spl. C.C.380/2015
Ex P23 : Copy of Gazette and connected paper
pertains to Ex.P14
Ex P24 : Letter of SubRegistrar, Kengeri
dtd.13.12.2012 and true copy of
documents.
Ex P25 : Site No.8/61/2 Sale deed dtd.28.10.2005
Ex P26 : Enclosures of Ex.P13 papers
Ex P27 : Proceedings of SP, Karnataka Lokayukta
dtd.29.9.2011
Ex P28 : Source report
Ex P28(a) : Signature of Pw.12
Ex P29 : F.I.R. in Crime No.45/2011
Ex P29(a) : Signature of Pw.12
Ex.P30 : Witness securing letter to Health
department dtd.29.9.2011
Ex.P31 : Letter of I.T. department with Income tax
returns
Ex P32 : Registration Letter of PWD
department/15102022
Ex P32(a) : Signature of Pw.12
Ex P33 : Letter of BWSSB with enclosures/reports
Ex P34 : Vijaya Nagar club letter and documents
Ex P34(a) : Signature of Pw.17
Ex.P35 : Letter of Regency Institute of Sports and
Culture dtd.4.11.2011 and documents Ex.P36 : Letter of BSNL expenses details Ex.P37 : Letter of PCL with salary details Ex.P38 : Authorization letter 64 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Ex.P39 : Metlife policy details Ex.P40 : LIC of India policy details Ex.P41 : Reliance policy details Ex.P42 : True copy of sale deed Ex.P43 : Letter of RTO, West Rajajinagar Ex.P44 : Vehicle documents Ex.P45 : Toyota car details from RTO (W) Ex.P46 : Letter of SBI, Mudigere, Channapatna S.B. Account details Ex.P47 : APR from department of PWD dt.27.12.2012 Ex.P48 : Letter from RTO, South, Bengaluru dtd.2.1.2013 Ex.P49 : Report of Horticulture from Director of Horticulture, Channapatna dtd.3.3.2013 Ex.P50 : Copy of partition deed and original pahanis of agriculture lands Ex.P51 : Karnataka Bank, Vijayanagar Branch housing loan details Ex.P52 : Central Bank of India account details Ex.P53 : Letter of Karnataka Engineer Academy account details (membership) Ex.P54 : BESCOM, Electricity details of AGO Letter dtd.16.5.2013 Ex.P55 : Krishna Gas agency gas details Ex.P56 : Letter of BESCOM dtd.23.5.2013 payment details Ex.P57 : Janatha Sena Cooperative Bank, Vijayanagar account details Ex.P58 : Maba Cooperative services Pvt.ltd., loan details Ex.P59 : LIC of India policy details of AGO 65 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Ex.P60 : Raja Rajeshwari Medical college and hospital - daughter education details Ex.P61 : Letter of World of Titans dtd.20.11.2012 Ex.P62 : Entire documents of record3 Ex.P63 : Entire documents of record "3A" Ex.P64 : Entire documents of record "3B" Ex.P65 : Entire documents of record "3C" Ex.P66 : Entire documents of record "3D" Ex.P67 : Entire documents of record "3E" Ex P67(a) : Original rental agreement dt.13.7.2007 Ex P67(b) : Original rental agreement dt.13.7.2007 Ex P67(c) : Original rental agreement dt.10.8.2007 Ex P67(d) : Original rental agreement dt.21.7.2010 Ex.P68 : Schedules (Book4, Vol.4) Ex P68(a) : Affidavit of Dw.2 Ex P68(b) : Copy of affidavit of Dw.6 Ex.P69 : Schedules (Book5, Vol.4A) Ex P69(a) : Affidavit of Dw.2 available at page519 of Ex.P69 Ex P69(b) : Affidavit copy of Dw.3 (available at page
521) Ex.P70 : Can Fin Homes Ltd. Dtd.15.4.2014 and documents - Loan details Ex.P71 : UTI mutual fund details Ex.P72 : Authorisation under Section 17 of PC Act Ex.P73 : Letter dt.27.6.2012 of Pw.19 of the KLA registration expenses towards documents Ex.P73(a) : Signature of Pw.19 66 Spl. C.C.380/2015 List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
DW 1 : Prasanna Kumar DW 2 : Veere Gowda DW 3 : Umesh DW 4 : Shivaram DW 5 : Harish DW 6 : Shivaprakash DW 7 : Dr. Ramalingaiah DW 8 : S.T. Kantharaj Patel DW 9 : Manjula H.R. DW 10 : Smt. Lakshmi DW 11 : Ramalingaiah C (Accused)
List of document marked on behalf of defence side Ex.D1 Horticulture Income report Ex.D2 Original lease deed dt.26.12.2008 Ex.D3 True copy of the passbook extract in the name of Dw.5 Ex.D4 Affidavit dt.3.12.2012 given by Dw.8 Ex.D5 Job Oriental Diploma Certificate of Dw.9 Ex.D6 Salary Certificate issued by Signorina Beauty Parlour Ex.D7 Affidavit dt.29.11.2012 given by Dw.10 Ex.D8 Affidavit dt.3.12.2012 given by Mr.Syed Nisar Ahmed Ex.D9 Affidavit dt.3.12.2012 given by Chikkegowda Ex.D10 Cash Bill No.101 dt.12.12.2010 for Rs.1.00 lakh of Udaya Developers Ex.D11 Cash Bill No.102 for Rs.19.00 lakh of Udaya Developers
67 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Ex.D12 Cash Bill No.103 dt.25.3.2011 for Rs.3.00 lakh of Udaya Developers Sd/ 29/6/24 XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
68 Spl. C.C.380/2015 The separate judgment is pronounced in the open court. The operative portion of the judgment is as hereunder.
ORDER Acting under section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence defined under Section 13(1)
(e) and punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
His bail bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled forthwith.
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
69 Spl. C.C.380/2015 Order on sentence pronounced in the open court.
ORDER
The offender Sri. C. Ramalingaiah
the retired Assistant Executive
Engineer is sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,00,000/ (One Crore only) for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default to pay the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
The accused is entitle for 4 day set off for reasons at page58 of this judgment.
The default sentence shall run separately.
Office is directed to furnish the true copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.