Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

The State Rep. By vs A-1 Khaleemulla Khan 34 Yrs on 4 January, 2016

           IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
          METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY

     DATED THIS THE    4th DAY OF JANUARY 2016

          PRESENT :Smt. M. LATHAKUMARI
                            M.A.,LL.M.
                   VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.


     JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.

Case No.            : CC.No.18363/2011

Date of offence     : 10-1-2009

Complainant         : The State rep. by
                       PSI of Adugodi PS

Accused             : A-1 Khaleemulla Khan 34 Yrs
                      S/o Rehamathulla
                      R/at No.180, South Cross
                      Street, Neelasandra,
                      Bangalore.

                      A-2 K. Murthy 23 Yrs
                      S/o Yallappa K.
                      R/at No.1/11-11/280,
                      Kalusumbi colony,
                      Rayachur.

                      A-3 Abeed Hussain 23 Yrs
                      S/o Syed Ahamed
                      R/at No.205, Vijayalakshmi
                      Apartment, 4th Cross,
                      Kannadasapura, Bangalore.
                          2            CC.No.18363/2011




                     A-4 Anilkumar 28 Yrs
                     S/o Varadaraju
                     R/at No.1316,
                     Manjunathanagar,
                     T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore.

                     A-5 Muniraju 20 Yrs
                     S/o Ganganna
                     R/at No.48, 8th Cross,
                     Venkatapura, Bangalore.

                     A-6 Ajaykumar 26 Yrs
                     S/o Madappa
                     R/at No.8, 1st Cross,
                     Ganapathinagar, Bngalore.


Offence           : U/s.419, 471 and 420 of IPC

Plea              : Accused pleaded
                        not guilty

Final order       : Accused Nos.1 to 6 are
                     acquitted

Date of Order     : 04-01-2016.

                    ** ** **

    BRIEF STATEMENT OF   REASONS FOR DECISION


   It is the case of prosecution that        accused

persons   who suffered loss in their       computer

business Cyber Cafe and also STD booth business

started   scanning the document's   given to their
                                     3                 CC.No.18363/2011




customers and based on those scanned documents

started creating other documents and utilizing

the said documents to distribute Tata Indica SIM

to    such    persons         who   have      no   address      proof

documents and thereby cheated the Government and

general      pubic      at    large,    hence      committed        the

offences punishable U/s.419, 471 and 420 of IPC.


        2. This complaint came to be registered

against accused persons by virtue of requisition

given   by      CW.1    who    is   none      other   than     Police

Inspector. Even          CWs.2 to 5 cited in the charge

sheet     are     also       police     sub     inspectors        then

working at CCB., Bangalore. This court issued

summons       for the first time on 7-2-2014.                        In

spite   of      repeated       issue    of    summons     to    these

witnesses continuously for a period of 2 years

prosecution failed to secure these witnesses who

are   working      in    the    police       Department      itself.

Since sufficient opportunity of two years given
                                4                      CC.No.18363/2011




to prosecution, and also considering failure on

part of prosecution to secure the complainant

and     other     vital      witnesses           CWs.1        to         5

respectively       summons        not        issued     to      other

witnesses    as    no     purpose       would    be     served       in

examining other witnesses in the absence of oral

testimony of CWs.1 to 5. Prosecution failed to

secure complainant and its vital witnesses. In

the    absence      of     oral      testimony          of      these

witnesses,       entire     case        of    the     prosecution

appears vague and doubtful and thereby enables

the    accused    for     acquittal.          Accordingly,               I

proceed to pass the following:-

                             ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 6 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 419, 471 and 420 of IPC.

Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C accused Nos.1 to 6 are acquitted.

5 CC.No.18363/2011

The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 4th day of January 2016).

(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city. Annexure

1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:

Nil.

2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:

Nil.

3. Material objects:

Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.
6 CC.No.18363/2011
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused Nos.1 to 6 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 419, 471 and 420 of IPC.
   Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C accused                Nos.1
to 6    are acquitted.
   The      bail   bond    of     the   accused      stands
cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
7 CC.No.18363/2011 8 CC.No.18363/2011
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
9 CC.No.18363/2011