Bangalore District Court
K S Tanveer Pi vs Naveed Ahammed on 7 November, 2025
KABC030550772016
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 07-09-2016
Registered on : 07-09-2016
Decided on : 07-11-2025
Duration : 9 years, 2 months, 0 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 07th Day of November, 2025
C.C. No.20409/2016
(Crime No.48/2016)
State by R.T. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Naveed Ahamed,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri Wajid Ahamed,
R/at Bypass Road,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Kolar District.
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016
2. Sri Akram Pasha - Split up
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Sri Late Mehaboob Pasha,
R/at No.12, 1st Floor,
1st Main, 2nd Cross,
Muddamma Garden,
Benson Town Post,
Bengaluru-560046. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Vinay Chandra, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 05-02-2016
offence
2. Date of FIR 06-02-2016
3. Date of Charge sheet 03-06-2016
4.Name of Complainant Sri K.S.Tanveer, PI, CCB
W & N Wing, N.T.Pete,
Bengaluru
5. Offences complained of Under Section 420, 511
read with Sec.34 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 13-07-2023
charges
7.Charge Pleaded not guilty
2
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016
8. Date of commencement 02-02-2024
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 07-11-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 07-11-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of R.T. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 511 read with Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: On credible information, the CW1 namely Sri K.S.Tanveer, PI, CCB W & N Wing, N.T.Pete, Bengaluru along with pancha witness namely CW2 and CW3 and police staff namely CW4 to 11 on 05-02-2016 at about 5 p.m. raided upon accused No.1 and 2 in front of New Shanathi Sagar Hotel, 80 ft road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and found that the accused were in possession of drug claiming to be Ketamine though it was urea, and was making 3 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 attempt to the general public, thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: On credible information, CW1/PW2 Sri K.S.Tanveer, PI, CCB W & N Wing, N.T.Pete, Bengaluru conducted raid upon the accused and seizure formalities through seizure mahazar as per Ex.P9 and seized MO1 and produced the accused along with complaint as per Ex.P10 before SHO of R.T.Nagara PS.
4. Investigation: On the receipt of complaint from CW1, CW12/PW3 Sri Raghupati.S.M., PI, registered FIR as per Ex.P11, recorded the statement of witnesses, secured FSL report as per Ex.P12 and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sec.420, 511 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. At the pre-cognizance stage, the accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 28-06-2016.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offence alleged against the accused.
4KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016
7. In view of continuous absence of accused no.2, the case against him was split up by order dated 05-03-2021 and CC No.6483/2021 came to be registered against him.
8. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
9. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.420, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 12 witnesses examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents and MO1 to MO8 and closed their side. On account of examination of CW4 and CW1, the examination of CW5 to CW9 was given up and advocate for the accused has no objection to mark the FSL report and the same was marked as Ex.P11 and hence the examination of CW10 and CW11 was given up by the order dated 09/09/2025. Process of proclamation against the Pancha witnesses namely CW2 and CW3 5 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 was not secured though SHO was given six(6) dates of hearing for execution of proclamation and hence dropped out from examination by the order dated 09/10/2025.
11. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. The counsel for accused has filed written arguments. In addition, heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on on 05-02-2016 at about 5 p.m. in front of New Shanathi Sagar Hotel, 80 ft road within the limits of R.T.Nagar PS, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 with common intention 6 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 was attempting to sell the drug claiming to be Ketamine though it was Urea to the general public for earning money by making false representation that it was Ketamine drug thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 511 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What order?
14. The Court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
15. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses as under i. CW4 Sri M. H. Sathish, PI of CCB, W & N Wing, examined as PW1 deposed that, on the receipt 7 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 of credible information, he along with CW1 and pancha witnesses went to Shanti Sagar Hotel at 5 pm on 05-02-2016, apprehended the accused and found 2 packets of white powder in their possession, when it was examined at the spot, it was found to be ketamine, ACP Sajith was called upon to the spot. They took 2 packets of 5 grams each out of 940 grams of white powder for chemical examination as S-1 and S2, the remaining powder as P-3, the empty cover as Article.4, the money seized from the accused as Article.5, two mobile phones as Article 6, 7, vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA 04 HE 8942 as Article-8 and accused persons were taken into custody and filed complaint before SHO.
ii. CW1 namely Sri K.S.Tanveer, being informant examined as PW2 deposed that, on the receipt of credible information, on 05.02.2016, he informed his superiors, obtained written permission and he along with the CW2 and CW3 and the staff CW4 to CW9 went to spot in vehicle No.KA 02 G 780, at 5 pm, arrested the accused near New Shanti Sagar Hotel on R T Nagar Main Road, searched themselves. prepared reasons for search warrant, found white powder from the possession of accused No.1. When the chemical was put in the NDPS kit and tested, it was found to be Ketamin, the accused was questioned about the source of the same, he said that a person named Syed Saudi in Kolar had given 8 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 the said narcotic substance for sale and that he had sold the same to the customers along with the accused No.2. After confirming that it was a narcotic substance, ACP, V.J. Sajid was called to the spot and a request was made to conduct physical search of accused and after search, 2 yellow plastic covers containing white powder weighting 950 grams were found in his possession, 10 grams were taken for the sample and sealed, and the remaining 940 grams were sealed. he identified yellow plastic cover as Article No.4 with the signatures of the ACP and the police officer, two notes of Rs. 100/- and 50/- as Article No.5, two mobile phones as Article No.6 and 7 with, Honda Active bearing Reg.No.KA 04 HE 8942 as Article No.8, thereafter panchanama was conducted from 5 pm to 11 pm and the accused and the properties were handed over to SHO along with complaint. He identified requisition letter given to ACP as Ex.P1, the consent written in the Station House diary as Ex.P2, the record of reasons as Ex.P3, the two notices given to the pancha witnesses as Ex.P4 and Ex. P.5, the request given to the ACP as per Ex.P6, the two notices given to search the accused as per Ex.P7 and Ex. P.8, the seizure cum spot mahazar as Ex.P9, the complaint as per Ex.P10, yellow envelope as MO1, two plastic envelopes in two small boxes from the FSL as MO2 and MO3, two notes together as MO4, the mobile phones seized from the accused as MO6 and MO7 and the remaining 940 grams of ketemine powder as MO8.
9KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 iii. CW12 Sri Raghupathi.S.M., the then PI examined as PW3 deposed that, on 06-02-2016, he received complaint from CW1 registered FIR as per Ex.P11, recorded the statements of witnesses, secured the FSL report as per Ex.P12 and submitted charge sheet against the accused.
16. The first charges leveled against accused is under Sec. 420 of IPC and the relevant provision for section reads as under:
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
10
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016
A fraudulent or dishonest
inducement is an essential
ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:
1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby
2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or 11 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. The words 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' are defined as follows:
''24. "Dishonestly"-- Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
25. "Fraudulently"-- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.'' Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain: ""Wrongful gain": Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
"Wrongful loss": Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled."12
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 Thus, the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property.
18. In the case of Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Apex Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is established and held in paragraph 3 as follows:
"...both the learned courts have rested their findings on deception only and did not go into the question whether the complaint and its accompaniments disclosed the other essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC namely, dishonest inducement.
19. "Dishonesty" has been defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such intention, 13 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 deception is practiced and delivery of property is induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been committed..." In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, this Court reiterated that Section 415 IPC contemplates two distinct situations;
the first where a person is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the second where a person is induced to do or omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not have done or omitted.
In the former, the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest, whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore, intention is the gist of the offence.
It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
14KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
20. The averments with regard to the present complaint as ದಿಃ 05-02-2016 ರಂದು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣಾ ಸರಹದ್ದಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ 80 ಅಡಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನ್ಯೂ ಶಾಂತಿಸಾಗರ್ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ಮುಂಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತುವಾದ ಕೆಟಾವಿುನ್ ಎಂಬ ಮನೋವಿಕಲ್ಪ ವಸ್ತು ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜಕರಿಗೆ ಮೋಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ಚಾಸಾ.1 ರವರು ಚಾಸಾ.2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ರವರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಚಾಸಾ.4 ರಿಂದ 11 ರವರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರದ ನ್ಯೂ ಶಾಂತಿ ಸಾಗರ್ ಹೊಟೇಲ್ ಮುಂಭಾಗದ ಪುಟ್ ಪಾತ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಳಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳನ್ನು ದಸ್ತಗಿರಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಅವರ ವಶದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತುವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲಾದ ಕೆಟಾಮಿನ ಎಂಬ ಮನೋವಿಕಲ್ಪ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ಇತರೆ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಅಮಾನತ್ತು ಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು, 15 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 ಅಮಾನತ್ತುಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತುವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲಾದ ಕೆಟಾಮಿನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಎಫ್ ಎಸ್ ಎಲ್ ಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ವರದಿ ತರೆಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ತಜ್ಞರು ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತುವಾದ ಕೆಟಾಮಿನ್ ಅಥವಾ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತು ಅಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ವರದಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು ಅಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಪಾದನೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಇದ್ದ ವಸ್ತುವು ಕೆಟಾಮಿನ್ ಎಂಬ ಮನೋವಿಕಲ್ಪ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತು ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕೆಟಾಮಿನ್ ಎಂದು ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಮೋಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ .
with the background of this complaint, this court had gone through the oral testimony and documentary evidence to ascertain whether the accused committed the alleged offence.
21. In common parlance, deception implies intentionally leading someone to believe something that is not true. This deliberate inducement may be direct or indirect and by words or conduct. It may be expressed or implied in the nature of transaction. It appears from the record that there was no complaint from public and such being the case, how the PW2 could have suspected that the accused was indulged in selling of Ketamin (narcotic substance) which is an urea as per FSL Report to make wrongful gain. To 16 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation. In the absence of such vital link between the alleged false representation and the selling of Ketamin (narcotic substance) which is an urea as per FSL Report to the victim, the essential ingredient of offence for cheating is not satisfied and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr reported in 2025 INSC 1096.
22. It appears from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 deposed that:
ಎಫ್ ಎಸ್ ಎಲ್ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತನಿಂದ ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ವಸ್ತು ಯುರಿಯಾ ಎಂದು ವರದಿ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
and ನಾನು ಜಪ್ತಿ ಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ವಸ್ತು ಕೆಟೆಮಿನ್ ಅಲ್ಲ ಯುಾರಿಯಾ ಎಂದು ಎಫ್ಎಸ್ ಎಲ್ ವರದಿಯ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, mere possession of Ketamin (narcotic substance) which is an urea as per FSL Report in the public place cannot be construed as cheating unless the essential ingredients of cheating of false 17 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 representation and inducement to the victim has been established by the prosecution case.
23. PW2 has not produced prima facie material on what basis or which chemical has been used for coming to a conclusion that it was a Ketamin (narcotic substance).
24. PW1 and 2 have not taken any photographs or video recorded at the time of seizure of ketamaine from the possession of accused No.1 as per Ex.P9.
25. It appears from the alleged Ketamin (narcotic substance) was sent to FSL on 09-02-2016 though alleged to have seized on 05/02/2016 and more so the PW2 and PW3 was in possession of the alleged ketamin and the seal (CCB) so such being the case, there is all possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer. As per the version of prosecution witnesses, after sealing the property as the samples of alleged ambergris with the departmental seal and the same was in their possession. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent superior officer. The seal remained with the police officials of same police 18 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 station and therefore the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be eschewed. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property. In this regard, it has been held in the case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 held in paragraph 7 that:
"....The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiulla Vs State reported in (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have 19 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
Thus, it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to his superior officer. Even the I.O. PW2 and PW3 have not uttered a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use to their superior officer. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the sample cannot be ruled out. Thus, the in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
26. It is a trite law that for the commission of the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC, there must be an act which would lead to the deception of the person sought to be cheated and the moment a person takes a step forward to deceive, the said 20 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 person is sought to be cheated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhayanand Mishra Vs State of Bihar reported in (1962) 2 SCR 241, has dealt with not only the difference between 'preparation' and 'attempt to commit an offence', but also the offences punishable under Section 420 and 511 of the IPC. The relevant portion of the same is as follows -
"11. Another contention for the appellant is that the facts proved do not go beyond the stage of preparation for the commission of the offence of cheating, and do not make out the offence of attempting to cheat. There is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence. Undoubtedly, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence, 21 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 therefore, can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. This is clear from the general expression attempt to commit an offence and is exactly what the provisions of Section 511 IPC, require.
The relevant portion of 511 IPC, is:
"Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code ... or to cause such a offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished...."22
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 These provisions require that it is only when one, firstly, attempts to commit an offence and, secondly, in such attempt, does any act towards the commission of the offence, that he is punishable for that attempt to commit the offence. It follows, therefore, that the act which would make the culprit's attempt to commit an offence punishable, must be an act which, by itself or in combination with other acts, leads to the commission of the offence. The first step in the commission of the offence of cheating, therefore, must be an act which would lead to the deception of the person sought to be cheated. The moment a person takes some step to deceive the person sought to be cheated, he has embarked on a course of conduct which is nothing less than an attempt to commit the offence, as contemplated by Section 511. He does the act with the intention to commit the offence and the act is a step towards the commission of the offence. The prosecution has not proved that he made attempt to sell the alleged ketamin though it was an urea to any general public without any iota of cogent evidence.
27. Mere possession of urea an agricultural product is not an offence under any penal laws.
28. Thus, as discussed above by taking into account of aforesaid factual deficiencies in the 23 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 case made out by the prosecution, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal thereby the point No.1 is answered in negative.
29. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 420, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused No.1 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Keep this file in the split up case CC No.6483/2021 registered against accused No.2.24
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 07th day of November, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1: Sri.H.M.Sathish PI PW2: Sri K.S.Tanveer Informant/PI PW3: Sri Raghupathi PI/IO
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Letter dtd: 5-2-2016seeking PW2 permission for raid Ex.P2: Case diary (copy) PW2 Ex.P3: Record of Reason PW2 Ex.P4: Notice to Pancha Anjan Rao PW2 Ex.P5: Notice to Pancha Mohan Kumar PW2 25 KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 Ex.P6: Permission for search PW6 Ex.P7 ಅಂಗಶೋಧನೆ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆ ಪತ್ರ PW2 & P8 :
Ex.P9: Raid cum seizure mahazar PW2 Ex.P10: Complaint PW3 Ex.P11: FIR PW Ex.P12: FSL Report PW3 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Yellow envelope
MO2-3 : Two plastic envelopes in two small
boxes from the FSL
MO4-5 : Notes
MO6-7 : Mobile phones
MO8 : Remaining 940 grams of ketemine
powder
Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.26
KABC030550772016 CC No.20409/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 420, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused No.1 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Keep this file in the split up case CC No.6483/2021 registered against accused No.2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
27