Bangalore District Court
Santhosh Kumar T vs Saravana M on 21 August, 2025
KABC030897172021
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 06-12-2021
Registered on : 06-12-2021
Decided on : 21-08-2025
Duration : 3 years, 8 months, 15 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 21th Day of August, 2025
C. C. No.34286/2021
(Crime No.186/2021)
State by Sanjay Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Saravana.M.,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Sri Mani.M.,
R/at No.15/1, 2nd Cross,
Gangamma Layout,
Guddadahalli, Hebbala,
Bengaluru City -54 ... Accused
(Represented by Sri. Kamalkar Jhadav, Advocate)
KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021
1. Date of commission of 09-09-2021
offence
2. Date of FIR 09-09-2021
3. Date of Charge sheet 25-11-2021
4. Name of Complainant Sri Santhoshkumar.T.
Assistant Engineer,
Ward No.19, BBMP,
Bengaluru
5. Offences complained of Under Section 427,
431 of IPC and Sec. 3
of PDPP Act
6. Date of framing charge 14-02-2025
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 31-07-2025
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 21-08-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 21-08-2025
11. Final order Accused is acquitted
2
KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagar Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 427, 431 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
2. Prosecution Case: The accused a representative of M/S Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited, has obtained permission from BBMP to dig a 60 feet road and a 1687.63-meter road on Kalpana Chawla Road. However, the accused, prior to 09-09- 2021, had dug a public road in RMV II Phase, Nagashettihalli, Muneshwara Temple Road and Yajamanappa Layout Main Roads within the limits of Sanjaynagar Police Station without obtaining permission from BBMP/Government and caused loss to tune of Rs. 50 lakhs to BBMP and caused inconvenience to public to travel on the said roads.
3. First Information Report: On receipt of information from CW1 Sri Sathoshkumar.T., Assistant Engineer, Ward No.19, BBMP as per Ex.P1, CW6/PW1 Sri Girish Naik, the PSI of Sanjay Nagar 3 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 Police Station registered the case in Crime No.186/2021 for the offences punishable under sec.427, 431 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, prepared FIR as per Ex.P2 and conducted spot mahazar on 10-09-2021 as per Ex.P3 in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Kalyan.G. and CW3 namely Sri Rizwan from 9.30 am to 10.30 am.
4. Investigation: Thereafter he secured the documents as per Ex.P5 and Ex. P. 6, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance of offence alleged against the accused.
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 18-05-2024.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
4 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/20218. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.427, 431 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 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.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 6 witnesses however examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents and closed their side. On account of marking of Ex.P4 through CW6, the examination of CW4 and CW5 were given up by the order dated 31-07-2025. On account of examination of CW3, the examination of CW2 is given up by the order dated 19-08-2025.
10. Statement of accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
5 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/202112. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that prior to 09-09-2021, the accused had dug a public road in RMV II Phase, Nagashettihalli, Muneshwara Temple Road and Yajamanappa Layout Main Roads within the limits of Sanjaynagar Police Station without obtaining permission from BBMP/ Government, damaged the public property and caused loss of ₹50 lakhs to BBMP thereby resulted in commission of an offences punishable u/Sec.427 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, due to mischief act of accused, there was inconvenience to public to convey/travel on the said roads thereby resulted in commission 6 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 of an offence punishable u/Sec.431 of IPC?
3. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 & 2 : These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows i. CW6 by name Sri Girish Naik, the then PSI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW1 deposed that on 09-09-2021, on receipt of written complaint from CW1 as per Ex.P1, he registered FIR as per Ex.P2 and on 10-09-2021, he conducted spot mahazar as per 7 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 Ex.P3 from 9:30 am to 10:30 am in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Kalyan and CW3 namely Sri Rizwaan. CW4 produced the accused and submitted report as per Ex.P4. After obtaining the documents from BBMP as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P4, he completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused.
ii. CW1 Sri Santhosh Kumar.T., being informant examined as PW2 deposed that on 09-09-2021, whilst conducting a site inspection at Yajamanappa Layout and Muniswamappa Layout and the cross road, illegal patholes were being dug on the public road, which was causing difficulty for the public to move their vehicles and causing financial loss of Rs.25 lakhs to the BBMP office to repair the road. Hence, he filed complaint with Sanjayanagar Police Station as per Ex.P1. On 10-09-2021, the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P3. The investigating officer sought information about the loss caused by digging the road at the said Yajamanappa Layout and Muniswamappa Layout site through Ex.P5 letter, in turn he gave an office note and order as per Ex.P7. He identified the permission letter issued by the BBMP as per Ex.P8.
8 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021iii. CW3 Sri Rizwaan, pancha witness examined as PW3 identified his signature on Ex.P3 as Ex.P3(c).
15. The charge against the accused is for section 427, 431 of IPC. The expression "mischief" has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person causes the destruction of any property etc. I. Section 427 IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both."
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with mischief causing damage or loss of property valued at fifty rupees or more.
ii. Sec. 431. Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river 9 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 or channel.-- Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
iii. Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 which reads as under
3. Mischief causing damage to public property. -(1)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a 10 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 term which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being - The Prevention of Damage to Pubic Property Act, 1984 a. any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy ;
b. any oil installation;
c. any sewage work;
d. any mine or factory;
e. any means of public
transportation or of tele-
communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of 11 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
Thus, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 addresses the act when it is committed against public property.
16. The essential ingredients of Section 427 IPC are as follows;
1. An act of intentionally causing damage or destruction to someone else's property as per section 425 of IPC
2. The accused must have the intention to cause damage or be aware their actions would likely result in damage.
3. The act must cause damage or loss to property, valued at fifty rupees or more.
17. The essential ingredients of Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are as follows;12 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021
I. The damage or mischief must be done to public property, as defined by the Act.
II. The act must be done intentionally or with reckless disregard for the consequences. III. The act must cause damage or loss to the public property.
Thus, section 427 of IPC carries a punishment of imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both. Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act carries a harsher penalty, with a maximum sentence of five years, and a fine. Both sections require an intentional act of mischief, causing damage and the value of damage must be at least fifty rupees.
18. It is the case of prosecution that as per Ex.P1 ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ(1) ಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಎಫ್ ಐ ಆರ್ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೂ M/S Joi Digital Fibre Private Limited RMZ ICON, 51, Palace road Cross, Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru-52 ರವರು ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ವಾರ್ಡ್ -19 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾಜಮಾನಪ್ಪ ಲೇಔಟ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಮುನಿಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಮುಖ್ಯ ರಸ್ತೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಡ್ಡ 13 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯನ್ನು ಅಗೆದಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವಾರ್ಡ್ ವೀಕ್ಷಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿಯವರು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಹಾಳುಗೆಡವಿ, ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿ ಗೆ ನಷ್ಟವನ್ನುಂಟು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ವಾಹನ ಸವಾರರಿಗೆ ತುಂಬಾ ತೊಂದರೆಯುಂಟಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಆದ್ದುದರಿಂದ, ಸದರಿ M/S Jio Digital Fibre Private Limited RMZ ICON, 51, Palace road Cross, Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru ರವರ ಗುತ್ತಿಗೆದಾರರಾದ ಸರವಣಕುಮಾರ್ ರವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಸದರಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ರೋಡ್ cutting vehicle ಮತ್ತು ಇತರೆ ಸಾಮಾಗ್ರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸೀಸ್ ಮಾಡಿ ಕಾನೂನು ರೀತಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ವಿನಂತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Thus, the complaint makes it very clear that the M/s. Jio Digital Fibre Private Limited RMZ Icon No. 51, Palace Road Cross, Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore dug the road in Yajamanappa Layout and Muniswamappa Main Road and Cross Road however it appears from the record that as per Ex. P. 8, BBMP has accorded permission for laying of Optical Fiber Cable on 29/07/2021 with the condition to complete the work between 29/07/2021 to 27/09/2021 for the following places 14 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 Sl. Name of the road and Route Length in No. Meter 01 Permission for laying of OFC by 253.37 M HDD Method from 2nde A Main Road via 6th A cross road, 2nd "E" Main Road up to 60 feet road 02 From 4th Cross Road via 2nd Main 340.92 M Road, Street ID No. W0206, W0237 up to Road end 03 From 7th Cross Reoad via 4th Cross 483.25 M Road, 2nd main Road Street ID Mo- W0231, W0229 up to 1st Main Road 04 From 1st Main Road via Street ID 313.97 M NO. W0227, W0150 up to Road end 05 From Street IUD NO. W0227 via 411.66 M W0217, W0160 uip to W0227 Total 1803.17 M NO of pits -04, No of Manhole 05 and No of Ducts 3 in Ward No. 19, East Zone Ref: As per drawing enclosed.
15 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021The permission was accorded to Jio Digital Fiber whilst digging the public road in ward No.19 to make pits -04 numbers, manhole 05 and number of ducts
03. The prosecution has not produced any material to show that Yajamanappa Layout and Muniswamappa Main Road and Cross Road does not come within the permission granted area to lay the Optical Fiber Cable.
19. It appears from the record that Ex.P7 i.e., office proceedings of BBMP dated 01/09/2021 was related to illegally digging the road in Bhoopasandra Main Road, U. S. A. Layout, Bhoopasandra New Extension RMS Colony N. G. F Colony Cross road in Ward No.19 and not with regard to the alleged road digging of Yajamanappa Layout and Muniswamappa Layout and cross road in Ward No.19. Thus, it is clear that the Jeo Digital Fiber Private Limited obtained the permission from the BBMP.
20. Added to which, PW1/IO has not placed any material before this court, how the accused was associated with the Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited for the alleged act and more so, no material evidence has been produced that the accused was digging the road on behalf of Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited . It is relevant to mention that the accused cannot produce the document to show that he was not 16 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 associated with the Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited but the IO/PW1 could have secured the document from Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited to prove the positive contention of the prosecution and the accused cannot prove the negative contention except pleading that he was not associated with Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited .
21. The entire case is based upon the allegation that the accused dug the public road without permission from BBMP, however the same admitted by the PW2 and Ex.P8 that the permission dated 29/07/2021 that Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited have obtained the permission and the violation of conditions of order dated 29/07/2021 was not established by the prosecution, the court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an offence of mischief in the public road by destroying the public road. PW2 without ascertaining from his office and IO/PW1 without investigating about the permission, the investigation has been done in a shoddy manner and enough evidence has not been collected by the IO before charge sheeting against the accused for the alleged offences and no evidence has been led to prove that road digged was by Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited or on behalf of Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited, the accused has committed mischief by damaging the public road at 17 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 alleged places and caused loss to the Government. Admittedly no estimation was produced by the prosecution about the alleged loss caused to the Government.
22. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused and the IO has conducted investigation in the present case in a shoddy manner in complete ignorance of provisions of law and permission obtained by the Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited and the accused was associated with Jio Digital Fiber Private Limited as a contractor, thereby this court answers the above point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
23. Point No.3:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.427, 431 18 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
(ii) Accused 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) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of August, 2025) DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Girish Naik PSI/IO PW2: Sri Santhosh Kumar Informant PW3: Sri Rizwaan Panch witness 19 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Spot Mahazar Ex.P4: Report
Ex.P5: Letter dated 16-09-2021 addressed to BBMP Ex.P6: Letter dated 24-11-2021 addressed to Sanjay Nagar PS Ex.P7: Copy of office note and order Ex.P8: permission letter dtd: 29-7-2021 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City 20 KABC030897172021 CC 34286/2021 21-08-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.427, 431 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
(ii) Accused 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) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
21