Bangalore District Court
State By Karnataka vs Sri.H.A.Afeez on 29 August, 2022
1
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
KABC010081442014
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE & THE SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR TRYING OFFENCES UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AT
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-78)
DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT:
SRI. S.V.SRIKANTH, B.A., LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SPL. C.C.No.122/2014
COMPLAINANT: State by Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police.
(Rep. by Mrs.Suneetha,
Public Prosecutor)
/VS/
ACCUSED: Sri.H.A.Afeez,
S/o H.A.Abdul Ahamed,
Aged about 63 years,
2
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
Deputy Director, Karnataka Town
Planning Department, Bengaluru.
R/at No.9, S.P-12, 2nd Main Road,
HBR 2nd Stage, Shampur
New Extension,Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri.R.N.N., Advocate )
TABULATION OF EVENTS
01. Date of commission of offence : 08-09-2008
02. Date of report of offences to
the Police Station (FIR date) : 10-09-2008
03. Date of arrest of accused : -
04. Date of release of accused
from JC : -
05. Name of the complainant : Lokayuktha
Police.
06. Nature of offence complained : U/S.Sec.13(1)
(e) R/w Sec. 13
13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
1988.
07. Date of submission of
charge sheet : 05-03-2014
08. Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 20-01-2018
09. Date of closing of evidence : 28-02-2020
3
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
10. Date of judgment : 29-08-2022
11. Opinion of the Judge in : Accused is
respect of the offences. acquitted.
*****
JU DG ME N T
1. The Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Chikkaballapura has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The nub of the prosecution case is that when the AGO was the public servant, more so, was the Town Planning Officer in the said department. He joined the department of Town Planning, Bengaluru on 01-06-1975. The police Inspector by name S.Maheshwarappa having collected the source report and submitted the same to the Dy.S.P. 4 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Smt.Radhamani on 10th September 2008 and on the basis of the said report, case was registered and investigation was undertaken by her. The IO, Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha has considered the check period from 01-06-1975 to 11-09-2008. It is the say of the IO that the accused had total assets of Rs. 87,22,112/- and total family expenditure of Rs. 47,79,247/- and total family income was Rs. 1,01,45,633/-. It is the serious allegation made by the IO in this case that the AGO had possessed property disproportionate to his known source of income in a total sum of Rs. 33,55,726/- which accounted for 34.58% and in spite of giving an opportunity, the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the same and thereby has committed the above stated offences. 5
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
3. After securing the presence of the accused before this Court, he was duly enlarged on regular bail and as per the mandatory compliance, the prosecution papers were supplied to him, immediately without waste of any time, the accused moved an application under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C. seeking for his discharge contending that there are no prima- facie materials to frame charges against him, so, he is entitled for discharge. This Court by calling for the objections of the prosecution, heard that application in detail and rejected that application on the grounds that the accused was wrong in propagating that theory. According to this Court, there were good grounds and believable documents at pre trial stage to frame charges, so went on to frame charges in the language known to the accused 6 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all has examined PWs.1 to 9 and exhibits at Ex.P.1 to P.134 came to be marked. No material objects got identified. Obviously, as there was incriminating evidence found against the accused, statement and an additional statement as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, which was put to the accused, who denied the same, chose to lead his evidence. By utilizing the opportunity granted by this Court, he got examined DWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.D. 1 to 9.
5. Heard the arguments.
7
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
6. The fresh points that crop up for my consideration are as follows:
1). Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that when the accused was a Government servant, who joined the department of Town Planning, Bengaluru on 01-06-1975 and having worked at different places at Karnataka and on the basis of the source report submitted by Sri.S.Maheshwarappa, FIR came to be registered, the IO, Dy.S.P. Lokayuktha has considered the check period as 01-06-1975 to 11-
09-2008 and found that the AGO and his family members possessed assets worth Rs. 87,22,112/-, total family expenditure at Rs.
47,79,247/- and total family income at Rs.1,01,45,633/-, but found to be in disproportionate assets worth Rs. 33,55,726/-
which accounted for 34.58% and in spite of providing an opportunity, the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the same, which compelled the IO to file the 8 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 charge sheet for having amassed this disproportionate assets which resulted in displaying criminal misconduct, thereby has committed the offences punishable under Secs.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2). What order?
7. After carefully going through the materials available on record and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, my findings to the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT Nos.2 : As per my final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT NO.1:
8. As the IO, Dy.S.P. has filed the final report cum charge sheet, his only concern was that so far as disproportionate assets which is in a sum of 9 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Rs. 33,55,726/- which is proportionate to 34.58% has not been properly explained by the AGO before the IO, so he has considered this as the ill-gotten wealth on the part of the AGO. It is also further canvassed by the prosecution that he has considered all the pros and cons especially the reply, the schedule and the explanation offered by the AGO before submitting the final report and then the charge sheet. He went on to further fortify his stand that, if his investigation were to be incorrect, definitely he would not have got sanction order to prosecute the accused and the very fact that already the prosecution papers have been scanned by the Government, a safe inference can be drawn that the charges levelled against the accused are firmly based and are meaningful.
10
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
9. Further, the Learned Public Prosecutor also canvassed that the Court can also look into the earlier observation of this Court that when an accused had moved an application under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C. making similar allegation that the prosecution has filed both final report and the charge sheet on imaginary figures and calculation but that contention has been rejected by this Court by holding that there are good grounds to proceed further in particular to frame charges against the accused. In a disproportionate case, even though the prosecution is called upon to prove each item of the assets, expenditure and income and more so, the IO is duty bound also to give his/her plausible explanation as to why he has not considered some of the explanation of the AGO given vide his reply. Equally, the accused 11 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 is also bound to assist the Court in showing before the Court that what was not disproportionate assets or unlawful acquisition of properties. In the instant case, the accused also takes the onus of showing before the Court that how there is no any disproportionate asset/s. In this regard, he can only bank upon his income and show that either they have been improperly considered or some items have been ignored. On the other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor went on to submit that major part of the assets and income are standing in the eldest son's name of the AGO and prosecution disbelieved the version that even prior to check period, the accused's eldest son has an independent source of income. On the other hand, just opposite to the contention of the prosecution, 12 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 the AGO canvassed his contention that his children who were major in age had an independent source of income, even their assets and expenditure have been added only to see that a charge sheet is filed against this accused. Of course, these aspects will be known only when this Court analyses the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties to the case.
10. The prosecution has examined totally 9 witnesses and has banked upon as many as 134 exhibits only to substantiate its contentions before the Court that the AGO possessed disproportionate assets which accounted for 34.58% which comes to Rs. 33,55,726/-. To begin with the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW. 1 by name 13 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 S.Maheshwarappa who was the Police Inspector attached to KLA, City Division, according to his version, prior to 3 months of 08-09-2008, his superior i.e. Lokayuktha S.P. one Mr.Rangaswamy Nayak directed him to prepare the source report in respect of the properties of this AGO, who was serving as the Deputy director, Planning in M.S.Building, Bengaluru. It is also the contention of this witness that after receiving the said orders, he started collecting information in respect of the properties by visiting places such as Bengaluru, Tumkur and Bidar. On the basis of the assets possessed by him, he came to a conclusion that the asset was Rs. 2.5 crores and the expenditure of the family was roughly about Rs. 30 lakhs. Further, according to him, the AGO's known source of income was Rs. 70 14 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 lakhs, but as per his calculation, both the accused and his brother H.A.Iqbal who was also the MV Inspector, RTO, Bidar, they had amassed total disproportionate wealth of Rs. 2.10 crores which came to 300%. On the basis of this credible information, which he had gathered, he prepared the source report and submitted the same before the S.P. Through this witness, the said material document came to be marked as Ex.P. 1.
11. Coming to the evidence of PW. 2 by name Vasudev Rao P.M., who was the Under Secretary in the Home Department, Crime Branch, Vidhana Soudha, according to him, he received a requisition from ADGP, KLA, Bengaluru vide letter dtd.25-03-2013 pertaining to their police station 15 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Cr.No.51/2008 containing the information that they conducted the raid on the assets of the AGO who was working as Joint Director in Town and Country Planning department, Bengaluru and it was unearthed that this AGO had possessed assets worth Rs. 33,55,726/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income and it accounted for 34.58%. According to this witness he also received annexures to this letter, other investigation papers and documents. Having gone through the same, he put a note and forwarded the same to the then Home Minister through their Secretary. According to this witness, having gone through the records, they were satisfied that there was a believable case made out for according sanction, hence, vide Ex.P. 2 sanction order was issued. It is also the 16 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 further examination in chief of this witness that later on it was brought to his notice that in Ex.P. 2, the year was wrongly typed as 200 instead of 2008, so, by way of corrigendum 14- 11-2013 he rectified the said typographical mistake and issued the correct sanctioned order.
12. Coming to the evidence of PW. 3, by name B.M.Srinivas Murthy, who was the SDA in the office of the Excise Commissioner, Bengaluru. CW.2 according to this witness is his colleague and she was a First Division Assistant then. On 10-09-2008, KLA police requested their higher authorities to depute two of their staff for assisting them in their investigation. On their request, their Head Quarters Assistant Sri.V.N.Jairam has deputed this witness to 17 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 visit the Lokayuktha office and on the same day, at about 11 a.m., they went and met the Dy.S.P. Smt.Radhamani. She asked them to come on the next day at 5.45 a.m. and when they attended the office at the next day before Dy.S.P., Smt.Radhamani shown the search warrant and obtained their signatures on that document and through this witness that search warrant came to be marked at Ex.P. 4 and their signatures at Ex.P. 4(a) and (b).
13. It is the evidence of PW. 3 that they were taken to the house of the AGO situated at HBR Layout, Bengaluru and Smt.Radhamani rang the door bell, at the time son of the AGO Mutheeb came and opened the main door. He told that his father had gone outside and then later his father appeared and this witness 18 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 spoken about the formalities of showing the search warrant to them and obtaining their respective signatures, then as per this witness, raid and search took place. They saw two bikes and one Scorpio four wheeler and their registered numbers were noted, electrical meter reading was taken into consideration and they went inside the veranda, they say one aquarium in the hall, dining table, furniture and other household articles. It is the evidence of this witness that the said Dy.S.P. enquired about the value of those household articles and also in respect of their usage and date of purchase. According to this witness, on the basis of the information provided by the AGO, then Dy.S.P. Radhamani taken into consideration the value and then the IO also found gold articles weighing 700 to 730 grams 19 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 and savings certificates worth Rs. 40,000/-. One Appraiser from Mangalore Jeweleries by name Raju was secured who tested those articles and fixed their approximate price. Then, lastly, the IO prepared the document at Ex.P. 5, then on that document, signatures were taken. Further, according to this witness, Ex.P. 6 was also seized which is the RC Book in respect of one of the Motorcycles.
14. Coming to the evidence of PW. 4, by name Jaideva Prakash, who was the Joint Director of Statistics in the KLA department who was entrusted by the Dy.S.P. KLA to prepare invisible family expenditure of the AGO for the check period from 01-06-1975 to 11-09-2008 and through this witness, Ex.P. 7 and 8 came to be marked. There is also evidence given by 20 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 this witness that the said Dy.S.P. along with her letter had requested about total family members, date of his marriage, etc. and had also requested some information by way of annexures so as to facilitate this expert to prepare his report. As per the say of this witness, he considered the annual income of the AGO and his family members on the basis of General Family Income and Expenditure Survey of Karnataka 2009 and year wise All India Price Index Numbers. According to this witness, he estimated the total family expenditure of the accused for the check period as Rs. 8,59,328/- and in this regard, he has issued his report at Ex.P. 10 which is preceded by his covering letter which is at Ex.P. 9.
15. Coming to the evidence of PW. 5 21 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 M.S.Lingaraj, who was the Asst. Executive Engineer, attached to the PWD Sub-Division, Tumkur. He spoke extensively to the fact that on 28-08-2009, his Executive Engineer received a letter from Dy.S.P., Bengaluru with a request to visit the house properties of the AGO and to estimate the values of the same. On 23-10-2009, his Executive Engineer directed him to visit the properties for estimation purpose. Through this witness, letter received by the Executive Engineer from the Dy.S.P., KLA got marked at Ex.P. 11. According to this witness, on 17-12-2009, he addressed a separate letter to the Dy.S.P. Lokayuktha requesting him to assist him in executing the above said work. That letter was also shown to this witness. On 24-11-2011, according to this witness, Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha 22 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Chikballapur wrote a letter stating that he visited Tumkur on 02-12-2011 and 03-12- 2011 for showing the properties of the AGO, then he contacted the Dy.S.P. over phone and he informed that he is coming over to Tumkur on 8-12-2011 and on 8-12-2011 he visited the properties of the said AGO bearing No.7156 of Ashok Nagar, Tumkur and measured that property in the presence of the above said officials. According to him, the said property was a residential house consisting of ground and first floor and according to the documents given to him, the ground floor was constructed in the year 1983-84 and the first floor in the year 1992-93. On the basis of the measurement of the constructed building and the materials used for construction of the same, he estimated the value of that property 23 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 as Rs. 10,32,626/- by adopting schedule of rates and depreciation method. Through this witness, the report and the sketch prepared by him are marked at Ex.P. 12 and this witness got his signature identified on that report at Ex.P. 12(a).
16. Coming to the evidence PW. 6 by name H.R.Radhamani, D/o Ramaswamy, from 2007 to 2011, she had discharged her duties as Dy.S.P., KLA and on 10-09-2008 she receives a letter containing order from her superior and that order had a source report submitted by PW. 1. She was authorized to undertake investigation in respect of the AGO and his brother H.A.Iqbal. That authorization letter came to be marked at Ex.P. 13. Ex.P.1 is the source report and on the basis of the same, she 24 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 registered a case in their office Cr.No.51/2008, same were sent to the jurisdictional Court in a sealed cover, the FIR came to be marked at Ex.P. 14, her signature on that document is at Ex.P. 14(a). It is the version of PW. 6 that she appeared before the jurisdictional Court, sought for search warrant to search the house of the AGO situated at No.8, Sy.No. 41/1A1 and she deputed one Dy.S.P. Annappa Naik and also Police Inspector S.Maheshwarappa to search the properties at Bengaluru and Bidar. It is her say that even the Dy.S.P. Raikar was also helped in execution of the search warrant. Through this witness, 5 search warrants came to be marked. According to this lady, she informed Annappa Nayak, Maheshwarappa and Dharmendra to visit Tumkur with panchas and so far as search warrant in respect of 25 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 property of the AGO situated at Bidar was concerned, it was faxed to Dy.S.P. Raiker and also she addressed a letter to the Excise Deputy Commissioner asking to depute four staff for assisting the raid. That request letter is marked at Ex.P. 18. On the very day at about 4.00 O'Clock, staff of the Excise Department by name Marappa, Srinivas Murthy, Sharmila Aradi and Pushpa appeared before her and through this witness, letter addressed by the Dy. Commissioner, Excise is marked at Ex.P. 19.
17. In her further examination-in-chief, PW. 6 has deposed that on 11-09-2008, at about 3.00 a.m., she attended her office, secured the presence of Marappa, Pushpa and Maheshwarappa and his team were sent to 26 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Tumkur property with that search warrant. On the very same day between 3.30 to 3.45 a.m., she sent different search warrants through Police Inspector Prasanna, V. Raju to Annappa Naik and Dharmendra, who were at Tumkur. On the same day at about 6 a.m., she with her team went to the property No.9, Shampura Layout, II Main, Bengaluru -45 and she knocked the main door. The boy who opened the door claimed to be one Mutheeb Juhed and when asked about the AGO, that boy answered that the AGO has gone for walking and the AGO came back to his house, formalities of showing the search warrant, obtaining the signatures were undertaken. Then search and raid of the accused house took place from 7.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and found 730 grms. of gold articles, out of which, 27 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 60 gms. of gold articles were worn by the wife of the accused and they were seized. They also came across 500 gms. of silver articles and according to this IO, she secured the presence of appraiser by name K.V.Raju who took both gold and silver articles and according to him total approximate value of gold articles was Rs.7 lakhs and that of silver was Rs. 10,000/-. It is the say of this PW. 6 that they recovered Rs. 15,000/- hard cash which was returned back to the accused. According to PW. 6, they also noted different household articles and their approximate prices were fixed with the able assistance of the AGO and they were condensed in in 4 separate files and panchanama was drawn at Ex.P. 5 and signatures of panchas have been obtained on the same.
28
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
18. There is also evidence given by PW. 6 that during this search, he came to know that Mrs.Parveen Taj, wife of the AGO had also separate house close to M.S.Ramaiah college and immediately, he addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, PWD, asking him to depute his staff. So about 10.30 a.m. Arun Kumar and Chethan Kumar came to her to assist and the letters at Ex.P. 20 and 21 came to be marked. It is the say of the PW. 6 that she deputed Police Inspector Gangadarappa, Madikere to visit the house belonging to Parveen Taj and handed over the said search warrant to him which came to be marked at Ex.P. 11. The household articles and other items seized under Ex.P. 5, P.6 were subjected to PF and necessary permission was obtained from the competent Court and retained by her. Through 29 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 this witness, panchanama came to be drawn by Police Inspector Dharmendra at Tumkur house is marked at Ex.P. 22. Likewise, separate panchanama drawn by Police Inspector Gangadarappa, they were already marked at Ex.P. 12. Through this witness, panchanamas drawn by Dy.S.P. Annappa Naik, Police Inspector Maheshwarappa and Dy.S.P. Raikar at Tumkur, Bengaluru and Bidar came to be marked at Ex.P. 23 to 25.
19. This PW. 6 in her further examination-in- chief spoke about collecting the details from Amanath Co-operative bank, Bengaluru at Ex.P. 26, State Bank of Mysore, M.S.Building branch, Bengaluru, Uco Bank, Cantonment Branch and M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru at Ex.P. 26 to P29. It is the say of PW. 6 that she 30 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 collected the salary particulars of the AGO vide Ex.P. 30 and 31 and also from other departments at Chikkamagalur and Tumkur and finally from BBMP, Bengaluru which are at Ex.P. 32 to P.39.
20. According to PW. 6, she had written letter to the Head Master, Modern English School, Chikkamagalur asking him to furnish fee details of the AGO's son Murthuza Junaid and vide Ex.P. 40 and 41 her letter and information is marked. Likewise, in the further examination-in-chief, this lady spoke about Ex.P. 43, which is the information provided by the Royal English School, J.C.Nagar, Bengaluru in respect of fee details of the accused sons Murthuza Junaid and Murtheeb Zuhaib. So also Ex.P. 45 is the education 31 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 expenses of Murtheeb Zuhaid at St.Alisis English School, Frazer Town, Bengaluru. This PW. 6 in her further examination-in-chief spoke about the documents secured by her from Primary High School and colleges, where the accused sons had studied and the expenses incurred by the AGO for their college education.
21. According to this lady on 03-10-2008, she wrote a letter to Sub-Registrar, Tumkur to furnish the certified copy of the sale deed in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 3/1 of Maralooru village and on 28-04-2009 and 09- 02-2010 she caused notice to the accused to submit his schedules. Those letters were also marked at Ex.P. 52 and 53. This AGO on 12- 03-2010 vide Ex.P. 54 has furnished his 32 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 explanation. Ex.P.55 is the letter addressed by this IO to the Tahsildar, Tumkur seeking for RTC in respect of Sy.No. 15/5 of Shetty Halli Village. Ex.P.56 and 57 are the letter and 'B' extract received from RTO, Jayanagar and Ex.P. 58 and 59 are the information and letter from the RTO, Raichur.
22. Likewise, PW. 6 collected documents from different RTO offices in Karnataka, bank statements from Canara bank, Jayanagar Branch and on 19-10-2010, she receives a memo from ADGP who directed them to handover further investigation of this case to Dy.S.P. Bhudiyal. So, this initial investigation undertaken by PW. 6 was only to show before the Court that how she has secured various documents.
33
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
23. This PW. 6 in her further examination-in- chief spoke about securing information and certified copies from Sub-Registrars, Tumkur, Bengaluru and also compiling them, then filing them in this case.
24. Coming to the evidence of PW. 7 by name Dharmendra.M., who was the Police Inspector and on 10-09-2008, his SP informed over phone that he should visit Tumkur with two panchas for conducting a search and on the same day, he secured CWs.3 and 4 and went to Tumkur at about 11 p.m. On 11-09-2008, this PW. 6 had sent search warrant through Police Inspector Prasanna V.Raju and received the same at around 6.00 a.m. and in that search warrant, this witness was directed to search the house No.120, situated in land bearing 34 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Sy.No. 41/1A of Tumkur. So, he conducted the raid at about 6.30 a.m. Initially they went and rang the bell, the main door was locked, then one lady by name Mumtaz Mohammed w/o Hayedsab opened the door and she was informed about the search and raid. Search warrant at Ex.P. 17 came to be marked already, which contains signature of this lady at Ex.P. 17(b). According to this witness, when they entered into the house, they found several articles, which came to be listed in the panchanama and their approximate value was ascertained with the help of panchas. Then panchanama was drawn and the signatures of panchas and this witness have been obtained on it.
25. Coming to the evidence of PW. 8 by name 35 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 M.Narayan, who was the Dy.S.P. at KLA at the relevant point of time. He has given evidence that on 6-11-2012 he has submitted a requisition before the ADGP, KLA requesting him to proceed with the further investigation of this case. On 16-11-2012, the ADGP passed an order authorizing him to proceed with the further investigation of this case. Through this witness, the relevant order Ex.P. 68 has been marked. This witness goes on to give evidence that immediately he commenced his investigation and on 20-10-2012, he wrote a letter to the accused calling upon him to furnish the annexture at 1 to 12 and even that letter came to be marked through this witness as Ex.P. 69. According to him, on 22-12-2012, the AGO submitted his schedule vide Ex.P. 71 and 71. So, after verifying the source report 36 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 and documents collected by him, his predecessor during his investigation segregated the properties and then came to the conclusion that what was the quantum of disproportionate assets of the AGO. Through this witness final report submitted by him is marked at Ex.P. 121 and his signature at Ex.P. 121(a). In Ex.P.121, according to him, he has given narrations of all the movable and immovable properties of the accused and his family members. Likewise, there is also details found of the expenditure and separate calculation the total asset of the accused and his family members came to Rs. 87,22,112/- and though in his Ex.P. 121, he has stated the values of the household articles, but by oversight the same was not shown in his calculation as asset. So, if the household 37 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 articles of Rs. 7,51,450/- is included, then the total assets will be around Rs. 94,73,562/-.
26. According to this PW. 8, the total expenditure of the AGO and his family came to Rs. 47,79,247/- and the income of the said family from the known source was Rs. 1,01,45,633/-. So, according to this PW. 8, the disproportionate asset was around Rs. 41,07,186/-, which accounts for 40.48%.
27. Then this PW. 8 goes on to give different break ups of the immovable properties. According to him, he has considered the value of the property bearing No.119, 7th Cross, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur as Rs. 10,36,626/-, value of property/site in Sy.No. 42 of Maraluru Village of Tumkuru was Rs. 8,000/-, 38 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 value of building at No.5 of Kavalu Byrasandra, Bengaluru at Rs. 40,40,000/-, value of the house bearing No.5(A) of Matadahalli, Bengaluru was Rs. 11,20,000/-, value of property bearing Khata No.2462 of Sira Gate, Tumkuru at Rs. 4,80,000/-. Then he speaks interest on movable properties. The amount found in the SB account of the accused with Amanath Co-operative Bank, Bengaluru in a sum of Rs. 60,331/-, with SBM, M.S.Building branch, Bengaluru in a sum of Rs. 79,284/-, with Canara Bank Nandidurga Branch, Bengaluru in a sum of Rs. 83,805/- and the amount found in the S.B.Account of Smt.Hhalima Begum, wife of the AGO with Amanath Co-operative Bank at Rs. 51,317/-, the amount lying in the S.B.Account of Sri.Muttuja Junaid and his mother Halima 39 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Begum with Uco Bank, M.G.Road branch in a sum of Rs. 64,469/- and the amount lying in the bank account of Sri.Muttuja Janaid with UCO Bank, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru in a sum of Rs. 1,32,073/-.
28. What we can make out from the examination-in-chief of this PW. 8 is that he who having taken permission to conduct further investigation in this case as the ADGP has authorized him to do so, he collected minute details of bank details of the AGO and his family members.
29. So far as the income of the accused and his family members are concerned, this PW. 8 has considered the net salary of the accused as Rs. 22,01,358/- for the check period, NSC 40 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 worth Rs. 52,464/-, leave encashment of the accused in a sum of Rs. 78,678/-, D.A. arrears of the accused in a sum of Rs. 48,675/-, rental income received by the accused from his house No.119, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur was Rs. 5,24,000/-, income of the son of the accused was Rs. 3,91,604/-, income of the accused wife from running High Fashion Corner Cloth Shop was Rs. 1,00,700/-, income from the accused from his agricultural lands in a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- and interest on the amount with SB account of the accused with Amanath Cooperative bank was Rs. 12,005/- and so forth. These figures depict that both accused and his family members indeed had a periodical income from their business and also received interest on the amount outstanding in their respective bank accounts. 41
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
30. In respect of the total expenditure of the accused, the accused has considered educational expenses of Murtuja Junaid in a sum of Rs. 46,595/-, AGO's 2nd son Matheeb Juheb in a sum of Rs. 14,521/-, premium amount paid by th accused towards his LIC policies in a total sum of Rs. 10,000/-, premiums paid by the AGO towards his postal insurance in a sum of Rs. 18,590/-, income tax paid by the AGO in a total sum of Rs. 93,463/-, income tax paid by the 1st son of the AGO in a sum of Rs. 1,53,810/-, income tax paid in the name of High Fashion Corner Shop in a sum of Rs. 16,514/-, registration expenses of site No.42 of Maraluru village in a sum of Rs. 1,163/-, registration expenses of site No.119 of Ashok Nagar, Tumkur in a sum of Rs. 445/-, Registration expenses of property at 42 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Kavalbyrasandra, Bengaluru in a sum of Rs. 3,79,800/-, registration expenses of building shop No.5 of Matadahalli, Bengaluru in the name of the son of the accused in a sum of Rs. 1,17,025/- and so forthwith.
31. Of course, this PW. 8 has also spoken about the electricity charges, telephone charges, LPG gas refilling cylinder expenses, foreign tour expenses, passport expenses, etc.
32. Coming to the crucial aspect of domestic expenditure of the AGO and his family members is considered, it was considered as Rs. 8,59,328/-, loan repaid by Murtuja Junaid to UCO Bank, M.G.Road, in a sum of Rs. 78,788/- and the same person repaid the loan to the same branch in respect of different loan 43 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 transaction in a total sum of Rs. 9,26,820/-, repayment of GPF loan by the accused in a sum of Rs. 90,000/-, etc.
33. The further examination-in-chief of this witness was to highlight before the Court that if at all Ex.P. 121 has been filed that is on account of cumulative effect of considering the documents collected at the time of investigation both by himself and his predecessor also by considering the schedule submitted by the accused when he called for the same. Ultimately, this PW. 8 who has submitted his final report at Ex.P. 121 was to vouchsafe the fact that all the documents collected by them in spite of taking into consideration the explanation of the AGO, still they were able to maintain Ex.P. 121 and filed 44 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 a charge sheet, because there was a disproportionate assets on the part of the AGO.
34. Coming to the evidence of PW. 9 who was the Dy.S.P., Chikkaballapura and as per the orders of the ADGP, he also under took further investigation and through this witness, the relevant order given by the ADGP Ex.P. 72 came to be marked. According to him, he collected the APRs. of the accused for the years 1976-1980 from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Bengaluru and also APRs. for the years 1988-1990 from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Bengaluru and this witness spoke about collecting documents vide Ex.P. 76 to P.120. Most part of the work done by this PW. 9 was to cause letters to different departments and 45 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 places where this AGO worked during the check period calling for salary particulars and then addressing letters to Income Tax Department seeking for APRs, then addressing letters to concerned RTO offices calling for vehicle and insurance particulars etc. Further, in his examination-in-chief, this witness spoke about addressing his letter to oriental insurance, Chickamagalur collecting information vide Ex.P. 123 and also writing a letter to Income Tax department seeking for IT returns of the accused's eldest son Mutheer Zuheb. There is also given evidence in his examination-in-chief, he also collected the documents from concerned LIC offices in respect of all these aspects, of course, then he handed over further investigation to PW. 8. so, in a nutshell, the examination-in-chief of PWs. 46
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 1 to 9 are to show before the Court that in spite of considering the explanation of the AGO, wherein he kept on canvassing that the IO has considered all the independent income, assets and expenditure of Murthuza Junaid, who was the income tax assessee, was getting regular source of income. So, the IO was wrong in filing the charge sheet. Of course, this allegation can be seen as to this holds good or not when we analyze the evidence after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence.
35. No doubt, as this is a special statute when AGO was put to answer incriminating evidence standing against him, having answered the same, decided to give oral and documentary evidence, he got himself examined as DW. 1 47 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 and his examination-in-chief is to show that on 23-06-1975, he joined the Government service as a public servant, at the time of raid he was working as the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning and retired from service on 30-04-2014 as a Joint Director in the same department. According to DW. 1, his father was an agriculturist, licensed PWD contractor and he was the president of the Contractor's Association. He was also owning sawmill and a stone crusher and also owning 40 acres of agricultural land. It is also the evidence of this witness that his family consists of his wife and two sons, his first son has attained the age of majority and he is doing ready made garments business and also running vehicle service station at Tumkur. He was also running a H.R. Consultancy and was an event manager at 48 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Bengaluru. Earlier, the AGO's wife and his first son were partners in High Fashion Corner of ready made garments shop. They have obtained the license and also a VAT certificate including municipal license and the said business concern is an income tax assessee. According to him, he is disputing each item of th assets, most of that immovable properties and has came up with his explanation vide Ex.D. 1 to D.3.
36. According to DW. 1, he also disputes assets at Sl.Nos.34, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 76, 78, 81, 82, 86, 88, 94 to 97, 99 and expenditure at Sl.Nos.104, 111 to 113, 116 and 117. According to DW. 1, the PW. 8 has not considered his representation which was submitted specially in respect of his son's 49 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 property, rental income of Rs. 8,24,700/- and advance amount of Rs. 19,80,000/-. According to his DW. 1, his son Murthuza Junaid owns properties situated at Matadahalli, Kavalbyrasandra and at Sira Gate, Tumkur and he has extensively spoken about how they all belonged to his eldest son Murthuza Junaid and does not become his property.
37. Coming to the evidence of DW. 2 by name Murthuza Junaid, who is the eldest son of the AGO and according to him, he has completed his Diploma in Automobiles, he discontinued his studies after 2005 and then he started water wash vehicle service center and Automobiles Service Station at Tumkur and to run that business, his paternal grandmother and his uncle H.A.Mukthiyar have contributed 50 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 financial assistance. He purchased the service station from one Mr.Prakash on 21-02-2005 for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000/- and this witness claims to have submitted Ex.D. 4 sale deed in this regard.
38. It is also the evidence of DW. 2 that he purchased immovable property consisting of 3 floors building situated at Site No.5A, Matadahalli, Bengaluru from one Chand Pasha through a registered sale deed for a valid consideration of Rs. 11,20,000/-. He raised a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the UCO Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru and he also purchased 3 floors house situated at site No.5, Srinivasa Layout, Kavalbyrasandra, Bengaluru from one G.A. Cresto under a sale deed for a valid consideration of Rs. 40,40,000/- by raising a 51 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from the UCO Bank, M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru. He banks upon Ex.D. 5 and 6 i.e. relevant sale deeds. According to him, he had a bank account at Amanath Co-operative Bank, Bengaluru, Uco Bank, M.G.Raod Branch, Bengaluru, State Bank of Mysore, Tumkur Branch. According to him, he purchased two Honda Activa, one Yamaha RX 135 motorcycles out of his personal savings. This DW. 2 gave evidence that he was getting regular income from his houses let out on rent basis to his tenants, Courier Point Solution, High Fashion Corner Center and Karnataka Service Center and placed documents vide Ex.D. 7 to 9. It is the claim of DW. 2 that he had furnished details of his assets and income, expenditure before the IO and both PWs.8 and 9 have wrongly 52 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 considered his personal assets, expenditure, income as that of his father. On this pretext, he prayed this Court to hold that the present final report as well as the charge sheet is erroneous, wrong as devoid of merits and bereft of valid consideration.
39. So far as Ex.P. 121 or charge sheet filed by the IO is concerned, there is not much of dispute in respect of many items of assets, expenditure and income of the AGO. But, the entire fact which tried to be highlighted by the DW.1 is that as on the date of conducting the raid, his son DW.2 has not only attained the age of majority, had an independent source of income. Besides that, he was an income tax assessee then, so properties at Ex.D. 1 and D.2 even though was considered as the assets 53 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 of AGO's family, but inspite of furnishing the schedule to the IO convincing him in that regard that DW.2's independent income can not become either the assets and expenditure of the accused has not been well considered. When we go through the evidence of PW. 6, 8 and 9, there are many contradictions as to even though these witnesses admitted that DW. 2 had an independent source of income, was an income tax assessee and even though this fact was very well within their knowledge, they have considered his income. So, the entire exercise undertaken by the AGO to demonstrate before the Court that if the service station at Siragate, Tumkur, properties at Matadahalli and Kavalubyrasandra, Bengaluru which were kept out of the purview of calculation, then this charge sheet has no legs 54 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 to stand.
40. The DW.1 has also highlighted that some of the movables like two wheeler, etc. which were purchased by DW. 2 has been taken to the account of the AGO. In fact, when we go through the cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2, the Learned Public Prosecutor started her questions by posing that the AGO purchased those properties (movable and immovable) in the name of his eldest son. But, when the entire materials which are available for consideration are gone through, it is not the definite case of the prosecution that the AGO only in order to amass ill-gotten money has started investing in benami name. There cannot be any presumption that merely because properties stood in the name of DW.2 55 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Murthuza Junaid, it is an indirect investment made by the AGO in his son's name, there is no such law. Second aspect of the matter is by posing such questions in the cross- examination of DWs.1 and 2 that the properties are standing in the name of DW . 2 and the documents also have shown before the Court that the prosecution was well aware of the fact that either when the raid took place or case was registered, it was well within the knowledge of PWs.1, 6,8 and 9 that DW . 2 had an independent source of income. So, the bone of contention of the AGO if taken into consideration, when gone into calculation as such, I should say the entire final report either at Ex.P. 121 or the charge sheet should fall like a heap of cards. So, with this background, we have to consider whether DW. 2 becomes part 56 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 of AGO's family even though he had an independent source of income and an independent income tax assessee. I should say he cannot be considered as a family member, because, he is not dependent on the father. When the financial institutions, which are the nationalized banks have lent loans to the tune of several lakhs only to see that DW . 2 purchases properties in his name. It is self evident that definitely bank which has issued Ex.D. 2 i.e. UCO bank, Cantonment Branch, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, definitely, should have looked into his income tax returns. When DW. 2 is not the immediate family member of DW . 1, I should say the entire calculation of the PW. 8 cannot be all that correct. Likewise, similar yardstick can be extended in case of wife of the AGO. She had an independent source of 57 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 income, because, both mother and DW. 2, they were running garment show room as High Fashion Corner Cloth Shop and that firm was registered for obtaining necessary license and were also paying necessary cess to the concerned authorities. When these aspects are kept in mind, the only thing which the Court should have to look into is, whether investigation undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion vide Ex.P. 121 that there was amassing of wealth requires to be closely looked into.
ASSETS
41. Before, I could go in to calculation, as PW. 8 by name M.Narayan, who has filed the final report at Ex.P. 121, in his examination-in-chief comes out with an evidence that in that 58 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 document, a sum of Rs. 7,51,450/- which was the approximate value of household articles should have been included in the assets, if included, which comes to Rs. 94,73,562/- as that was not added. The final report showed incorrect total asset of Rs. 87,22,112/-. So, his examination-in-chief has turned in to a corrigendum to fill up this lacuna. Likewise, this gentleman in his further examination-in- chief deposed that he has considered the value of the property bearing No.119, 7th Cross, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur as Rs. 10,36,626/-. Of course, when they rely upon the assets value, they quite naturally bank upon the valuation report of the valuer or the technical person. In the instant case, it goes without saying that this PW. 8 has accepted the report of PW. 5 Lingaraj at Ex.P. 12. But, so far as this 59 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 property is concerned, DW. 1 in his further examination-in-chief has opposed this aspect tooth and nail contending that no proper procedure is followed in accepting the valuation report at Ex.P. 12. On the other hand, DW. 1 banks upon Ex.P. 6, which are the seized documents from his house at the time of the raid only to show before the Court that ground floor of property situated at Ashok Nagar was constructed in the year 1982-83, whereas the first floor was constructed in the year 1992-93. If Ex.P. 12 has to be accepted, there must be proper property break ups. Further, according to DW. 1, if PW. 8 can mechanically adopted Ex.P. 12 mutatis and mutandis, then it makes no sense. Ex.P.12 is nothing but a Court Commissioner report and when this Court has gone through this Ex.P. 60 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 12, it is mere a guess work on approximate basis. Even though, the claim of PW. 5 that he has considered SR rates, but his examination- in-chief does not spell out much. On the other hand, his brief evidence cannot be construed as a proper corroboration to Ex.P. 12. In fact, this witness Lingaraj PW. 5 has only spoken that he has considered only SR rate, but Ex.P. 12 does not speak as to whether the AGO has undertaken construction of both the floors either entrusting the same to the contractor or to a piece work or was constructed under self supervision. It does not throw much light in respect of quality of construction materials, nature of wood, flooring, electrical and plumbing works etc. In fact, in the cross- examination, there is an admission given by PW. 5 that he did not involve in much 61 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 correspondence with Lokayuktha for collecting schedule of rates and depreciation, method of 1983-84 and 1992-93 for estimating the value of the property.
42. Further, according to this PW. 5, as on the date of his visit to the said property, there is no mention in Ex.P. 12 as to what procedure he adopted either for measuring or subjecting for quality check and who were present. So, the evidence of PW. 5 and Ex.P. 12 cannot be a document of unclean chit support to PW. 8. Of course, this is what even IO admits in his cross-examination and some of his admission uprooting his evidence are extracted as below:
" It is true that this accused has constructed the ground floor of his residential house bearing Site No.119(Old No.7156), 7 th Cross, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur in the year 1982-83 and its first floor was constructed in the year 1992-93. Witness volunteers that though the SR rate for 2011-12 is 62 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 considered, the said Engineer has considered its depreciation value from the date of construction till the date of assessment.
43. According to me, this PW. 8 himself does not know that what should have been the right approach on the part of PW. 5 in preparing Ex.P. 12.
44. On the other hand, it is the claim of DW. 1 that he has spent only Rs. 2,89,000/- for the purpose of construction of the said building and not Rs. 10,36,626/-. This evidence given by DW. 1 no doubt has not been impeached even when we go through his cross- examination. Further more, when Ex.P. 6 is gone through which is the compilation of documents, they are more probable, because, the construction costs in the year 1982-83 for the ground floor cannot be equated with the 63 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 construction which took place in the year 1992-93 after a lapse of decades. It is nothing, but a common sense that the AGO constructed the first floor after a lull of 10 years, naturally there will be a steep raise in the construction cost and price of materials. At no stretch of imagination either the evidence of PW. 5 or Ex.P. 12 can be considered as correct yardstick to come to the conclusion that the value of Ashok Nagar property at Tumkur was Rs. 10,32,626/- as the PW. 8 has shown the total assets in a sum of Rs. 94,73,562/-. In this case, the only property value of Ashok Nagar since considered by this Court as Rs. 2,89,000/- as deposed by DW. 1, the excess amount shown by PW. 8 vide Ex.P. 12 which comes to Rs. 7,47,626/- shall have to be deducted from the total assets, which comes to 64 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Rs. 87,25,936/-. Of course in Ex.P. 121 and in the charge sheet, necessary corrections has not been done by PW. 8 as household articles in a sum of Rs. 7,51,450/- is not added to the total assets. Like wise, the prosecution for these many years also not made any efforts get the chargesheet amended or charges altered for the reasons best known to it. So, this Court has considered that corrected calculation. Hence, the above said calculation.
45. So, far as item No.2 of the assets shown in Ex.P. 121 by PW. 8 is concerned, it is the property, land bearing Sy.No. 42 of Maraluru Village at Tumkur. Even though it is the claim of the Investigating Officers PW. 6 and 9 that this property was purchased by DW. 1, so it has been considered as asset, this has not 65 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 been disputed by the DW. 1. But, the crucial aspect of the matter is that so far as item No.3 of the assets, this 3 storied building constructed in site bearing dimension 40 x 60 ft. at Kavalbyrasandra, Bengaluru, this value has been considered as Rs. 40,40,000/- by PW. 8 and he has considered the same as asset of the AGO. But, here the distinction shall be drawn that when we go through the evidence of PW. 1, who was the Police Inspector, who submitted Ex.P. 1 which is the source report, whereas in his cross-examination, he in unequivocal terms admits that he collected credible information and information in respect of the quantum of assets posed by the AGO, which was very well within his knowledge that some of these properties, which is highly posh were standing in the name of DW. 2, Murthuza 66 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Junaid. So, under such circumstances, this Rs. 40,40,000/- which is considered by PW. 8 vide Ex.P. 121 cannot be considered as asset of the AGO. This amount shall be deducted from the total assets, this shown by PW. 8. If this Rs. 40,40,000/- is deducted from Rs. 87,25,936/-, the net result will be Rs. 46,85,936/-.
46. In this regard, it is the duty of this Court to look into the evidence of DW. 1. This AGO in his examination-in-chief states that in view of Ex.P. 6(a), Ex.D. 1 and D.2, at no stretch of imagination, this property situated at Kavalbyrasandra having 3 storied building can be considered as asset of the AGO. I find substantial strength and force in this argument. When the title deeds placed by the 67 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 DW. 1, Ex.D. 70 and 71, which are covering letter and the schedule documents offered by the accused, the PWs. 6, 8 and 9, they should have given acceptable evidence why they are still considering this property as the asset of the AGO. There cannot be any probability where the IO by using his discretion can disregard his explanation. I have already made it clear that there is no any document per contra which is an answer to Ex.D. 2. Vide Ex.D. 2, the Senior Manager of the UCO Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru has made it very clear that what is the financial facility extended to DW. 2. Likewise, a nationalized bank of Ex.D.2 character when thinks fit to advance loan which runs to several crores, definitely PW. 8 cannot say that Ex.D. 2 transaction is a benami transaction. I have already made it 68 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 very clear that there is no platform or a touchstone which is laid by the prosecution to set up its case as benami transaction. Under such circumstances, the version of DW. 1 in respect of this property i.e. stands in the name of DW. 2 and it is nothing to do with the AGO shall has to be accepted.
47. When we go through the cross-
examination of DW. 1, there should have been some infringing material which should show that this DW. 2 had no independent source of income. But, on the other hand, it was suggested to this DW.1 that the moment DW. 2 attained the majority, he had an independent source of income, some of which are extracted as under:
"Myself and my elder son were looking 69 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 after our family affairs. ... After he attaining 21 years, he started to take independent decisions in his business affairs. ... It is true that on 10-07-2008, the property bearing No.5 of Kavalbyrasandra was registered in the name of my son Murthuza Junaid for a sum of Rs. 40,40,000/- from one Mr.Castro. He purchased that property by borrowing loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from UCO Bank, Bengaluru. It is true that the IO has considered that Rs. 50 lakhs as my income."
48. I think nothing more is required to dwell upon the fact that PW. 8 has completely gone wrong and committed mistake in considering the property of DW. 2 as that of DW. 1.
49. Coming to the evidence of DW. 2, the owner himself of that property in his examination-in-chief, he reiterates what his 70 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 father DW. 1 has said about his ownership of Kavalbyrasandra property and in his cross- examination, again the prosecution itself has posed some suggestions which presupposes the fact that it knew very well that as on the date of raid, DW. 2 had an independent source of income. Some of the suggestions posed to DW. 2 is extracted as under:
"It is true that on 10-07-2008, a property bearing No.5 of Kavalbyrasandra was purchased in my name. It is true that, for purchase of that property, loan of Rs. 50 lakhs was borrowed from UCO Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru in my name."
50. I think this should settle the score on hand as they are borne out of records.
51. Coming to another item that 3 storied building No.5A of Matadahalli, Bengaluru, the value has been considered as Rs. 11,20,000/- 71
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 by the IO. But this property too stands in the name of DW. 2. When we go through the evidence of DWs.1 and 2, they are self explanatory, merely because PWs.6, 8 and 9 have collected documents in this regard it cannot enure to the benefit of the prosecution that it has to be considered as property of the AGO. I should say that as the property documents stands in the name of DW . 2 and there is no material to connect that this investment was made by the DW. 1, the calculation furnished by PW. 8 in this regard cannot be accepted. So, an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/- shall have to be deducted from the net total assets, which comes to Rs. 35,65,936/-.
52. Lastly, coming to the asset No.5, Zinc 72 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 sheet building, service station situated at Siragate, Tumkur, its value has been considered as Rs. 4,80,000/- and the IO has considered this as asset of the AGO. Again he has committed the similar mistake. So, this Rs. 4,80,000/- shall have to be deducted from the net assets, as this property too stands in the name of DW. 2. So, the available result will be Rs. 30,85,936/-.
53. In this case, no doubt, after registration of Ex.P. 1 vide Ex.P. 14, PWs. 6, 8 and 9 indeed have taken pains to conduct investigation and in that process raid was conducted, Ex.P. 5 is the main panchanama, wherein movables like gold and silver articles and cash were unearthed from the house of the AGO, documents came to be seized, which are at 73 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Ex.P. 6, P.5, etc., but fact of the matter is that when all these process went on, all the three Investigating Officers, who were part of this lengthy investigation were well aware of the fact that besides DW. 1 being a public servant, DW. 2 and his mother Murtaza Begum also had an independent source of income, because mother and son were running High Fashion Corner Shop, Ganganagar, Bengaluru, DW . 2 was running vehicle service station, Sira gate Tumkur and besides that, he was an event manager and running a H.R. Consultancy at Bengaluru. Definitely, these aspects will add to the total assets and the expenditure. This was very much highlighted in Ex.P. 71. I find no any rhyme or reason to disbelieve the ITRs collected by the IO and submitted by DW. 1 or his son DW. 2, there is no law which says that 74 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 the IO can discard the ITRs. This type of some blunders have been committed by the IOs while finalizing Ex.P. 121. It is well established law that mere collection of documents will not tantamount to proving all its contents. So even in this case also all the 3 IOs. have collected the documents by giving requisitions to different departments, but, they have not been proved. In this regard, I rely upon the decision reported in LAWS(KAR) 2016(2) 292 State Vs. Gurumallappa, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
" Mere production and marking of the said document as an exhibit is not enough. Execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the evidence of those persons who can vouch safe for truth of the contents appearing therein. Even otherwise, the registered sale deed , Ex.P. 92, shows the value of sale consideration paid is Rs. 72,000/- only."
54. On the similar analogy, another decision 75 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 reported in LAWS(SC) 2011(1) 102 in the case of Alamelu Vs. state Represented by Inspector of Police, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue".
55. Under such circumstances, the efforts undertaken by the IO in considering the properties of DW. 2 which account for the major asset has no legs to stand at all. Under such circumstances, I find it, that the entire calculation and the approach adopted by the PW. 8 is wrong.
56. Of course, there are other items of the assets, wherein even though some of the 76 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 movables in the form of Motor bikes and scooters stand in the name of DW. 2. Again this approach is completely wrong. One such example is that this PW. 8 has considered Honda Activa Scooter bearing KA-04 EX 8647 as the asset of the accused. When Ex.P.91 is gone through, which is the 'B' Register extract which stands in the name of DW. 2. So, he was wrong in considering asset of the AGO. Of course, coming to household articles, the IO has considered the same as Rs. 7,51,450/-, but as per the DW. 1, it is Rs. 3,75,725/-. I should say that when the evidence of PWs.3 and 6 are gone through and referred that contents of Ex.P. 5, in all the oral and documentary evidence, one can come across the fact that the value of household articles were determined on approximate basis. So, at 77 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 no stretch of imagination, PW. 8 can claim that household articles were only Rs. 7,51,450/-. It is the claim of DW. 1 that he has also disclosed some of the household articles which were given as presents in his APRs, but they have not been considered. So, when the evidence of PW. 6 and PW. 8 are gone through and compared with the evidence of DW. 1, there are many contradictions and omissions. Hence, this Court feels that accepting the household articles in a sum of Rs. 7,51,450/- will be on a highly inflating rates. Under such circumstances, even though it is on approximate basis, going through the list found in Ex.P. 5, this Court feels that Rs. 7,51,450/- is not the reasonable amount to the household articles. So, the difference amount of Rs. 3,75,725/- shall have to be deducted 78 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 from the net total assets. So, the available total net assets of the AGO will be Rs. 27,10,211/-.
57. As I have stated earlier, these are all the major items where the AGO has disputed. So, there is a sea of difference in the total assets quoted by the PW. 8 vide Ex.P. 121. At no stretch of imagination, DW.2's independent income, asset and expenditure can be excluded. Hence, the total assets and its calculation furnished is on a wrong footing. So, the net asset will be Rs. 27,10,211/-. EXPENDITURE
58. The PW.8 has shown in Ex.P-121 that total expenditure of the AGO and his family members comes to Rs. 47,79,247/-. Again all 79 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 the three IOs. Seems to have committed the same blunder i.e. not considering the major expenditure of DW. 2 and his mother Smt.Halima Begum. Under such circumstances, naturally the calculation furnished by the PW. 8 is definitely on the wrong footing. This is what even DW. 1 highlighted by saying that if calculation goes wrong on any one item, then there cannot be a correct result, which could show the fact that the accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. I will touch only the major items. There are innumerable mistakes committed by PW. 8 in his Ex.P. 121. So far as Sl.No.86 of the expenditure in Final Report is concerned, the PW. 8 has shown a sum of Rs. 1,53,810/- as the expenditure of the AGO's family, but 80 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 this pertains to DW. 2. So, this amount has to be deducted from the total expenditure which comes to Rs. 46,25,737/-. Likewise, Sl.No.88 of the expenditure in a sum of Rs. 16,514/-, stamp and registration charges at Rs. 3,79,800/-, which was spent towards the property of DW. 2 and stamp and registration charges at Rs. 1,17,025/- of Matadahalli, which was the property standing in the name of DW. 2 should have been excluded from the expenditure list. If these amounts are excluded from the net expenditure will be Rs. 41,12,378/-.
59. The other major expenditure at Sl.No.99 i.e. the income tax paid by DW. 2 in a sum of Rs. 1,73,728/- also shall have to be excluded from the net expenditure available. Again this 81 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 PW. 8 seems to have committed similar mistake in considering Rs. 3,82,000/- as the expenditure of DW. 2 and his mother in connection with High Fashion Corner garment shop, that has to be excluded from the total expenditure and lastly the IO has wrongly considered the expenditure of the AGO as Rs. 5,50,000/-, but according to him, he has spent only Rs. 2,50,000/- and remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- was spent by his family members out of their income, hence, Rs. 3,00,000/- difference amount shall have to be excluded from the net expenditure amount. So, the available expenditure of the AGO and his family will be Rs. 32,56,670/-.
60. When the cross-examination of PW. 6, 8 and 9 are gone through coupled with Ex.P. 71, 82 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 which also include the ITRs of DW. 2 and likewise, it is the suggestion on the part of the Learned Public Prosecutor to DWs.1 and 2 in their respective cross-examinations that as on the date of drawing Ex.P. 5 i.e. the raid, the DW. 2 has an independent source of income. When this aspect is kept in mind, I should say, PW. 8 was completely wrong in coming out with the incorrect calculations.
61. There are many documents which the prosecution has failed to prove it. Coming to Ex.P.5, it is the spot cum seizure panchanama. I should say it is the influencing document. So far as the entire case is concerned, Ex.P. 5 and evidence of PW. 6, when analyzed in the back drop of allegation made by the prosecution, I should say rather it is disappointing. 83
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Smt.Radhamani, Dy.S.P., IO initially who has undertaken the investigation has failed to follow the proper procedure in drawing panchanama, because, it is the say of PW. 6 that she first seized a sum of Rs. 15,000/- cash and then returned back that amount to the AGO, but failed to give a plausible explanation as to why this pick and choose method has taken place. Whereas on the same breath, it is her evidence that she has seized all gold and silver articles from the house of the AGO. Ex.P.6 is also recovered from the house of the AGO. I do not know how the IO who is authorized to conduct search and seizure of a public servant's premises can involve in this type of arbitrary acts. I should say, when the entire search and seizure of the accused house at the given address in Ex.P. 5 84 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 has taken place, no proper procedure has been followed. Even in this case also, no material objects have been marked even though initially, this Court had passed an order on the property form submitted by the IO. These were some of the important aspects which have not been taken care of by all the three investigating officers which is rather surprising.
62. So far as Ex.P. 121 is concerned, I should say PW. 8 has failed to strike a balance to show before the Court that in spite of Ex.P. 71, why some of the registered documents were submitted by the AGO, why they have not been considered. It is the case of the DW. 2 that Ex.D. 1 to 4 belonged to him in respect of the above said three properties, but they have not been given their due weightage. Under such 85 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 circumstances, PWs.6, 8 and 9 have not bestowed required attention in proving the documents, which they have secured with great difficulty. So, mere securing documents and placing before the Court for the purpose of establishing the same has not served any great purpose. In this regard, I rely upon the decision only to highlight the fact that mere marking of the documents or getting the opinion of the experts will not serve any purpose. (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 709 in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Limited & Others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" D. Evidence Act, 1872 - S.45 - Expert evidence, when called for - Test for - Issues involving medical science - Held, test is whether matter is outside knowledge and experience of a layperson- Where a medical issue is to be settled, scientific question involved therein is assumed to be not within 86 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Court's knowledge and hence, there is a need to hear expert opinion - Since medical science is complicated, expert opinion provides deep insight - where diagnosis and the method of treatment suggested to a patient vary, held, expert opinion forms an important role in arriving at a conclusion - Medical practice and practitioners- Medical negligence- Expert opinion-need for -Tort Law- Negligence- Medical negligence.
E. Evidence Act, 1872- S.45- Expert evidence- Admissibility- Requirements- Evidence of expert is admissible when (I) expert is heard, (ii) he must be within a recognized field of expertise, (iii) his evidence must be based on reliable principles, and (iv) he must be qualified in that discipline -Reiterated, without examining expert as a witness, no reliance can be placed on his opinion alone.
E. Evidence Act, 1872 - S.45 - Expert opinion- Evidence of witness when can be accepted as that of expert-held, in order to bring evidence of a witness as that of an expert, it is to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein or is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject".
63. On a similar analogy, one more dicision reported in 2009(9) SCC 221 in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee and Others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss.64,62,67 & 115- Proof of a document - Held, a document is 87 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 proved by examining its author- A document is therefore not admissible unless it is proved- Further held, if a document has been marked as an exhibit and it is not objected to by the opposite party, such party is estopped from questioning its admissibility later on- Criminal procedure Code, 1973 -Ss.294, 242, 243 & 244".
64. Finally, to show before the Court that when it was visible to the naked eyes, PW. 8 has committed mistake in filing Ex.P. 121 which is inherently embeded with defects which go to the roots of the prosecution case. In this regard, I rely upon 2011 Crl.L.J.2860 in the case of O.T. Bhutia v/s State of Sikkim, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
" Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13(1)(c), S.13(2) - Possession of disproportionate assets- Proof-Appellant, a public servant and State Minister, alleged to have amassed huge amount s of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income in form of land and six storied building - In course of search and seizure, documents suggesting receipt by appellant and his wife came to light- Those were sent for examination,but outcome of examination, though known to prosecution, was not disclosed- There is no independent 88 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 evidence to suggest visit by valuers of building in question- Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside".
65. On similar principles, another decision reported in LAWS (DLH) 1996 1 103 in the case of Gunjit Singh Vs. State of Delhi, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:
" The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence are (I) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from correctness or falsity of the defence version by proving its case, (ii) that in a criminal case accused must be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts".
66. One more decision reported in LAWS (sc) 2013 5 67 in the case of Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam has held as under:
" However, in cases where the statute does not provide for the burden of proof on the accused, it always lies on the prosecution. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as those of statutes as referred to hereinabove, that the burden of proof is on the accused. The statutory provision even for a presumption of guilt of the accused 89 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 under a particular statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."
67. So, under such circumstances, even the expenditure which is shown by the IO in a total sum of Rs. 47,79,247/- is not near to the truth and the entire calculation is wrong, this court cannot furnish the correct tabulation of expenditure because if the expenditure of DW- 2 is excluded, nothing remains which can give the correct picture.
INCOME
68. So far as the income is concerned, the IO has shown the lawful income in a total sum of Rs. 1,01,45,633/-. Quite naturally, this aspect has been found fault with. DW.1 went on to highlight the aspect that if the income of DW . 2 is left out and his entire salary and perquisites 90 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 for the check period is taken into consideration, there cannot be any disproportionate assets at all. He attacks Sl.No.55 of the income in Ex.P. 121 on the ground that even though his total salary for the check period is Rs. 28,20,211, the IO has wrongly taken into consideration as Rs. 22,01,358/-. So the difference amount of Rs. 6,18,853/- shall have to be added to the total income of the AGO and his family members. If this is added to the total income i.e. 1,01,45,633/- + 6,18,853/-, the available net income will be Rs. 1,07,64,486/-.
69. Likewise, according to PW. 8, he has considered the rental income of DW. 1 in a total sum of Rs. 5,24,000/-, which should have been Rs. 10,08,000/-. So far as this aspect is 91 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 concerned, Ex.P. 71 contains the rental agreements and lease deeds. Of course, neither the IO nor the AGO have examined any of the tenants who earlier were occupying their tenements of the AGO. But, nothing on record to disprove the contents of the lease agreements produced by the DW.1. Hence, according to me, the version of DW. 1 that he had a rental income of Rs. 10,08,000/- shall have to be accepted In this regard, the difference amount i.e. Rs. 4,84,000/- shall have to be added to the net income of the AGO which comes to Rs.1,12,48,486/-.
70. Coming to the agricultural income of the AGO at Sl.No.63 of the Final Report, IO has considered the same as Rs. 1,60,000/-, but in the APRs. found in IO has declared the same 92 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 as Rs. 4,60,000/-. During the course of arguments, the Learned Public Prosecutor highlighted the major contradictions and admissions of DW. 1 to bring home the fact that in his cross-examination, he has declared wrong agricultural income and there are totally 3 versions coming out. Nevertheless, this Rs. 4,60,000/- which is part of the APRs of the AGO shall have to be accepted. In this regard also, difference amount of Rs. 3 lakhs shall have to be added to the net income. So, the net available income was Rs. 1,15,48,486/-.
71. Again the PW. 8 has wrongly considered Rs. 50 lakhs which is the loan availed by the DW. 2 as the income. But, this aspect does not sustain for consideration. Same thing has taken place in respect of Rs. 8,94,745/-. This 93 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 cannot be the income of the AGO. So, these two items shall have to be deducted from the net income, so the available net income will be Rs. 56,53,741/-.
72. Under such circumstances, if the above said calculation is kept in mind, there will be substantial reduction in the quantum of assets, expenditure and income which only show that the IOs have failed to come out with proper calculation as to what is that unlawful asset or means. It is at the costs of repetition stated that if the entire assets, expenditure and income of DW. 2 is kept out of the purview of this calculation, the calculation one given by PW. 8 in Ex.P. 121 is out of gear and this Court will be unable come to a proper calculation, because, PWs.6, 8 and 9 have messed up this 94 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 calculation. In fact, in the cross-examination of PW. 8 he himself admits that son can also be considered as the AGO's family if he is dependent on his father and if he had no independent source of income. But, in the instant case, it is not the case of the IO that this DW. 2 was very much dependent upon his father for his livelihood. Under this circumstances, even though there are many discrepancies in respect of wrongly considering the income of the DW. 2, but they are minor amounts when compared to the huge investments made by the DW . 2 in respect of immovable properties discussed above. So, it can be safely said that there is no any unlawful income or any disproportionate asset which is unlawful.
95
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
73. Of course, we have the ocular evidence given by pancha PW. 3 and I should say this witness evidence is to speak in respect of Ex.P.
5.
74. So, when Ex.P. 5 took place, PW. 6 has not kept in mind the fact as to when most part of the movables found in the house of the AGO was subjected to search and raid, which were later on seized, but as generously released cash of Rs. 15,000/- to the AGO himself on the spot. So, these aspects does not corroborate the fact that when raid took place at the premises of the AGO at different places, on the basis of PW. 1's Ex.P. 1 which is the source report which had all the credible information. So, an element of ill motivation in targeting the AGO cannot be ruled out.
96
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
75. Likewise, coming to the evidence given by the expert by name Jaideva Prakash PW. 4 who has given his report at Ex.P. 10, which is in respect of invisible family expenditure and even though, his report says that a sum of Rs. 8,59,328/- is quantified by him towards that aspect, but in the cross-examination, he makes it very clear that it acted only upon on the information provided by PW. 6 and 8. He has not taken into consideration the food-grains, vegetables if grown by the AGO's family. So, these were the grey areas which have not been answered properly by this expert PW. 4.
76. Coming to the crucial aspect in respect of Ex.P. 5 i.e. determining the price of gold, platinum and silver articles, it is the usual stand of the Officer who conducts the raid that 97 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 they have secured the help of the appraiser. But, in this case, neither his statement nor his evidence is available before the Court. It is foregone conclusion that so long as expert does not enter the witness box, gives his oral evidence and faces the cross-examination, his report cannot attain any finality. In the instant case, but for the contents of Ex.P. 5, there are no any piece of corroborating evidence which show that either gold, platinum and silver or in respect of household articles, a proper procedure was adopted to determine their respective values.
77. It is also noticed in this case that properties seized have not been properly accounted for. The standard answer is that frequently the IOs get transferred, so the out 98 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 going IO and the incumbent IO will not exchange information in respect of the investigation under taken by them or intended to be undertaken. So, major communication gaps result in this type of debacles that take place. Nevertheless, if PW. 6, 8 and 9 were to convince this Court that they were right in considering the assets, expenditure and income of DW. 2 who is the eldest son of DW . 1, things would have been different. PW.8 was able to file Ex.P. 121 only for the fact that major assets stands in the name of DW. 2. In fact, IO has no answer to Ex.D. 2 at all.
78. Coming to the alleged criminal misconduct on the part of the AGO, according to me, whenever the allegations are made under Secs.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of 99 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Corruption Act, 1988, the law contemplates that an opportunity must be given to the AGO to satisfactorily explain for and if he fails to do so, then only the proper investigation shall result in submitting of final report. In the instant case, when Ex.P. 71, volumes 1 to 23 were submitted by the AGO to the IO, most part of the documents were in the nature of APRs and ITRs of DW. 1 and ITRs of DW. 2. Now, if the IO makes up a mind that he has to take a view different from the contents found in the ITRs, then he must come out with cogent and cohesive evidence. Because, any documents tendered by the IO is against self declaration of the income tax assessee, then that can only happen if when the IO or the party has asserting it has got clinching documents. The three IOs have not followed 100 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 the proper procedure, which completely deviated the entire investigation on an incorrect direction. Merely submitting a final report for the mechanical purpose will definitely not meet the ends of equity and justice. The three IOs ought to have kept in mind the principles which were enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court while conducting the investigation in the disproportionate case. These principles were enunciated by the Hon'ble Court in LAWS (mad) 2007 12 547 in the case of R.Kannappan & K. Chandrasekaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" (i) The Investigating Officer should assess the value of the assets of the public servant immediately prior to the check period with relevance to the tax Returns of the concerned person and also loans and other incomes available to the person and also about the 101 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 liability of the person prior to the check period.
(ii) he actual income during the check period and the expenditure actually incurred by the public servant should be calculated without any inflation and on a reasonable basis.
(iii) he total income during the check period and assets prior to the check period must be taken together as the total assets of the public servant from which the actual expenditure and amounts saved either by cash or by properties must be deducted from the total amount and see whether there is much disproportion to the known sources of income of the public servant and the assets on his hand. While making the calculation regarding the value of the properties and expenditure a reasonable margin has to be given this way or that way to find out the truth. Such kind of procedure to be adopted only by an unbiased Investigating Officer. There should be no suppression of income or under estimation of the income of the accused or inflation of the expenditure or inflation of the assets of the accused.
(iv) he Investigating Officer should not suppress any of the income, by way of loan or gift while considering the income of the public servant.
(v) Similarly after finding out that there is any disproportionate wealth in the hands of the public servant beyond his known sources of income, the accused must be given an opportunity to explain the same. Failure to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the same is fatal to the prosecution."
79. Lastly, the IO has thoroughly failed to 102 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 submit a report which can be considered as tenable in the eye of law. I should say, the entire exercise undertaken by the IO in submitting the charge sheet by considering most aspects which cannot be the part of their investigation or calculation. In this regard, I rely upon a decision reported in AIR 1973 SC 2772 in the case of Kali Ram Vs.State of H.P., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" (c) In a criminal trial the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus it cannot succeed. The Court may, of course, presume as mentioned in Sec.114 of the Evidence Act. The existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case".
80. Looked from any angle, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the 103 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 accused beyond all reasonable doubt. According to me, the calculation under taken by PW. 8 is not only near to the truth, but no proper method has been followed. Lastly, the PW-2 has spoken about the sanction order at Ex.P-2 but after submitting Ex.P - 14, FIR and a source report at Ex. P - 1, subsequently this accused retired from the government service, hence that sanction order will not serve its purpose. Hence, it is a fit case where the accused deserves acquittal. Accordingly, I have answered this point in the negative. POINT NO.2:-
81. Having photogenically scanned the entire documents and by giving anxious thought over the matter, according to me, the fact of disproportionate assets alleged by the PW. 8 in 104 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 this case cannot sustain for consideration at all. Roughly around Rs. 60 lakhs shown by the IO as the assets and income of the AGO does not fall into the family circle of the AGO or his family. There is nil material, which show that as on the date of Ex.P. 5, DW. 2 was the active member of the AGO's family for the purpose of calculation. Hence, having found demerit, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R The accused is found not guilty of the offences alleged against him.
Acting under Sec.235 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.105
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 The bail and surety bonds of the accused and his surety shall stand discharged.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer, transcript thereof and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 st DAY OF AUGUST 2022).
(S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
106
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
A NN E X U R E
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:
PW.1 S.Maheshwarappa
PW.2 Vasudev Rao P.M.
PW.3 B.M.Srinivas Murthy
PW.4 Jaideva Prakash
PW.5 M.S.Lingaraj
PW.6 H.R.Radhamani
PW.7 Dharmendra .M.
PW.8 M.Narayan
PW.9 Maribasappa
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Source Report
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW. 1
Ex.P.2 Sanction order
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW. 2
Ex.P.3 Corrigendum letter dtd.14-11-2013
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW. 2
Ex.P.4 Search warrant
Ex.P.4(a) to (c) Signatures of PW.3, CW,2 & accused Ex.P.5 Mahazar of house search Ex.P.5(a) to (d) Signatures of PW.3, CW,2 & accused & PW. 6 Ex.P.6 Seized documents in file No.6 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P. 6(A) Building value intimation Ex.P.7 Dy.S.P.letter dtd.24-02-2012 Ex.P.8 Dy.S.P.letter dtd.29-02-2012 Ex.P.9 Covering letter 107 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Ex.P. 9(a) Signature of PW. 4 Ex.P.10 Family expenditure report Ex.P. 10(a) Signature of PW. 4 Ex.P.11 Dy.S.P.letter to EE Ex.P.12 Building valuation Report.
Ex.P. 12(a) Signature of PW. 5
Ex.P.13 S.P. Proceedings to PW. 6
Ex.P. 13(a) Signature of PW. 6
Ex.P.14 F.I.R.
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW. 6
Ex.P.15 Search Warrant in the name of
Maheshwarappa.
Ex.P.16 Search Warrant in the name of
Annappanayak
Ex.P.17 Search Warrant in the name of
Dramendra.
Ex.P.17(a) to (d) Signatures of PW.7, Mumtaz, CW.3 & CW.4 Ex.P.18 Requisition to depute officials Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW. 6 Ex.P.19 Letter of Excise Department Ex.P.20 Requisition to depute officials.
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW. 6 Ex.P.21 Letter of PWD department Ex.P.22 Search Mahazar by Darmendra
Ex.P.22(a) to (d) Signatures of PW. 7, Mumtaz, CW.3 & cw.4 Ex.P.23 Search Mahazar by Annappanayak Ex.P.24 Search Mahazar by Maheshwarappa.
Ex.P.25 Search Mahazar by Raiker. Ex.P.26 Amanath Co-operative Bank account details Ex.P.27 SBM bank account details Ex.P.28 UCO Bank, M.G.Road Bank 108 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 account details Ex.P.29 UCO Bank, Contonment Branch Bank account details Ex.P.30 Copy of letter of PW. 6 to AD of Town Planning Ex.P.31 Salary particulars of AGO Ex.P.32 Copy of letter of PW. 6 Ex.P.33 Salary particulars of AGO Ex.P.34 Copy of letter of PW. 6 Ex.P.35 Salary particulars of AGO Ex.P.36 Copy of letter of PW. 6 Ex.P.37 Salary particulars of AGO Ex.P.38 Copy of letter of PW. 6 Ex.P.39 Salary particulars of AGO Ex.P.40 Copy of letter to H.M.Modern School Ex.P.41 School fee particulars Ex.P.42 Copy of letter to H.M.Royal School Ex.P.43 School fee particulars Ex.P.44 Copy of letter to H.M.St.Alisis School Ex.P.45 School fee particulars Ex.P.46 Copy of letter to H.M.Shobana School Ex.P.47 School fee particulars Ex.P.48 Copy of letter to Prl.H.M.S.Polytechnic Ex.P.49 collage fee particulars Ex.P.50 Copy of letter to Principal, All Ameen PU College Ex.P.51 College fee particulars Ex.P.52 Copy of Notice to accused. Ex.P.53 Copy of Notice to accused. Ex.P.54 Explanation of the accused Ex.P.55 Copy of letter to Tahsildar, Tumkur 109 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Ex.P.56 Covering letter of RTO, Jayanagar Ex.P.57 Vehicle 'B' form Register Ex.P.58 Covering letter of RTO, Raichur Ex.P.59 Vehicle 'B' form Register Ex.P.60 Covering letter of RTO, Tumkur Ex.P.61 Vehicle 'B' form Register Ex.P.62 Covering letter of RTO Ex.P.63 Vehicle 'B' form Register Ex.P.64 Vehicle 'B' form Register Ex.P.65 Copy of letter to Manager,Canara Bank Ex.P.66 Canara Bank account details Ex.P.67 Memo of ADGP Ex.P.68 Authorizing order of ADG[ Ex.P.69 Copy of letter to accused Ex.P.70 Letter of accused Ex.P.71 Schedule of documents Ex.P.72 Order of ADGP Ex.P.72(a) Signature of PW. 9 Ex.P.73 APR's received by Town Planning Ex.P.74 APRs of year 1988-1990 Ex.P.75 Copy of letter to Tahsildar, Tumkur Ex.P.76 Pahanis Ex.P.77 Copy of letter to Sub-Registrar Ex.P.78 Copy of sale deed of House No.119 Ex.P.79 Copy of letter to EE, PWD, Tumkur Ex.P.80 Copy of letter to RTO, Yeshwanthpur Ex.P.81 'B' Register extract Ex.P.82 Copy of letter to RTO, Yeshwanthpur Ex.P.83 'B' Register extract Ex.P.84 Copy of letter to Proprietor Druvdesh Motors P.Ltd.
Ex.P.85 Valuation certificate of vehicle
Ex.P.86 Copy of letter to Yeshwanthpur RTO
110
Spl.C.C. No.122/2014
Ex.P.87 'B' Register extract
Ex.P.88 Copy of letter to Proprietor
Pacer Motors P.Ltd.
Ex.P.89 Valuation certificate of vehicle
Ex.P.90 Copy of letter to Yeshwanthpur RTO
Ex.P.91 'B' Register extract
Ex.P.92 Copy of letter to Commissioner,TDA
Ex.P.93 Salary particulars of accused
Ex.P.94 Copy of letter to Joint Director
Ex.P.95 Salary particulars of accused
Ex.P.96 Salary particulars of accused
Ex.P.97 Copy of letter to Manager, UCO Bank
Ex.P.98 Loan account details of UCO bank
Ex.P.99 Copy of letter to AG Office
Ex.P.100 GPF Loan details from AG Office Ex.P.101 Copy of letter to Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Bengaluru Ex.P.102 Income tax details of accused son Ex.P.103 IT Returns of accused son Ex.P.104 Copy of letter to Chief Post Master Ex.P.105 Postal life insurance details Ex.P.106 Copy of letter to AEE, BWSSB, B'luru Ex.P.107 Water charges details from BWSSB Ex.P.108 Copy of letter to ARO, BBMP Ex.P.109 Tax assessment details of properties from BBMP Ex.P.110 Copy of letter to AEE, BESCOM Ex.P.111 Electricity charges details Ex.P.112 Electricity Charges details Ex.P.113 Copy of letter to Chief Accounts Officer, BSNL, Vijayanagar Ex.P.114 Telephone charges details Ex.P.115 Copy of letter to Hindustan Aviation Academy, Bengaluru 111 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 Ex.P.116 Studyt expenses of son of accused Ex.P.117 Copy of letter to Bharath Gas Agency Ex.P.118 LPG gas expenditure details Ex.P.119 Passport particulars of the accused Ex.P.120 Requisitions with particulars of documents submitted by AGO Ex.P.121 Final Report Ex.P.121(a) Signature of PW. 8 Ex.P.122 Copy of letter to Oriental Insurance Company by PW. 9 Ex.P.123 Vehicle policy details Ex.P.124 AGO explanation Ex.P.125 Copy of letter to LIC, JC Road Ex.P.126 Policy particulars from LIC, JC Road Ex.P.127 Copy of letter to LIC Tumkur Ex.P.128 Policy particulars from LIC, Tumkur Ex.P.129 Copy of letter to IT department Ex.P.130 ITR details of Smt.Halima Ex.P.131 Letter from Smt.Ashwathamma in respect of rents Ex.P.132 Details of property No.41, Ashok Nagar from Sub-Registrar, Tumkur Ex.P.133 Details of property No.5, Kavalbyrasandra from Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru Ex.P.134 Copy of sale deed and information from Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
NIL 112 Spl.C.C. No.122/2014 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.1 H.A.Hafeez DW.2 Murthuza Junaid
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Copy of sale deed
of Kavalbyrasandra property
Ex.D.2 Certificate and Bank statement of
UCO Bank of the accused
Ex.D.3 Xerox copy of sale deed
Ex.D.4 Copy of sale deed dtd.21-02-2005
Ex.D.5 Copy of sale deed dtd.23-06-2005
Ex.D.6 Copy of sale deed dtd.10-07-2008
Ex.D.7 Rental agreement dtd.30-06-2005
Ex.D.8 Rental agreement dtd.20-07-2005
Ex.D.9 Rental agreement dtd.31-11-2007
(S.V.SRIKANTH),
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.