Bangalore District Court
Pradeep vs Srinath on 15 January, 2025
KABC031191992017
Presented on : 13-12-2017
Registered on : 13-12-2017
Decided on : 15-01-2025
Duration : 7 years, 1 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT: BENGALURU.
PRESENT
Sri. KESHAVA.K., B.A., LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this 15th day of January, 2025
C.C.No.29477 of 2017
Complainant : State by the Police Sub Inspector,
Rajajinagar police station,
Bengaluru.
[By Assistant Public Prosecutor]
- Vs -
Accused No: 1. Srinath,
S/o.late.Nagaraj,
Aged about 38 years,
R/a.No.3, 13th main, J.C.Nagar,
Kurubarahalli, Bengaluru-86.
Permanent address- Oluru grama,
Kolar District,
3. Bhaskar Billava,
S/o.Mahabala,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at.No.3, 2nd floor, 13th
main, J.C.Nagar, Kurubara
Halli, Bengaluru-560086.
Permanent address- Thaluru grama,
Kundapura Hobli, Udupi District.
2
C.C.29477/2017
(Case against accused No.2 and 4 is split up
and registered in C.C.No.7362/2024)
[By Sri.K.S.Pradeep... Advocate]
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet has been filed in this case by the Police Sub Inspector of Rajajinagar police station against the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec.5 and 7 of The Specified Bank Notes( Cessation of Liabilites) Act 2017.
2. In briefly the case of the prosecution is as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that, the C.W.1 was working as Vijaya News TV channel programmer and on 15.04.2017 at about 1.30 A.M, he has received information that some people were trying to exchange the old currency notes/demonetization while Government of India had prohibited for exchange of those notes, into new currency notes, as such after receiving said information planned for the sting operation on 15.04.2017 at about 4.00A.M, by that time the C.W.1 went to the intersection of 6th main and 58th cross, 4th block, Rajajinagar along with his staff ie C.W.2 to 4 where a car bearing No. KA04-D-417 came to the said spot and the accused No.1 to 4 talked together with the C.W.1 and gave him old currency notes of the face value of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes worth Rs.82 lakhs to the C.W.1 and agreed to give him 40% commission. Later on the accused persons also said that they had some old currency notes and agreed to give those notes and asked the C.W.1 to come and wait near Nandini hotel, Chord road. but later the accused persons did not come there, as such the C.W.1 produced the old currency notes and the car to the police station and therefore the C.W.1 lodged the complaint against accused before the Rajajinagar Police seeking necessary action against them in accordance with law.
3. On the basis of the said complaint given by C.W.1, the complainant 3 C.C.29477/2017 police have registered the case under Crime No.127/2017 and sent FIR to this Court and to their concerned higher authorities. Thereafter, the complainant police have visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses, herein after recorded the statements of witnesses who availed in the station subsequently who availed where the said mahazars have been drawn, after completion of the investigation the IO has arived at a conclusion that there are sufficient materials as to prosecute the accused, for which charge sheet has been filed for the above said offence.
4. After filing of the charge sheet, this Court registered the case is as numbered above, in persuance of summons the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before this Court and were enlarged on bail, accused No.4 remained absent. Subsequently accused No.2 and 4 remained absent inspite of issuance of NBW several times, as such case against them was ordered to be split up. Hence case against accused No.2 and 4 is split up and registered in CC.7362/2024. Meanwhile copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers were duly supplied to accused No.1 and 3 as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, this court found that there were sufficient reasons so as to frame charge against the accused, therefore charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 3 in the language known to them, after understanding the same they denied the same and claimed to be tried, accordingly, proceeded with trial against the accused.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses who are said to be victim and material witnesses as P.W.1 to 4 and got marked five documents at Ex.P-1 and 2. As there are no any incriminating materials forth coming against the accused, as to which summoning of remaining witnesses would no purpose to serve and therefore C.W.5 to 17 ordered to be given up by rejecting the submission made by the leanred APP. Consequently, recording of statement of 4 C.C.29477/2017 accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C also dispensed with.
6. Heard both side arguments, in compliance of section 437-A of Cr.P.C., bail bond and surety bond were obtained from the accused.
7. In view of above said facts and circumstances the following points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:-
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 15.04.2017 at about 1.30 A.M, C.W.1 received information that some people were trying to exchange the old notes to new currency. As per the sting operation on 15.04.2017 at about 4.00A.M, the C.W.1 went to the intersection of 6th main and 58th cross, 4th block, Rajajinagar along with his staff ie C.W.2 to 4 at 4.00A.M, a car bearing No. KA04-D-417 came to the said spot and the accused No.1 and 3 along with accused No.2 and 4(against whom split up case is registered) with an intention to commit an offence and in furtherance of their common intention talked to the C.W.1 and gave him old currency notes of the face value of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes worth Rs.82 lakhs to the C.W.1 and agreed to give him 40% commission and thereby the accused persons committed the offence of "Prohibition on holding, transferring or receiving of specified bank notes"
punishable U/s 5 and 7 of Specified Bank Notes?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, place and time the accused No.1 and 3 along with accused No.2 and 4(against whom split up case is registered) with an intention to commit an offence and in furtherance of their common intention of cheating the Government were in illegal possession of the old currency notes of the face value of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes worth Rs.80 lakhs and cheated the Government and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. What Order?5
C.C.29477/2017
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the 'Negative' Point No.3 : As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 and 2: These points are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid the repetation of facts.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to 4 and got marked five documents at Ex.P.1 to P.5 on their behalf. In the oral evidence C.W1/P.W.2-complainant/victim in this case deposed that being a News channel programmer received credible information about the exchange of old currency notes during the period of demonetization, subsequently he completely turned hostile by giving complete go-bye statement about the incident and did not even identify the alleged accused persons. Likewise C.W.2 to 4 who are said to be the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar witnesses in this case also turned hostile. However in the instant case,remaining witnesses were ordered to be given up as their presence would not serve any purpose. As the first informant/complainant P.W.1 being the material witness in this case has not supported the case of the prosecution and as he turned hostile by giving a complete go-bye statement, due to which other prosecution witnesses were given up, as it would serve no purpose to summon the other witnesses, during the course of prosecution evidence five documents got marked as Ex.P1 to P.5. So far as Ex.P1and 2 are the statements of P.W.4 and P.W.2, Ex.P.3 is the complaint, Ex.P.4 and 5 are the spot mahazars, but the prosecution witnesses did not support the contents which are mentioned in the same, therefore whatever the suspicious circumstances pleaded while framing of charge remained as same.
11.On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on 6 C.C.29477/2017 record, no incriminating materials are forthcoming against the accused and the prosecution has not established the ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused, however herein there is no positive evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, for which this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt, under such circumstances summoning of C.W.5 to 17 also does not survive for consideration. Hence, benefits of doubt goes to the accused, for which, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the 'Negative'.
12. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2 and reasons assigned therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 3 are not found guilty and they are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec. 420 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec.5 and 7 of The Specified Bank Notes( Cessation of Liabilites) Act 2017.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and 3 stands cancelled.
In compliance of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. the bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and 3 are ordered to be continued in force for six months or till issuance of notice in respect of any appeal [if preferred] against the present Judgment before the Appellate Court. There is no order as to disposal of the property in this case, since split up C.C.7362/2024 is pending against accused No.2 and 4.7
C.C.29477/2017 Keep the original file along with split up C.C.7362/2024 pending against accused No.2 and 4.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript revised, corrected and signed & then pronounced in the Open court on this the 15th day of January 2025.) (KESHAVA.K) XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
:: A N N E X U R E ::
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Manikant
P.W.2 : Pradeep
P.W.3 : Mallikarjun
P.W.4 : Bhaskar
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 and 2: Statements of 4 and 2.
Ex.P.3 : Complaint
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W.1.
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Spot mahazars
Ex.P.4(a), 5(a): Signatures of P.W.1.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
- NIL -
XXXII Addl.Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.