Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch vs Nos.1 To 7 For The Offences Punishable ... on 19 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 19th day of December 2017.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.B.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.15534/2012
Date of Offence : 18-2-2013 to 27-2-2013
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch
(OCW), Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Mahesh s/o late Prakash,
r/o No.115, 1st main, 2nd cross,
2nd Stage, BTM Layout,
Bengaluru,
2. Manjunath M.N @ Amulya,
s/o V.Nagaraj, aged 39 years
Manager in Pepsi Company,
r/o No.25, 'A' Sector,
Amruthnagar, Yalahanka,
Bengaluru,
3. Anil @ Anilkumar,
s/o Gunavantharai,
aged 48 years, r/o No.86,
EWS Quarters, K.H.B. Colony,
II Stage, 2nd cross, Udayagiri,
Mysore 560 019,
4. Kunal s/o Suresh Narang,
aged 35 years, r/o No.386,
North East of N.R.Mohalla,
Mysore,
2 C.C.No.15534/2012
5. Tulasiram P.Bagare,
s/o P.N.Bagare, aged 51 years,
r/o No.S/1, I Stage,
Kingdale Apartment,
Sidarthnagar, Mysore,
6. Sridhar @ Siddu s/o Swamirao,
aged 26 years, Sales boy,
r/o No.120, S.B.M. Colony,
Udayagiri, Mysore,
7. Rajivkumar @ Rajiv,
s/o late Arunkumar,
aged 30 years, r/o No.G-3,
Kalidasaroad,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysore 570002,
own address: Garbanali,
Arariya district, Bihar State.
Offences complained off: U/Sec.420 of IPC, u/Sec.66(D)of
I.T. Act and u/Sec.78(6) of
K.P.Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 19-12-2017
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (OCW), N.T.Pet, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under 3 C.C.No.15534/2012 Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos.1 to 7 were engaged in cricket betting of 20-20 cricket match between India and England which was held on 29-10-2011 and offered to pay Rs.100/- per Rs.1/- through mobile and other electronic equipments and collected huge amount from the public and not repaid any amount. Under such circumstances, the C.C.B (OCW) police have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act in Crime No.214/2011. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the aforesaid offences.
3. After appearance of the accused, necessary documents as relied by the prosecution are furnished to the accused Nos.1 to 7 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 7. The accused Nos.1 to 7 pleaded not 4 C.C.No.15534/2012 guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 7 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7, during the course of trial, the C.Ws.3, 13, 14, 1, 17, 15 and 16 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 and 2. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time, hence they were dropped.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused Nos.1 to 7 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 7 have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 7.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 to 7 have committed the offences punishable under 5 C.C.No.15534/2012 Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act ?
2. What Order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that the accused Nos.1 to 7 were engaged in cricket betting of 20-20 cricket match between India and England which was held on 29-10-2011 and offered to pay Rs.100/- per Rs.1/- through mobile and other electronic equipments and collected huge amount from the public and not repaid any amount and thereby the accused Nos.1 to 7 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act.
6 C.C.No.15534/2012
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act, C.W.3 is examined as P.W.1 who is none other than the mahazar witness. P.W.1 has deposed that he does not know the accused No.1, but the police have obtained his signature on seizure mahazar in the Police Station. The seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P1. In order to establish and to prove the guilt of the accused, the seizing of amount from the possession of the accused is very important, but P.W.1 in the chief examination itself has deposed to the following effect:
DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ QæPÉmï ¨ÉnÖAUï DlªÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ EgÀ°®è.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above disproves the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of amount from the accused persons. Since P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the 7 C.C.No.15534/2012 permission of the court. In the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited to prove the mahazar as well as seizure of the amount from the accused persons, merely because P.W.1 has turned hostile it does not mean that his evidence cannot be considered at all.
10. C.Ws.13 and 14 are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the constables who have deposed with regard to raid conducted by the Investigating officer along with P.Ws.2 and 3. It is very important point to be noted at this stage itself that P.Ws.2 and 3 have not subjected for cross-examination, hence, their evidence is incomplete. In this regard, this court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sannarevanappa Bharamajappa Kalal Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1205, wherein his lordship has held as under:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act) No.2 of 1974)-Section 319- Complete 'evidence' calls for cross-
examination not examination-in-chief alone-If witness does not submit to 8 C.C.No.15534/2012 cross-examination after examination-in- chief Court precluded from acting on such incomplete evidence.
In view of law laid down in the above said case, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be relied on to prove the guilt of the accused, because their evidence is not completed.
11. C.W.1 is examined as P.W.4 who is none other than the Investigating Officer who has also deposed with regard to his official duty discharged by him during the course of investigation. Hence, I need not recapitulate those facts at this stage.
12. To test the veracity of P.W.4, the counsel appearing fro the accused persons has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.4 has deposed to the following effect:
9 C.C.No.15534/2012
£À£ÀUÉ ¨sÁwäzÁgÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ»w AiÀiÁªÀÅzjÀ AzÀ §A¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ «¼Á¸À ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ CAUÀ±ÉÆÃzÀ£s É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The evidence of P.W.4 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the alleged offences.
13. C.W.17 is examined as P.W.5 who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to raid and got marked certain documents. To test the veracity of P.W.5, the learned Counsel for the accused has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.5 has deposed to the following effect:
It is true to suggest that when we have raided Travel agency the accused No.2 was not present. It is true to suggest that, the name of the accused No.2 was inserted subsequently in the FIR. It is true to suggest that, the name of the accused No.2 was inserted in the FIR after recording voluntary statement of the accused No.1. It is true to 10 C.C.No.15534/2012 suggest that we have not seized any documents from accused No.2.
It is true to suggest that I have not seized any document to show that the phone bearing No.9880087535 and 9663000078 belongs to accused No.2.
It is true to suggest that, we have not seized Ex.P3, 4 and 5 from accused No.2.
The evidence of P.W.5 as above is not sufficient to prove the raid as well as to prove and establish the guilt of the accused persons.
It is also deposed by P.W.5 in cross-examination in page No.8 to the following effect:
We have identified the accused No.1 as he has disclosed that his name is Mahesh and he came to give booking ticket.
It is true to suggest that, we have prepared Ex.P1 at the spot. It is true to suggest that, we have not recorded seizer proceedings in the video. I have not produced CD before the court. It is true to suggest that, we have not seized any amount from the accused No.4, 6 and 7. 11 C.C.No.15534/2012
The evidence of P.W.5 as above is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences, because the prosecution has not produced the relevant material documents before the court to establish that the accused were engaged in cricket betting.
Similarly, in the course of further cross-examination at page No.9, P.W.5 has deposed to the following effect:
It is true to suggest that the phone numbers of accused No.3 and 5 is not found in Ex.P6. It is true to suggest that when we have raided the said premises accused No.3 and 5 were not present. It is true to suggest that, on the basis of the statement made by accused No.1, the name of the accused No.3 and 5 were inserted in the FIR.
It is true to suggest that, we have not seized money from the house of accused No.3 and 5.
It is true to suggest that there is no information about accused No.3 and 5 in Ex.P3 to 5.12 C.C.No.15534/2012
The evidence of P.W.5 as above is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7.
14. C.W.15 is examined as P.W.6 who is an Investigating officer has deposed according to the investigation conducted by him during the course of investigation. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.6 has deposed in page No.2 to the following effect:
£ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥É¤AiÀÄ PÀªÀjAUï ¯Élgï £À°è ¤¦-11 gÀ°è ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ¸ÀASÉå 9886074286 AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹gÀÄvÀz Û É JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj £ÀA§gï AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
£À£UÀ É ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPgÀ t À PÉÌ DzÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ¤¦-12 AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥n À ÖgÀÄvÀz Û É JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ¤¦-12£ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¹rAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.13 C.C.No.15534/2012
The evidence of P.W.6 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons that the accused have engaged in cricket betting by using the mobile phones and other electronic items under Information Technology Act. Similarly, P.W.6 has deposed in page No.3 to the following effect:
¤¦-12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀªÁtô ¸ÀASÉåUÀ¼À §UÉÎ £À£UÀ É ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»w EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï 9886074286 EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ¹rAiÀÄ£ÁßUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ PÁ¯ï mÁæ¥ï gÉPÁqïð£ÁßUÀ°Ã ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼£À ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The evidence of P.W.6 as above is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
15. C.W.16 is examined as P.W.7 who is another Investigating officer has deposed according to the investigation conducted by him. In the course of 14 C.C.No.15534/2012 cross-examination, P.W.7 has deposed to the following effect:
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÁUÀ 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The evidence of P.W.7 as above is not sufficient to prove the offences alleged not only against the accused nos.3 to 5, but also other accused persons. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 7 is not at all sufficient and it is totally inconsistent to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasonings, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act. Hence, it is held that the accused Nos.1 to 7 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative. 15 C.C.No.15534/2012
16. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 7 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act.
Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 to 7 and their surety stands cancelled.
The amount of Rs.7,00,000/- deposited in C.R.C.D. and M.Os.1 and 2 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of December 2017).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.16 C.C.No.15534/2012
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Raghukumar, P.W.2, Mahadevaiah, P.W.3, Praveenkumar K., P.W.4, Shivappa, P.W.5, Thanveer S.R, P.W.6, Murthy S.N, P.W.7, Shobha G;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.7,
Ex.P2, Statement of P.W.3,
Ex.P3, One long note book paper,
Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P4 &
Ex.P5, 2 small papers written about betting,
Ex.P4(a) to
Ex.P5(a), Signatures of P.W.4,
Ex.P6, Complaint,
Ex.P6(a), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P6(b), Signature of P.W.7,
Ex.P7, CRCD deposit receipt,
Ex.P8, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P8(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P9, Voluntary statement of accused No.2,
Ex.P10, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P10(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P11 Covering letter,
Ex.P11(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P11(b), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P12, CDR details,
Ex.P12(a), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P13, FIR,
17 C.C.No.15534/2012
Ex.P13(a), Signature of P.W.7,
Ex.P14, Copy of order issued by Commissioner of
Police,
Material Objects Produced:-
M.Os.1 and 2 Mobile phones;
Witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the defence: - NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.18 C.C.No.15534/2012
19/12/2017 State by Sr.APP Accused No.1 to 7 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 7 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 66(D) of Information Technology Act and under Section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 to 7 and their surety stands cancelled.
The amount of Rs.7,00,000/- deposited in C.R.C.D. and M.Os.1 and 2 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal period is over.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.19 C.C.No.15534/2012 20 C.C.No.15534/2012