Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs N. Rajanna on 27 February, 2024
1
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
KABC010293192015
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE
SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-78) & C/C OF LXXVIII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, (CCH-79) BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 27 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
PRESENT:
SRI. S.V.SRIKANTH, B.A., LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE & C/C OF
LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SPL. C.C.No. 591/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police.
(Rep.Public Prosecutor)
/VS/
2
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
ACCUSED: R.Rajanna,
S/o Ramaiah Gowda,
Aged about 83 years,
Joint Commissioner of
Excise(Retired), Office of
Joint Commissioner
of Excise Belgaum Range,
Belgaum. R/at Hospet,
Bellary District.
(Rep by Sri.Shankar
P.Hegde, Advocate)
TABULATION OF EVENTS
01. Date of commission of offence: 22-01-2000
02. Date of report of offences to
the Police Station (FIR date) : 22-01-2000
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(2)
of Prevention
of Corruption
Act 1988.
07. Date of submission of
charge sheet : 19-02-2008
08. Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 01-12-2010
09. Date of closing of evidence : 21-08-2014
3
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
10. Date of judgment : 27-02-2024
11. Opinion of the Judge in : Accused is
acquitted.
*****
JU DG ME N T
1.The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Rural Division, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Secs. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The germane facts that led to this Investigating Officer to submit his charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court is that when the accused was the Joint Commissioner of Excise serving at Belgaum, the Police Inspector and his team conducted 4 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 raid and search of the premises of the accused on 22-01-2000 and found total assets worth Rs. 65,39,683/-, total expenditure of Rs. 8,00,622/- and income of Rs. 10,95,176/-. The IO has considered the check period from 01-05-1980 to 21-02- 2000 and according to him, they found accused was in possession of assets worth Rs. 62,45,129/- disproportionate to his known source of income which he failed to account for satisfactorily, thereby, involved in commission of criminal misconduct, hence, has been charge sheeted for the above stated offences.
3. After securing the presence of the accused before the Court, he was duly enlarged on regular bail. As per the mandatory 5 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 compliance, all the prosecution papers were supplied to him and as the earlier Court found sufficient and prima-facie materials to frame charges against this accused, charges were duly framed which later came to be read over to the accused in his known language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. It is right to mention here that earlier the charge sheet was filed before the Special Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, subsequently, this matter has been transferred to the Special Court, City Civil Court, CCH-79, Bengaluru.
5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the prosecution in all has 6 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 examined PWs.1 to 10 and exhibits at Ex.P.1 to P.380 came to be marked. No material object came to be identified. On the other hand, as there were incriminating evidence found against the accused, statement and additional statement as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded more than once, to which the accused denied the same and chose to lead his evidence. When that opportunity was given to him, he got examined DWs.1 to 14 and exhibits at Ex.D.1 to D.39 came to be marked.
6. Heard the arguments. During the course of arguments, both the Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the defence Counsel having submitted their respective written arguments also supplied lists with citations. 7
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 I have gone through them carefully in detail.
7. The fresh points that crop up for my consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution is able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that when the accused was the public servant, in particular, an employee of the Excise Department and when he was the Joint Commissioner of Excise, on 21-02-2000 the Lokayuktha Police Inspectors and his team conducted search and raid of his premises and found total assets of this accused and his family worth Rs.
65,39,683/-, total expenditure of Rs. 8,00,622/- and income of Rs. 10,95,176/-, but according to the IO, the accused was found possessing wealth of the value of Rs. 62,45,129/- disproportionate to his known source of income which accounted for 570.23% during the check period as 01- 05-1980 to 21-02-2000, whereby the accused is alleged to have 8 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 committed an act of criminal misconduct as he failed to satisfactorily account for his acquisitions, whereby has committed the offences of criminal misconduct punishable under Secs.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
2). Whether the prosecution is able to successfully prove before the Court that the Investigating Officers who conducted further investigation of this case were also duly authorized under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
3). What order?
8. After carefully going through the materials available on record and also considering the facts and circumstances of this case and plain reading of Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (unamended), my 9 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 findings to the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1: In the negative.
POINT NO.2: In the negative.
POINT NO.3: As per my final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- Quite naturally the IO who has submitted the charge sheet is before the Court straight away canvassing his arguments that, the total assets and expenditure is more than the lawful income of the accused and his family and there cannot be any iota of doubt in coming to the conclusion that the accused and his family led luxurious and lavish life on account of ill-gotten wealth which is because, the accused has misused and abused his office and his powers. Further, according to the 10 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 investigating officer, some of the acquisitions, which are listed in the assets category which were in the name of the accused's wife and his family members were sheer benami in nature, because except the accused, other family members were not gainfully employed or they had no definite source of income. Hence, ill gotten wealth or illegal gratification which the accused received by misuse and by abuse of office was channelized to purchase those properties. Hence, according to the prosecution this is a fit case, wherein conviction has to be drawn.
10. On the other hand, the accused took up the contention that he is nothing but a victim of circumstances, he has been right royally 11 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 cornered by excise lobby and bootleggers who are behind the entire melodrama. According to him, when he undertook strict action against erring and excise tax defaulters who were in arrears of huge excise duty to the Government, he has been made as a scapegoat. Further, this accused goes a step further and submits that he also conducted raid to see that illegal arrack or selling of hooch/arrack does not take place. So according to him, the present criminal case which is almost 24 years old, is the handy work of those strong excise lobby and bootleggers. Hence, according to him, intentionally the IO has submitted the charge sheet, has not considered the various incomes of his wife and Dearness 12 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Allowances and its arrears of the accused during the check period, not considered surrendered leave encashment and other perquisites which this accused received as a public servant while discharging his duties.
11. Lastly, the main limb of argument was that the IO who has submitted the charge sheet subsequently died when this accused was attending the proceedings. So, out of the 10 prosecution witnesses examined none of the official witnesses who were the Karnataka Lokayuktha police were able to speak in respect of the charge sheet contents. According to him, the first loophole is that the entire charge sheet contents has become mere allegation statement because it has not been proved. According to him, the other two 13 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 police officers who claimed to have undertaken part of the investigation are not authorized persons. It is the mandate of Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that the investigation has to be undertaken after registration of the case by the Officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police, but there is also sub-clause which says that any Police Officers of the rank of SP can sub-delegate his powers. But, in the instant case, the so called two Police Officers attached to Karnataka Lokayuktha Police have not been authorized and any investigation undertaken by those Police Officers without empowering them by the competent authority under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 14 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 1988 cannot be considered at all. Under such circumstances, the present investigation or the charge sheet submitted has no legs to stand.
12. One of the main last attack was, the Asst. Engineer, PWD, who undertook valuations of the house and immovable properties of the accused and his family was not an expert under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Likewise, the Lokayuktha Police have also examined the Joint Director of Statistics by name Jayadevaprakash who is also not an expert or a skilled person who have given report in respect of food and invisible expenditure of the family of the accused. So, according to the accused, looked from any angle, the so called Commissioner's report 15 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 obtained and placed in this case by the IO can only be termed as a half baked. According to the accused, when a particular Engineer of the PWD Department is not competent enough to place valuation report, that report can in no terms be considered as having attained finality. Likewise, in respect of the report given by Jayadevaprakash, Joint Director of Statistics, which is also cannot be a ground to consider it as an expert's opinion. Further, this accused has not forgotten to mention here that the IO who submitted the charge sheet should show before the Court that he has not accepted those reports in verbatim, but he has used that discretion and that was not thrust upon him to act upon. According to 16 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 this accused, the IO who has filed charge sheet Mr.Chandrakanth is no more so not before the Court to support the contents of the charge sheet. Hence, the question of attaching importance to each item of assets, income and expenditure will not arise at all. On these set of grounds, the accused attacked the case of the prosecution and contended that the present case filed against him is only to harass him and make his family to suffer for many decades to come.
13.The prosecution since has made allegations against the accused that he has committed offences under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has got examined 10 of its charge sheet witnesses. The PW. 1 by name 17 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Sri.Dayananda Murthy who was the SDA in the office of the Commissioner of Transports, Government of Karnataka, Multi Storied Building, Bengaluru was deputed to the office of the Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Rural District to assist the investigation to be done by his Superintendent. According to this witness, he was orally instructed by his superior to go and meet the Lokayuktha Police and as directed, he went and met the Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha at 6.00 am. On 23-01-2000 and on the very day, they were taken in a Government vehicle to R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru i.e. house No.403 belonging to the accused. It is the evidence of the PW. 1 that the said Police Officer also told them as to how they 18 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 have to assist them and for what purpose they are conducting the raid of the accused house. When they went to the said house, brother of the accused was present and after self introduction and showing the identity card, they gained entry into the said house, where the Dy.S.P. and his team conducted inventory of furniture, gold and silver articles and also seized the cash. The approximate value of the articles including the valuables found in the house of the accused were assessed on the basis by collecting the information of the entire raiding team. It is also the evidence of this witness that the Dy.S.P. summoned one appraiser to check the gauge and quality of valuables and also to fix their approximate 19 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 price as on the date of raid. According to this witness, a separate mahazar was also drawn and at about 4.30 p.m. the accused and his wife came to that spot and they were made known of that day's development, which took place in his house. It is further deposed by PW. 1 that a detailed mahazar was drawn and the said process got completed at 7.30 p.m. on that day. The contents of the mahazar were read over and these mahazar witnesses were made known of the same and the signatures of this witness and CW.3 by name Shobha Rani, Lokayuktha Police obtained their signatures on the said document. That mahazar came to be identified at Ex.P. 1 and this witness has identified his signature on that 20 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 document at Ex.P. 1(a).
14.Coming to the evidence of PW. 2 by name Syed Ejaz Razwi who was the assistant in the Zonal office of BESCOM, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru and on 22-01-2000, the Karnataka Lokayuktha of Bengaluru Rural District has sent a requisition to his superior requesting him to depute an official to assist them in their investigation. Accordingly, he was deputed, so he went to the office of the Lokayuktha Police on that day at about 3.00 p.m. and another person by name Kanikaraj CW-5 was also present and both of them were briefed by the Lokayuktha Police and they were directed to come to their office on the next day at about 5.30 a.m. It is also the evidence of this witness that both this 21 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 witness and CW.5 Kanikaraj went to the SP office of Lokayuktha and they were taken to a farm land/house of the accused situated at Nelamangala, Doddaballapura Road near Madure. They reached the said house at 7.15 a.m. and the main gate of the house was locked. Then servant came and opened the gate to them and the Lokayuktha team showed the search warrant and gained entry into the house. According to this witness, necessary signatures were obtained on the search warrant of the persons present there.
15.It is the further evidence of PW. 2 that they found residential house measuring 40 x 80 feet and next to it, some construction was going on. Inside the said house, they found an Almirah which was not locked and inside 22 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 that, they came across 8 to 10 note books which contains writings and also payments made to the labourers. In the kitchen, they found some utensils and a mixer grinder and inside the compound wall, they saw one tractor parked, one two wheeler, 10 sheep and a cow and at that spot, the police inspector Jairaj dictated the contents of the mahazar to the Typist who accompanied them. A detailed mahazar was drawn in their presence, contents were read over to them, signatures were taken. This process was commenced by about 7.30 a.m. and got completed at 12.30 p.m. Through this witness, the said mahzar came to be marked at Ex.P. 3 and he has identified his signature on that document at Ex.P. 3(a). 23
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
16.Coming to the evidence of PW. 3 by name Basavaaj Kalagoda Patil, who was the SDA in the District Treasury, Belgaum. On 14- 02-2000, when he was attending his office work, on the said evening, some police men came to their office, met his treasury officer and his treasury officer directed him to go the Lokayuktha office for assisting the said team in their investigation, on the next day at 10 a.m. he went to the Lokayuktha office, Belgaum met the Superintendent of Police and by the time he went there, CW.8 Charantimatt, another mahazar witness was already present. After briefing this witness and CW.8, SP took them to Sadashivanagar area of Belgaum City. They were taken to the house which belonged to the accused. 24
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 According to this witness, initially, he was not knowing the same.
17. He has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that when they went to the house at Sadashivanagar, accused was very much present, he was briefed about the raid and search and according to him, the entire house was searched, they could not find any thing, but they came across some furniture and house hold articles. In this regard, a separate mahazar was drawn at Ex.P. 4 and he has identified his signature at Ex.P. 4(a).
18.Coming to the evidence of PW. 4 by name Jayadeva Prakash who was the Joint Director attached to KLA, statistics, Bengaluru. He deposed that on 03-08-2004, 25 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the SP, Lokayuktha Bengaluru Rural addressed a letter asking him to assess the food expenditure of the family of the accused for the check period from 1-05-1980 to 22- 01-2000. It is his evidence that he adopted the statistics available in their office to assess the same. In this regard, according to him, earlier he had addressed a letter to the Inspector of Police, Lokayuktha Bengaluru Rural asking him to furnish the estimate of average domestic expenditure. Subsequently, the report was submitted to the said police through his covering letter. According to him, in order to assess the average annual expenditure, he took into consideration1987-88 National Sample Survey of Karnataka, 1985-86 Karnataka 26 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 State Pay Commission report and finally consumer price Index of all the years during the check period. Further, according to this person while assessing the food expenses, he has also taken into consideration price of the milk, cereals, edible oil, sugar, vegetables, fruits, salt, spices, beverages, stimulants, non-vegetable food items, etc. and has furnished the said report.
19.Coming to the evidence of PW. 5 by name K.N.Srinivasan who was the Asst.Engineer Technical Wing attached to KLA. His Chief Engineer was addressed a letter by Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha Bengaluru requesting him to furnish the cost of construction of the buildings belonging to the accused and his family members at Bengaluru and outskirts. 27
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 According to this witness, one farm house of the accused was situated at Nelamangala- Doddaballapura Road ie. Madure village and as directed by their superior, he was to evaluate the cost of construction of the said building and to submit his report. The residential houses situated at R.T.Nagar property No.403 and 319 were inspected by him on 3-10-2000 and 4-10-2000 respectively. It is also the evidence of this witness that he was also accompanied by Mr.Jairaj, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha.
20. One could also find in the evidence of this witness that they had collected details from the police wing about the year of construction of these buildings and that information was given to them was that 28 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 there were two residential buildings at the above site numbers and they were constructed in the year 199-94, whereas farm house was still under construction i.e. 1999-2000. According to this witness, he has assessed the value of the said buildings excluding the costs of the sital value. Further, this witness has deposed that the costs of the building bearing No.403, 2nd main road, R.T.Nagar was Rs. 11,22,000/- and so far as building No.319 of 1st block, R.T.Nagar was Rs. 9,98,750/- and lastly, the farm house was Rs. 5,84,000/-. According to this witness, he has sent a report vide Ex.P. 8, identified his signature on that document at Ex.P. 8(a) and that was with covering letter of Dy.S.P which was also 29 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 marked at Ex.P. 9.
21.Coming to the evidence of PW. 6 by name P.R.Pashupathi Math who was the Dy.S.P. at the relevant point of time from December 2000 to June 2002. According to him on 4- 01-2001, he received an order of authorization from the Superintendent of Police, KLA, Bengaluru directing him to undertake further investigation in the matter. On 21-01-2001, he received the pay particulars of AGO from the Dy.Director, Treasury, Mysore. On 3-09-2001, he received the pay particulars of AGO from the Commissioner of Accountant General and on the same day, he received pay particulars from Joint Director of the treasuries. He also received another pay particulars of the 30 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 accused from Chikamagalur and Belgaum Treasury Officers. On 20-09-2001, he also received pay particulars of the AGO from Mandya District Treasury Office.
22.This witness's further examination-in-chief is that on different dates commencing from 28-09-2001 to 28-03-2002, he collected salary particulars of the AGO from the different Treasury Offices, where this public servant during the check period has discharged his services. According to him, more particularly on 6-03-2002, he collected pahanis in respect of Sy.No. 305/2, 640/1, 656/1, 350/3, 647/1, 351/3 of Kannahalli Village, Channpatna Taluk along with statement of income of these lands 31 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 submitted by the Agricultural, sericulture and Horticulture departments. According to him, he handed over the further investigation of this case to his successor as he was transferred.
23.According to this witness, through this witness his authorization letter was marked and there is also reference that he was instrumental in receiving revenue documents from the office of the Tahsildar, vide covering letter at Ex.P. 12 and his signature is at Ex.P. 12(a) for having received the documents from Srinivasmurthy, Village Accountant, genealogical tree, valuation report from the Asst.Director of Sericulture and letter addressed to the Senior Horticulture 32 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Director, Chennapatna which came to be marked through this witness. This witness not forgotten to give evidence that these documents were scattered around different offices and were collected only for the purpose of investigation in the matter.
24.Coming to the evidence of PW. 7 Sri.S.V.Shashidhar, according to this gentleman, he has also undertaken further investigation of the matter. According to him, he collected some information about the accused possessing some properties disproportionate to his known source of income. Initially on 21-01-200, he submitted a source report in respect of the accused to his S.P., then after verifying the same, the said S.P. permitted him to register a case 33 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 against this accused under relevant provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to proceed with the investigation. In this regard proceedings was issued. Through this person, the source report at Ex.P. 17 is marked and he has identified his signature on that document at Ex.P. 17(a), so also the authorization letter at Ex.P. 18. According to this witness, he registered the case in office Cr.No.1/2000 and submitted the FIR to the jurisdictional Court vide Ex.P. 19. In a nutshell, according to this Police Officer he set criminal law in motion in respect of the present case.
25.Further, according to this PW. 7, on 22-01- 2000, he submitted a report to the 34 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 jurisdictional Special Court under Sec.93 of Cr.P.C. and prayed this Court to issue search warrant. That letter came to be marked at Ex.P. 20 and vide Ex.P. 21, the Special Court issued 3 different search warrants. In pursuance of the same, searches were conducted in the properties belonging to the accused and his brother one Mr.Sathish. The farm house also was the subject matter of the search, different mahazars were drawn. Ex.P.1 is the mahazar drawn in the house of the accused at No.403, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru, Ex.P. 3 is the mahazar drawn in the farm house of the accused, the seized articles and documents were subjected to different property Forms. According to this witness, on 24-01-2000, he 35 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 re-submitted the search warrants to the Court after due execution and during his investigation in this case, he made references to various agencies and officers seeking certain investigation pertaining to the accused and his assets and income. Likewise, on 16-02-2000, he received copies of registered sale deeds in the name of Smt.Geetha, Smt.Muddamma from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bannur. He also addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Bannur calling upon information to sale deeds and revenue documents which are found at Ex.P. 26 series.
26.According to this witness PW. 7, on 19-02- 2000, he received complete details of the vehicles stood in the name of the accused 36 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 and his family members from the office of the RTO, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. He also received 'B' extract of Hero Honda Motor Cycle which came to be marked at Ex.P. 28. Ex.P.29 is a letter received from ARTO, Bengaluru North, so also 'B' extracts from various RTO offices of Bengaluru and its outskirts. There is also a reference given by this witness in his examination-in-chief that on 20-02-2000, he received RTC extracts of the agricultural land and the mutation pertaining to Sy.No. 109/1, 109/1A, 109/1B, 110/2, 110/6, 112/6 and 109/3 of Ramadevanahalli of Doddaballapura Taluk, According to him on 21-02-2000, he received the ledger extracts from the branch Manager, SBM, Holalu branch, Mandya 37 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 District in respect of account No.A6/2871 operating in the name of Smt.Muddamma, relative of the accused. According to this witness, he also received certified copies of the sale deeds from the concerned Sub- Registrar, Doddaballapura, on the same day received letter from SBM, Holalu branch Manager who enclosed 11 documents. On 29-02-2000, he received covering letter with documents from Registrar of Firms, Bengaluru along with four documents, also received a letter addressed by Sr.Sub- Registrar, Bannur furnishing encumbrance certificate in respect of the immovable property vested by the accused and his family members. In the examination-in- chief, there is a reference given by this 38 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 witness that on 10-05-2000, 17-05-2000,28- 05-200, 03-06-2000, 05-06-2000, 28-06- 2000, 30-06-2000, 4-10-2000 and 3-01- 2000 he had collected various documents and and finally he completed his part of the investigation and as he was transferred, handed over the further investigation of this case to his successor Sri.Pashupathi Mutt.
27.Coming to the evidence of PW. 8 by name Dr.D.Narayanaswamy who was the Police Inspector Lokayuktha, who also undertaken further investigation of the matter. According to him, on 22-01-2000, he was directed by his SP to visit his chambers and he was entrusted with the search warrant to search the house of the accused situated at R.T.Nagar. He was provided with two 39 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 independent witnesses, they are Cws.6 & 7. It is also his evidence that necessary briefing were done to those witnesses and on 23-01- 2000 when CW.6 & 7 reported before him, he along with other staff and one more Inspector by name Lokesh proceeded to R.T.Nagar and reached the house at 6.30 a.m., there the younger brother of the accused by name R.Sathish opened the door and self introduction process took place, search warrants were also duly signed by the concerned person. He made it clear that before they enter into the house, they subjected themselves to search and no valuables were found to the raiding team. According to him, when they entered the house, they searched from inside the 40 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 compound and found one Mahendra Jeep, Hero Honda Motor Bike and Mudhool dog, 42 planting pots which had plants. Then, they entered the varanda, from there living room and noted down the household articles in the inventory, from there this witness proceeded to bed room and noted down the articles available there and hard cash if any. There is a reference given by this witness that all the household articles were noted down by a separate inventory and a separate mahazar were drawn. According to this witness, each room, each accommodation of that house were searched. Further, this witness has given evidence that when they entered room No.12, they came across documents disclosing the properties stood 41 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 in the name of the accused, his wife, his brother and bank pass books, all were noted in the inventory. They also came across gold and silver in the said room, then they secured one appraiser to evaluate the said articles. It is also the evidence of this witness that they also noted down the approximate value of each of the articles and separate mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P.
62. Then, they came back to Lokayuktha office and then the seized articles and documents were subjected to different property Forms and for necessary orders from the Hon'ble Court. He further deposed that he handed over the copies of the mahazar to Sathish, brother of the accused and obtained his signatures on the said 42 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 documents. Necessary signatures were also obtained on the original mahazar, which was prepared in the presence of this witness. This witness also identified the signatures on the search warrant Ex.P. 21 at P21(a) and
(b).
28.Coming to the evidence of PW. 9 by name Jayaraj, who was the Police Inspector attached to the KLA, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on 22-01-2000, the Dy.S.P. instructed him to prepare 7 requisitions to get 7 panch witnesses from different departments, so this witness prepared different 7 requisitions and sent the same to those departments. He was also provided with two panchas, they are PW. 2 and CW.5, one search warrant by PW. 7. 43
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Then he was asked to conduct raid and search of the house which is located opposite to the Vittal Mandir, Kannamangala, Nelamangala Taluk. The said warrant was marked through this witness at Ex.P. 21(c). According to this witness, himself and two witnesses including the staff left the Lokayuktha Office and reached the said farm house at 7.30 a.m. on 23-01-2000 and they came across one person by name Kemparaj, to whom they showed ID card and asked him to cooperate with the investigation. He also affixed his signature on the said warrant. It is the evidence of PW. 9 that the said house measuring 120 ft. x 80 ft. they also came across one water tank, one tractor and 44 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 trailer parked along with the equipments. There were other agricultural equipments, he recorded the value of the said tractor and trailer, they were worth approximately Rs. 2,50,000/-. The said accused has also owned and they found one Alcian dog. They came across one cow shed where there was a cow and a calf, 6 sheep and 15 lambs. They also found, there was TVS 50 vehicle and pesticides, that farm house was under
construction, there were 2 wooden door frames, two shutters, two steel windows, six bundles of barbed wire and stock of hay, which he recorded with its respective values.
According to this witness, they also found another house built on the area measuring 50 x 60 ft., they also came across stock of 45 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 23 stone boulders/pillars, said house had a two storied building, ground and first. On entering the house, they came across a living room which had a stair case which lead to first floor on the northern side. There was a bed room attached with bath room measuring 12 x 25 ft. and according to this witness on going to the 1st floor of the said building, they found a passage and bed room attached with bath room . They found steel racks and some of the racks were electricity controlled, 2nd rack contained iron sickles, pikasi and choppers. They found one wooden cot with bed. These articles were noted down. This witness claims to have recorded number of the plants existed in the said lands, so also power supply connected 46 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 to both cow shed and the house. Then they came back to Lokayuktha office, submitted the drawn mahazar and executed search warrant and also the seized books to the Dy.S.P. PW. 7. As per the oral instruction of the Dy.S.P., he proceeded to Belgaum on 15-
02-2000. Again, he obtained search warrant from Dy.S.P. and procured two panch witnesses by name Shivaiah Shivalingaiah Charangimatt and Karagadodu Patil proceeded to the house of the accused situated at 6th Cross, Sadashivanagar Extension, Belgaum. When they went to the house of the accused at 11 a.m. the accused was very much present and on self introduction and showing the identity card, his house was searched, they recorded the 47 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 approximate value of each of the household articles, drew panchanama at Ex.P. 4 and identified his signature on the document at Ex.P. 4(b).
29.Coming to the evidence of PW. 10 by name Mohammad Jaffer, who was the Police Inspector attached to KLA, Rural Division, Bengaluru. He claims to have undertaken further investigation of the matter in this case and during his part of the investigation done, he received the sanction order on 23- 05-2007 from the office of the Under Secretary, Finance Department (Excise), Government of Karnataka and he scrutinized the earlier investigation and documents received. Through this witness, sanction order came to be marked at Ex.P. 48 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 63 and also received scrutiny certificate from his S.P. which also was an authorization letter permitting him to submit the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. This witness made it clear that even though most part of the evidence came to be conducted and concluded by CW.19, B.H. Chandrakanth he expired during the course of undertaking further investigation. According to this witness, his predecessor CW.19 had obtained and collected the documents which are letter dtd.28-12-2001 from one Mr.Samuel Naik, Joint Director, State Hujoor Treasury, Bengaluru, salary particulars of the AGO for the period from March 1983 to July 1984 and march 1998 to January 1999. Another letter dtd.17-01-2002 of 49 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 P.Bore Gowda, the then Dy.Director of Treasuries, District Treasury, Mysore, letter dtd.20-11-2001 of K.R.Krishna, Treasury Officer, Hassan, copy of the KTC 18 showing the details of salary allowances of AGO from 1984 to 1986, letter dtd.12-09-2011 from K.B.Medappa, District Treasury Officer, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and likewise, documents received by CW.19, B.H.Chandrakanth has been enumerated by this witness in his examination-in-chief. The thrust of his examination-in-chief was that even though, he received sanction order and submitted the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court, but he was well aware of the fact that most part of the investigation was undertaken and completed by CW.19. 50
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
30.According to this witness, Mr.Chandrashekar has also received letter from Tejaswini, Senior Officer, Legal, HDFC, Kasturaba Road, Bengaluru, statement of loan account of AGO and his wife for the period from 1994 to 1995, loan account statement of the AGO and his wife for the period from 1996 to 1997 and also letter from Mr.Y.S.Venkataramu, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Chamarajanagar. Likewise, according to this witness, most of the documents collected by his predecessor was to speak in respect of the assets, expenditure and income tax of his family and himself.
31.This witness further in his examination-in- chief, seems to have focused much on 51 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 receipt of both title deeds and revenue documents from the concerned Sub- Registrar Office by his predecessor CW.19. In his examination-in-chief, he spoke about his predecessor CW-19 receiving certified copy of the sale deed dtd.27-04-1987, letter from the bank manager of Sree Thandaveshwar Swamy Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank, Holalu, Mandya, letter from the Asst.Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Hebbal Range, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, tax assessment Register from the Asst. Revenue Officer, BBMP, Hebbal range and RTCs in respect of different Survey numbers of land which were in the possession and enjoyment of the accused and his family members. Likewise, 52 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 according to this witness, CW19 has collected mutation register extracts in respect of these survey numbers for the period from 1995 to 1996 which also have been enumerated herein. Lastly, according to this witness, his predecessor has also collected APRs of the accused for the period from 1980 to 1988. All these came to be marked by this witness.
32.When the examination-in-chief of PW. 1 to 10 are gone through, to the naked eyes one common element is imminent which is to say that these witnesses have either undertaken valuation of the immovable properties or have submitted their respective reports only at the instance of Dy.S.P., KLA, Bengaluru Rural and nothing else. Likewise, 53 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 when the evidence of Asst. and Junior Engineers attached to KLA are gone through in respect of the valuation of the properties at R.T.Nagar and Doddaballapura, the respective Engineers have only inspected the properties, taken into consideration the inputs provided by the Lokayuktha Police and nothing else. So, with the help of limited opinion which could able to cover, they were able to furnish the valuation by considering the schedule of rates of the PWD department's circular issued for the particular area. Likewise, when Mr.Jayadeva Prakash who was the Joint Director of Statistics PW.4 repeatedly makes clear in his evidence that along with the requisition letter, the Dy.S.P./Police Inspector of KLA 54 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 had furnished information in respect of number of family members of the accused, gender, respective age and food habits. So, on this basis, by following the general price index, this PW. 4 has come to considered opinion that what could be the value of food and invisible expenditure for the entire check period. Quite obviously, when these 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the most important aspect that contents of the charge sheet cannot be put to any test, because the author himself was not available. CW.10 was a right person who should have spoken about the contents of the charge sheet. This opportunity was not encashed by the accused on account of his sad demise.
55
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
33.When the case was transferred from Bengaluru Rural Special Court to this city civil court, Court Hall No.79, both prosecution as well as defence have taken additional opportunity to further examine their witnesses. Under such circumstances, this Court had to record statement of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. twice. Earlier, it was only the incriminating evidence found in the initial evidence of the prosecution witnesses and additional statement was on account of some of the charge sheet witnesses subjecting themselves for further examination-in-chief. When this Court extended an opportunity to the accused to lead his both oral and documentary evidence, this accused has got 56 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 examined DW. 1 to 14.
34.The accused in order to show that the case set up by the prosecution is full of conjunctures and surmises has taken the lead role in giving his ocular evidence. This accused got examined himself as DW . 1 and he deposes that he joined the Excise Department on 01-05-1980 as the Dy. Superintendent of Excise. His father according to him had received 7.5 acres of agricultural land through partition which also included coconut plantation situated at M.Hosahalli, Chennapatna, Ramanagara District. There were about 350 yielding coconut trees and from that yield, they were getting 70,000 coconuts. According to this person, he had 3 younger brothers and one 57 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 eldest sister, since he is being the eldest son of his family also acted as a kartha and looking after the properties left behind by his father till this date of giving evidence. So far as his elder sister, her marriage was done during the lifetime of his father and his father expired in the year 1971. Out of the 7.5 acres of land, 6.5 acres are with coconut plantation and in the remaining extent of land, they were growing paddy. According to this DW. 1, as intermediate crops in the coconut garden/plantation, they used to grow ginger, turmeric and pepper. As on the date of giving this evidence, according to him, they have not partitioned the family properties and still he was acting as the kartha of the joint family. This aspect he has 58 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 declared in his periodical APRs also.
35.According to DW. 1, as this person was in Government service, for the purpose of availing loans from the bank and other financial institutions, the entire property was transferred to the name of his younger brother Narayana Gowda who is not employed after the death of his father. The Police Inspector of Lokayuktha seized all the assets and liability statements and that is marked through this witness as Ex.D. 1. His marriage took place in the year 1985 and his father-in-law was a Professor of History, he retired from the services in the year 1980. His father-in-law also comes from agricultural family and father-in-law's father one Mr.Narasegowda was a Member of 59 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Representative Assembly of erstwhile Mysore Government from Nagamangala Taluk, Tattahalli village. His father-in-law inherited 5 acres of wet land from his father. On 27- 03-1987, this witness's wife Hemalatha had purchased a vacant site No.319, 1st Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru measuring 40 x 60 ft. for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- and this sale consideration was paid by his father-in-law and the sale deed is marked at Ex.D. 2 to fortify his stand. There is also evidence given by this witness that his father-in-law has also purchased the said site in the year 1987 and he has built 3 houses for his other three children at Jayanagar, Bengaluru and that was given to them respectively. During the year 1989 i.e. 60 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 on 30-3-1989, his wife executed a release deed in other properties and before execution of this release deed, on the same date there was a family settlement through a settlement deed between the siblings of his father-in-law. According to this witness, through this settlement deed, it was agreed that Smt.Hemalatha has to execute release deed relinquishing her rights over other family properties. Likewise, that relinquish deed got registered on 11-04-1989.
36.It is the evidence of this witness that Lokayuktha police have seized the settlement deed and the release deed. The certified copy of the same are marked through this witness. Though the construction of the house was undertaken 61 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 by his father-in-law, when that was in progress, his father-in-law died and his brother-in-law who was a civil engineer has undertaken that work. When Nagaraju, his wife brother procured a Government job, construction was entrusted to a private contractor. So, the accused wife has executed an articles of agreement with M/s.Sathish Chandra Enterprises as the house was in her name and in this regard, Ex.D. 5 is placed before the Court. It is also the evidence of DW. 1 that his father-in-law had not left any funds and even this witness also having not sufficient funds to carry out the construction work, so there was a separate agreement between Smt.Hemalatha and M/s. Sathish Chandra Enterprises that 62 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the constructed house must be let out to that construction firm on monthly rentals of Rs. 3,000/- and to deduct the amount incurred by the contractor for the construction of house which shall not exceed Rs. 1,75,000/-. the said contractor has also agreed to deduct said amount by rent of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and advance amount of Rs. 70,000/-. According to this witness, this transaction is very much reflected in his annual property statement which is marked at Ex.D. 1.
37.According to DW. 1, as the IO has attacked his APRs and ITRs on the ground that the most of the investment by way of property acquisitions are in the name of his wife that has to be branded as benami transactions. 63
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 So in order to dispel this wrong and misconception, which has been canvassed by the IO, he has given evidence touching the acquisitions of properties in the name of his wife and also giving reasons as to source of income. Smt.Hemalatha purchased site No.403, RT Nagar, Bengaluru out of the amount given by her father and she has also raised hand loan from her brother Nagaraj and sister. But, in respect of the construction of the house in the said site, according to this witness, he has invested Rs. 2,30,000/- out of his savings and also stood surety to his wife when she availed house construction loan from HDFC bank. The said construction was going on, his brother-in-law who was the PWD Engineer 64 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 was transferred back to Bengaluru, so he supervised the construction work. The labourers were brought from his village, transportation of materials was also out of their own tractors and the construction materials were not of standard one, curing work of the house was done by the accused family members personally and they have not engaged any person as a watchman.
38.It is further deposed by DW. 1 that till the death of his mother in the year 1996, himself, his brothers and their families resided together as joint family members. Even though, the husband of his sister-in- law deserted his sister-in-law was also residing with them. So, the household articles listed by the Police Inspector at the 65 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 time of raid exclusively does not belonged to the accused. According to this witness, they had also purchased Indra Vikas Patra, Kisan Vikas Patra, Social securities Certificates, NSCs out of his salary. Even his wife had purchased some NSCs, but when the raid took place, some of the NSCs were matured and they realized matured amount and have been utilized for the construction purpose. But, the IO has taken the face value of the seized documents, but according to him, he has considered the maturity value at a lessor scale and the total value of negotiable instruments are taken into consideration, it may come to Rs. 1,81,980/-. In this regard, according to this witness, he has placed Ex.D. 8.
66
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
39.Further, according to this DW. 1, even though a sum of Rs. 7,200/- was seized from his house at the time of raid, it was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 32,000/- in the panchanama, this requires to be corrected. This witness makes it clear that there is no connection with the house bearing No.319, so also with the firm Kanva Eco Friendly, but the IO has wrongly included the registration expenditure of the said house and this witness claimed that he has not spent or invested any amount in this. According to DW. 1, when he was a public servant, his nature of work was totally executive involving travel. Whenever, he went on duty apart from his salary he was also entitled for TA, DA and vehicle facility 67 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 which emoluments the IO has not taken into consideration. Without perquisites and emoluments, his salary alone is Rs. 13,84,000/- for the check period, but the IO has taken into consideration wrongly as Rs. 10,80,639/- . It is also in the evidence of DW.1 that even though he has invested towards GPF, KGID, GIS, LIC, etc. from his salary only, the IO has shown as additional investment. According to this witness, it is out of his gross salary, so there was a double entry in this regard. The IO has failed to taken into consideration the agricultural income of his family and this witness in his periodical APRs has declared to this effect. Accordingly, his joint family owned a tractor which was purchased by 68 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 his brother Narayana Gowda by availing loan from SBI and has repaid the said loan by letting the tractor for rent to other agriculturists and they maintained the Tractor and Trailer for 13 years and even the raid took place that tractor and trailer are in the joint family. As he was kartha of the joint family, he was dealing with the entire transactions of the joint family.
40.According to this witness, DW.4 had lent money to his wife and the relevant document came to be marked through this witness. According to him, in the year 1999, he was promoted as the Joint Commissioner, which post was in the cadre of an officer of Group- A. DW.4 Smt.Kanthi is his sister-in-law, she was also living with this witness who was a 69 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 bank manager. One Rohidas Nayak has filed a Special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which he was arrayed as a 3rd respondent. In this regard, according to him, he has produced the relevant document and this was produced to show before the Court that there was some litigation in respect of the immovable properties, to which he has incurred some expenses to that litigation. There is also evidence given by this witness that he has produced RTCs in respect of agricultural land and has spoken about the appreciation letter which he received from his superior for the good work done by him included receipt of cash by way of incentive. According to him, during the check period, he has 70 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 received a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards TA and DA.
41.According to DW.1, he retired from the service on 31-01-2012 on attaining superannuation. After retirement, he claims to be looking after his ancestral agricultural properties along with his brothers. The ancestral properties consists of 200 coconut trees and paddy fields. One of his brother stayed in the village itself and was looking after the entire agricultural operations. According to this witness, they have not subjected the ancestral properties to the process of partition among brothers. There is also evidence given by this witness that he borrowed the loan from SBI and purchased a tractor bearing Registration No.KA05 71 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 T1428, in addition to utilizing the tractor for our agricultural operations, he used to lent the same on rent. For the check period, they have received revenue/income of Rs.12,48,000/- by letting out the tractor on rent basis.
42.Coming to the evidence of DW. 2 by name Hemalatha.H, who is the wife of the accused and according to her, her marriage took place on 25-12-1985. She also reiterated the fact that her father Honnaiah was a Professor in History and her paternal grand father was a member of representative Assembly of the Erstwhile Mysore State and her father also inherited 5 acres of agricultural land and was also giving tuition 72 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 in English and History subjects to degree students. In the year 1978-79, his father built two storied building at BDA site No.323/A, 7th Block, Jayanagar and now she claims to be a younger daughter to her parents. Before her father died, he had built another floor on the said building and gave the three houses to her elder brother, elder sister and younger brother. The total costs of the building in the year 1985 was not less than Rs. One Crore. But, at that time, according to this witness, she was not given any house in the building, but her father volunteered to given financial assistance to her and accordingly, in the year 1985, her father credited to her bank account a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. and also purchased a site in 73 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 her name measuring 40 x 60 ft. which bears No.319, I Block, RT Nagar, Bengaluru in the year 1987.
43.It is also found in the evidence of DW . 2 that after purchase of the said site, her father started construction of her house, but he expired in the month of June 1988 and her brother was looking after the construction got a job in the PWD department and left Bengaluru on account of his transfer, so the construction work stand still, but at the intervention of friends and relatives, an amicable settlement was arrived at in the family and a settlement deed came to be executed on 30-03-1989 as per which it was agreed to provide 54 cubic ft. of teak wood and further cash assistance of Rs. 30,000/- 74
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 for completion of the construction work.
44.This witness also executed release deed relinquishing her right in the said house at Jayanagar, which came to be registered on 11-04-1989.
45.It is also the evidence of DW. 2 that she entrusted the remaining construction work to M/s.Sathish Chandra Enterprises, they agreed to complete the construction work by spending Rs. 1,75,000/- and again repayment arrangements was entered into between them by asking him to adjust monthly rent and advance amount to the repayment. According to this witness, she is an income tax assessee and also given her PAN number. Out of the sum given to her by 75 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 her father amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- in the year 1985, she purchased another site in the year 1987 bearing No.403, II Block, RT Nagar, Bengaluru for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,15,000/-, for which purpose she borrowed hand loan from her brother, who was a PWD Engineer, in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and another equal sum from her sister who was a bank employee then. In this regard, according to this witness, she has produced income tax returns. Construction of house No.403 was started and she had also raised construction loans from HDFC bank in a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- apart from availing hand loans from her brother, sister and cousin to an extent of Rs. 1,90,000/-. According to this lady, in all 76 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 she has spent Rs. 6,80,000/- for construction of the said house. After completing the said house, they started to reside in the said house. The entire details of construction have been marked through Ex.D. 6.
46.According to this lady, she is a B.Com. Graduate and she had two sons and she along with her maternal aunt by name Muddamma and her friend Geetha started a firm called Kanva Eco System in their house itself and for starting the said firm she has invested Rs. 1,00,000/- and subsequently, the said firm came to be registered. There is also evidence given by this lady that her aunt Muddamma owned agricultural land at Ramadevanahalli, Nelamangala Taluk and in 77 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the said 10 acres of land, they started carrying out the objectives of the firm by giving importance to greenery. Except the investment of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the said firm, she have no other investment made and subsequently, the said partnership came to be marked at Ex.D. 7. According to her, one of her brother-in-law Chandregowda got married in the year 1984 and the other brother-in-law Sathish got married in 1995, initially they were residing together and her mother-in-law expired in the year 2006 and thereafter, her brother-in- laws and their family resided separately. The articles found in her house did not belong exclusively to her and her husband Rajanna and when she got married the 78 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 family possessed 7 acres of agricultural land. She also spoke about her husband being the eldest son was looking after the affairs of the family as kartha and he was maintaining the accounts in respect of the expenses and maintenance of the entire family. Her elder sister even though married in the year 1978, she deserted by her husband in the year 1983 itself and she was a manager in Punjab National Bank and she used to stay in her house. So, according to this lady when the raid took place, not only her belongings, but the belongings of her elder sister, two brother-in-laws, and their wife and children were there.
47. Coming to the evidence of DW3 by name Mohan H. who was the Assistant Engineer at 79 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 PWD given evidence that, he knows the accused and that person is the husband of his younger sister by name H. Hemalatha - DW2. It is the evidence of this witness that DW2 is his sister and apart from her he has one more elder sister by name H. Kanti and another brother by name Prakash Babu. His grand father K. Narase Gowda was the member of the representative Assembly of Mysore Province prior to independence. He had to his credit title of 20 acres of agricultural land. During the family partition his father was allotted 5 acres of land and his father was working as a Professor in History in a Government college. When his father retired he had put in 33 years of valuable service and after his retirement he 80 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 was also running a private tutorials. His father was allotted CITB (BDA) site in the year 1960 bearing No.323/A, measuring 55 x 40 feet at Jayanagar 7th Block, 1st 'A' Main, Bengaluru.
48. It is the evidence of this witness that, initially his father had put up construction of the ground floor in the year 1962, first floor in the year 1977, and second floor in the year 2004. His father had mobilized funds for construction by selling his agricultural land, house rent, retirement benefits, tuition fees, salary savings and other pensionary benefits. This DW2 was married to the accused in the year 1985 and at the time of her marriage both this witness and his parents gave her Rs.1.85 lakhs to 81 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 her during the marriage and they wanted to purchase a site to her and in this regard, initially his father purchased a site in the year 1987 bearing No.319, Opp. BDA Complex, RT Nagar, Bengaluru, and this costs around Rs.1.2 lakhs. When his father started putting up construction by collecting building materials, that process could not be continued on account of the fact that his mother expired and simultaneously he also got a Government Job away from Bengaluru and he had to report to the Government Job. It is the evidence of this witness that, apart from the raw materials his father had also purchased 54 cubic feet of Teak Wood. It is the evidence of this witness that his father financially helped his daughter - DW2 by 82 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 giving Rs.30,000/- for the construction purpose. He also spoken about the family settlement wherein DW2 relinquished her rights over the Jayanagar property and she herself proceeded with the construction of house at RT Nagar by entering into a Key Agreement with building Company.
49. According to this witness, when he gave evidence he had put in 25 years of service as an Assistant Engineer in PWD Department. The Schedule of rates fixed by PWD is not on actual rate but it is on adhoc basis only for the purpose of comparing with rates quoted by different contractors who participated in the auction that includes 10% towards contractors profit, 10% towards overheads, 2% for curing work, 5% towards supervision 83 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 costs, 1% towards watch and ward expenses.
50. According to this witness, the house constructed by DW2 at RT Nagar site was under their family personal supervision. So the excess cost that would be incurred if the construction were to be entrusted to civil contractor has to be excluded from the over all construction of the said building.
51. Coming to the evidence of DW4 by name H. Kanti, who was the Officer in Punjab National Bank, and according to her, DW2 is her younger sister. This witness also deposed that her father owned a house at Jayanagar and site at RT Nagar which was given to DW2 with an agreement that she 84 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 will relinquish her right in RT Nagar house. According to this lady she was also a party to the family settlement at Ex.D.3. This witness further deposed that, she had in all put 32 years of service in Punjab National Bank and for the last 24 years as on the date she appeared before the Court, she was residing with the family of sister and the accused. According to her, her mother expired on 22.06.1988 and that, as on that day her gross salary per month was Rs.51,000/-. In the year 2000 this witness salary was hardly Rs.15,000/- per month. Even during the lifetime of her husband, according to this lady, she was separated from her husband, and most of her salary was given to her sister - DW2, for the 85 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 purpose of putting up construction of house and since she had no issues, she had spent her salary income on her sister - DW2.
52.Coming to the further examination in chief of this witness, there is an additional evidence given by this lady. According to this witness accused is the husband of DW2, and till June 1988 she was residing with her mother at 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, and that her mother died in the year 1988. After the death of the mother of this witness, for about 3 years she was residing with her father and after the marriage of this witness younger brother, she started to live with DW2. From 1994 onwards she is residing in the house of DW2. According to this witness in the year 1978 her marriage took place, 86 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 and because of incompatibility between her and her husband, there was a separation from the year 1980, and in the month of December 1980 she joined the service in Punjab National Bank and out of the wedlock, she had no issues. According to this lady, her initial salary was only Rs.700/- per month and at the time of her retirement her gross monthly salary was Rs.80,000/-. According to her, now she is receiving monthly pension of Rs.36,500/-, and she had purchased one site at Nagarabhavi costed Rs.20,000/- in the year 1984, and except that site, she has no other immovable property. It is also the say of this witness that, the total salary which she received was pooled for the purpose of 87 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 construction of DW2 house at RT Nagar, Bengaluru. After the death of this witness mother and father, she was residing with DW2. Another brother according to this witness was residing at Kadur and in the year 1992 he also joined the family. It is the evidence of this lady that it was brought to her notice that when she sought information in respect of her entire salary particulars for the entire service period, it was reported to her that old records more than 10 years old have already been disposed and that they did not have any information in that regard, and she was able to collect the salary statement only from 1980 to 2017. Those documents have been produced but not marked. According to this lady her entire 88 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 savings and earnings have been invested on the house of DW2 as this witness judicially separated from her husband and she had no issues.
53. Coming to the evidence of DW5 by name N. Karigowda, who was the Retired Officer at Co-operative Department, and according to this witness, his father Narasegowda was an agriculturist. Narasegowda was the Member of Representative Assembly of Mysore State. His father had owned 25 acres of agricultural land and when this witness attained the age of superannuation, he had retired as a Joint Director of Co-operative Audit. This witness late brother N. Honnaiah was also allotted one site by BDA at Jayanagar and he had put up two storied 89 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 building. According to this witness, his late brother had also purchased a site at RT Nagar, which was to be given to his daughter
- DW2. In that regard according to this witness Ex.D.2, the Relinquishment Deed has come into existence.
54. Coming to the evidence of DW6 by name C.Mohan, who was the Manager with Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank. According to this person, he owns 10 acres of agricultural land at Dandiganahalli, Nagamangala Taluk, and out of that 10 acres, 2 acres is the coconut garden and remaining are dry land. He also deposed that, he grows ragi and jowar in the said land, and the wife of the accused i.e., DW2 is the daughter of his paternal uncle. In between 1993-1996, he 90 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 had advanced handloan of Rs.50,000/- to DW2 for the purpose of construction of her house at RT Nagar. Through this witness Ex.D.9 also came to be marked.
55. Coming to the evidence of DW7 by name Devegowda, who was the relative of DW2. According to him, Kempajamma is the sister of his mother, and DW2 who is the wife of accused, happens to be the daughter of said Kempajamma. In the year 1996, he had lent Rs.40,000/- in two equal installments to DW2 for the purpose of house construction. According to him, they also own 250 acres of coconut plantation at Dodda Egati, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. He has also issued Ex.D.10 which is in respect of advancement of handloan of Rs.40,000/- 91
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 to DW2 for the purpose of putting up of construction.
56. Coming to the evidence of DW8 by name Nagarathnamma, who was the Physical Education Teacher at the Aided Educational Institution i.e., Venkateshwara Junior College at Hassan. Her husband was retired as a Principal from the Government First Grade College, Karkala. The accused while working as a Excise Superintendent at Hassan he was their neighbourer. He happens to be their distant relative also, and he had also advanced hand loan of Rs.25,000/- to Hemalatha in the year 1993 for the construction of the RT Nagar house. Through this witness Ex.P.11 came to be marked.
92
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
57.Coming to the evidence of DW9 by name Usha, claims to be a known family member of the accused and that the accused is none other than the husband of this witness sister-in-law. According to this lady, she had advanced hand loan of Rs.50,000/- to DW2 and through this witness Ex.D.12 came to be marked.
58. Coming to the evidence of DW10 by name Sathish, who is the elder brother of the accused. According to this witness they are four brothers and he is the youngest one. His father expired in the year 1973 and that this witness is a B.Sc. LL.B., graduate, and his education expenses were borne by the accused. Earlier this accused was an Advocate in the year 1980. According to this 93 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 witness his native place is M. Hosahalli of Chennapatna Taluk and they had 7 acres of agricultural land in the said village. As on the date of giving evidence, according to him no partition had taken place and that his elder brother one Narayana Gowda is maintaining and looking after the family properties.
59. According to this witness even now the RTC in respect of agricultural land stands in the joint name of their brothers. But of late they came to be changed in the name of his second elder brother - Narayanagowda as it was required to obtain the loan from the Bank to purchase Tractor and Trailor. According to this witness he often used to visit his native place, and in 3 acres of land 94 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 there are about 120 standing coconut trees, and in the remaining land they were growing paddy and mulberry. It is also his evidence that, the yield that was received from the land and agricultural crop were shared between the brothers and other family members. This witness has also spoken about the house which construction started by DW2 - his sister and got completed and he claims to have spent Rs.1,75,000/- for the construction purpose. According to this witness after completion of the said house he occupied the same and was paying rent of Rs.3,000/- per month until he vacated the premises in the year 2010. According to this witness, initially he did not pay rent, but at the time of vacating the house, the amount 95 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 which he had spent for the completion of the construction work was adjusted towards arrears of rent. According to this witness he was a Timber Merchant and he runs the said business in the name and style as Sathish Chandra Enterprises. There was an agreement entered into between Sathish Chandra Enterprises and DW2 which came to be marked as Ex.D.5 and this witness has identified his signature on that document as per Ex.D.5(j).
60.Subsequently this witness was recalled by the Public Prosecutor for the purpose of further cross examination in chief.
According to him his brother Narayanagowda was managing the ancestral property and this witness and one Rajanna 96 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 often used to visit native place to assist his brother in cultivation The so called agricultural income received by Narayanagowda is also divided amongst them and in order to secure loan and other facilities from the Government, the revenue documents in respect of agricultural lands stands in the name of his brother Narayanagowda. There is also reference given in the additional examination in chief of this witness that Rajanna used to hold the agricultural income and he used to give based on the requirement. About Rs.20 lakhs received from agriculture and plantation crops was with brother Rajanna as on 2000. According to this witness they also used to lend tractor and trailer on rent. 97
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 The said rent were received by Rajanna and they have received Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- as hire charges for Tractor and Trailer. Through this witness certificate issued by Village Accountant came to be marked as Ex.D.35.
61. Coming to the evidence of DW11 by name B.K. Madhukumar, who is the friend of DW10 and this witness has spoken about the fact that when DW2 was completing her house construction work at RT Nagar, he had sent his labourers as he was doing Civil works on contract both for Government and Private parties. Through DW10 he came in contact with the accused.
62. Coming to the evidence of DW12 by name H.V. Summegowda, who is the resident of 98 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Mylanayakanahosahalli of Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagaram District. According to him, accused also hails from his village and that he has inherited 4.36 guntas of coconut garden in different Survey numbers of that village. In the year 1988 he had leased the crop to one R. Narayanagowda - brother of the accused. According to him even now he is giving the lease amount of Rs.75,000/- per annum to him and claims to have produced the Lease Agreement in that regard.
63. Coming to the evidence of DW13 by name Ravindranath Prabhu, who has given the evidence that he knows the accused for the past 30 years, and as DW2 expressed her financial difficulty to raise hand loan, he has 99 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 lent interest free hand loan of Rs.25,000/- to DW2 in the year 1993.
64. Coming to the evidence of DW14 by name Nagaraj Dattathreya Bhat, who is an Agriculture Consultant residing at Sirsi, Uttara Kannada, has given evidence that he holds M.Sc in Agriculture with specialization in Horticulture. According to him he is a Gold Medalist in B.Sc., and that since 1995 he is an Agriculture Consultant and Agriculture Panel Valuer for Karnataka District Central Co-operative Bank and Syndicate Bank for entire Uttara Kannada District. For the past 4 years he worked as the Horticulture Commissioner for assessing the value of Horticultural crops. According to him in 4 Lokayuktha cases and in one 100 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 CBI case, he has given his evidence as an expert.
65. According to this witness he knew the accused and on his request he visited the agriculture property of the accused situated at Mainakanahosahalli, Chennapatna Taluk, Ramnagara District in the year 2000, that measured totally 7 acres of land distributed in different Survey numbers. In that he found 360 standing coconut trees in 6 acres of land with pepper vines surrounding the coconut trees. He examined the locality and also on discussion with the neighbouring farm owners, he has assessed the income of one coconut tree per year. According to this witness he has worked out the calculation on the basis of the value of the crop as 101 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 prevailing at APMC rate, and for assessing the income from black pepper, he calculated on the basis of the rates prevailing at the Spice Board. Though ginger and turmeric plants were also standing on the land, he did not assess the value of the said crop, since the RTC did not reveal those crops. According to him he has issued Ex.D.13 and his signature is also marked as Ex.D.13(a) in that document. According to this witness, the net income per year from the above crops was Rs.20,79,952/-, and the gross income was Rs.29,71,360/- per year, and he has deducted 30% towards expenditure, which comes to Rs.8,91,408/-. The net income from the turmeric and ginger which was grown on 6 acres of land was 102 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Rs.2,00,000/- per year.
66. These 14 witnesses were examined by the Prosecution to support their documents and to canvass before the Court that first of all the Charge Sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer is without any locus- standi, because the Police Officer particularly PWs.8 and 9 who have undertaken further investigation are without any authorization as contemplated under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Likewise, according to the accused if at the gross root level the Police Officer of the rank of Police Inspector/Circle Inspector undertakes any further investigation on the basis of oral directions of superior i.e., Superintendent of Police/Dy.S.P. that 103 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 cannot be considered as a lawful one.
67. Second limb of arguments was that the Investigating Officer who undertook major part of the investigation unfortunately died during the pendency of the investigation and his evidence is not available before the Court. If at all his successor has spoken about submission of the Charge sheet that cannot enure to the benefit of the prosecution, because contents are not proved in accordance with law. Even though the so called Experts i.e., Technical/Engineers of PWD who have submitted the Valuation Report and also the Joint Director of Statistics - PW4 who has submitted Food and Invisible Expenditure Report are examined, ultimately it is the 104 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Investigating Officer who should convince before the Court as to why he has taken into consideration the value of immovable property/houses and that all the food expenses as collected by Experts and that will have to be explained by the Investigating Officer. In this case neither the Investigating Officer has been examined nor he has been cross examined. Unless these statistical information are put to the strong test of cross examination, it cannot attain finality. Moreover, to say all the oral evidence of official witnesses of the prosecution and approximate value of properties have been considered either as assets or expenditure can only be known if the Investigating Officer is examined. So according to the 105 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 accused before this Court could venture into appreciate its materials, it is confronted with many hiccups which makes the Charge Sheet inherently defective. Lastly according to the accused when DW2 is an economically independent persona, when she is an Income Tax Assessee, she is a sleeping partner in the Kanva Eco System, and when she gets the regular rents, her income is considered as an income of the accused. So according to the accused all the income of the accused which also includes agricultural income, his salary and other emoluments have not at all been taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation. Likewise, the agricultural income and regular income which DW2 received has 106 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 been considered as the income of the accused, which are totally wrong. Hence, according to the accused, the entire calculation undertaken does not depict the correct value. So according to me the prosecution stand that this accused entered into a benami transaction, and acquisition of properties taken place in the name of his wife, brothers and parents was on account of ill-gotten money, requires to be considered by taking into account the assets, expenditure and income. ASSETS
68.The investigating Officer more particularly PW. 10 has submitted the charge sheet making serious allegation that it is only on account of accused acquiring assets, their 107 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 total value comes to Rs. 65,39,803/-. hence this proceedings more so the investigation has taken a serious colour. At the same time, when he made this allegation which calls for thorough substantiation as per law quite naturally he must show that the accused in the capacity of a public servant for the check period was able to acquire these value of properties both in his name and in the name of his family members. No doubt, when on a bird's eye view of the matter, materials available are glanced through, except husband and wife i.e. DW. 1 and DW. 2, there is nothing much to speak in respect of the children of the accused. Likewise, it was also focused on the role played by the father of DW. 2 on the ground 108 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 that besides he being an agriculturist retired Government Servant had purchased property in the name of his daughter DW. 2 Mrs.Hemalatha and was also instrumental in putting up house construction of both houses at R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. Lastly, in respect of farm house and land situated at Madure of Doddaballapura Taluk, there is some confusing signals sent by the PW. 10 as well as the defacto IO Mr.Chandra Kanth, who is no more. Because in respect of farm land situated at Doddaballapura, according to both the IOs, it was a benami transaction entered into by the accused in the name of owners by name DW. 2 Hemalatha, Muddamma and Geetha. So, now the great burden is on the prosecution to show that so 109 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 far as three properties i.e. two properties situated at R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and one property situated at Madure even though standing in the name of different persons, but the investments were directly made by the accused.
69.There is a great deal of spade work and investigation has to be done by the IO's in respect of two properties at R.T.Nagar which stands in the name of Hemalatha DW. 2, according to the prosecution it was not her brother or father, but it is DW. 1 directly invested the said amount. Here the greatest problem is that Ex.D. 2 to D.5 which are in the nature of certified copies of the sale deed, relinquishment deed, settlement deed and an agreement entered into between 110 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Hemalatha and M/s.Sathish Chandra Enterprises are not in respect of accused involvement. In fact, these title deeds are concerned, accused is no where in the picture, especially Exs.D-2 and D-3 are according to me for the entire items of assets these two title deeds play a very pivotal role. As per relinquishment deed, the recitals in that document convey that DW.2's father was able to purchase the site in the name of his daughter at R.T.Nagar, to which as a mark of respect, this DW. 2 relinquished her right over other properties of her father in the Jayanagar property of Bengaluru. Settlement Deed is that arrangement which took place in the family of DW. 2, wherein both DW. 2, her sister and brothers divided 111 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the family properties.
70.Lastly, when DW.2's father could not complete the construction of house at R.T.Nagar, because of the death of his wife, this lady entered into an agreement with M/s. Sathish Chandra Enterprises who consented to invest Rs. 1,75,000/- for completion of the house construction and the arrangement was that they will occupy the said house and monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- has to be deducted towards repayment including Rs. 75,000/- which was to be paid as earnest money deposit.
71. Now, when these title deeds are there, the prosecution will have to disprove the fact that neither the sale deed nor the settlement 112 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 deed and the relinquishment deed are sham documents, that means the prosecution is at greater responsibility to show before the Court that these title deeds Ex.D. 1 to D.5 are invented only to save the skin of the accused from this case and lastly, that they must also show before the Court that it was this accused possessed ill-gotten money or invested them in the name of his wife.
72.So far as the concept of benami transaction is concerned, it excludes the wife and children of the person against whom such allegation is made. In the instant case, prosecution cannot contend that R.T.Nagar properties and Madure Farm house was a benami transaction in the name of his wife DW. 2. Likewise, prosecution also will have 113 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 to answer that when DW. 2 is an independent income tax assessee and as admitted by the prosecution itself that she was one of the sleeping partners with M/s. Kanva Eco Systems and that she was also deriving periodical income from different sources, how she was dependent upon her husband require to be answered.
73.No doubt, there is a presumption in respect of legally wedded wife, the acquisition of her husband can also be considered as the acquisition of the wife. But, in the instant case, it is the claim of the DW. 1 that in all the periodical APRs, he has declared that there were two houses constructed at R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and also one Farm House at Madure village. Now, equally this 114 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 DW. 2 in her periodical income tax returns has also disclosed that she is an independent economic persona and when she has that fiscal standing, she on her own and also with the able financial assistance of her father, her sister by name DW. 4 Kanthi and her brother DW.3 Mohan was able to put up so much of construction in and around Bengaluru. So, the prosecution as a matter of fact has to confront these obstacles and indeed the accused by placing ocular evidence of DWs.1 to 14 and exhibits D.1 to D.39 has become a force to reckon with for the prosecution.
74.In this regard, I have to look into the first item of the immovable property i.e. the value of the site purchased in the name of 115 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 DW. 2 Hemalatha which is valued at Rs. 3,35,000/-. So far as this property is concerned, the accused has shown this as Rs. 2,15,000/-. It is admitted that Sites at No.319 and 403 of R.T.Nagar stand in the name of wife of the accused. The explanation offered is so far as site No.319 and 403 of R.T.Nagar stand in the name of wife of the accused. The explanation offered is so far as site No.319 was purchased by the father of the DW. 2 on account of a promise held out to her at the time of her marriage. According to DW. 2, she spoke in her evidence that her father had promised that he would purchase a site and put up a house. According to this DW. 2, she also received financial assistance of Rs. 1,80,000/- and as I have said earlier, 116 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.D. 3 is a settlement deed and Ex.D. 4 is a release deed.
75.Coming to the evidence of DW. 1, who is the accused himself and this aspect he has spoken in his examination-in-chief. At para- 13 of his examination-in-chief, he reiterates the fact that on 27-03-1987, DW. 2 purchased this vacant site bearing No.319, 1st Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru measuring 40 x 60 ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. He also gives evidence that his father-in-law had paid the entire sale consideration. In this regard, Ex.D. 2 is placed. Now, if prosecution says that Ex.D. 2 which is dtd.27-03-1987 is the byproduct of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation, they have to prove this aspect. 117
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
76.Coming to the cross-examination of this witness, this witness's creditworthiness could not be impeached by the prosecution touching this aspect. There is a nil suggestion to this witness that Ex.D. 2 is a got-up document. But, there is one suggestion which has been denied by this witness that it was suggested to him that he purchased the property in the name of his wife. According to me, this suggestion in the evidence cannot hold much water. Likewise, one more suggestion in respect of another site No.403 in R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru.
77.Coming to the recitals found in Ex.D. 3, which is the Family Settlement that came to be executed on 30th March 1989. This instrument has taken place between 118 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Sri.Honnaiah, father of the DW. 2, Kanthi Sister, Mohan and Babu who are the brothers of DW. 2, with this lady. This Ex.D. 3 is the byproduct of the settlement that was entered into between the family members. This Ex.D. 3 was acted upon by DW. 2 by way of Ex.D. 4. Ex.D.4 is the release deed executed on the same day when Ex.D. 3 got executed. Through Ex.D. 4, DW. 2 has relinquished her rights over the Jayanagar and other properties that stood in the name of her father Honnaiah. So, if the prosecution says that Ex.D. 3 and 4 are created for the purpose of only to avoid this accused investing money in the name of his wife, then this aspect requires to be proved.
78.As the IO has considered the sale 119 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 consideration of site No.319 of R.T.Nagar in a total sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- i.e. completely wrong. Because when Ex.D. 1 is available, the sale consideration as shown in that sale deed requires to be considered.
79.The greatest difficulty this Court has is that none of the original title deeds are before the Court. Ex.D.2 to D.5 are either the attested copies or certified copies of the documents. The prosecution for the reasons best known has not spoken about the original title deeds and their custody. Likewise, the accused for the reasons best known conspicuously silent in respect of the original title deeds. So, this Court is compelled to look into Ex.D. 2 to D.5 knowing fully that they are not original documents.
120
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
80.Coming to the evidence of DW. 2, this lady being the wife of the accused has subscribed to the view of her husband DW. 1. In her examination-in-chief, she repeats the fact that site No.319 of R.T.Nagar was purchased in her name by her father vide Ex.D. 2. Apart from that her father Honnaiah also financially helped her to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- and even though construction of house was incomplete, but that was carried on by this lady by entering into another agreement with M/s.Sathish Chandra Enterprises. In the cross-examination of this witness, the task ahead which was for the prosecution to show before the Court that, this investment for purchase of Ex.D. 2 property was from the side of accused. But, 121 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 this aspect has not at all been proved. In fact, but for placing Ex.D. 2 to D.5 by the accused, the prosecution has not placed any other different documents to show that when Honnaiah got purchased Ex.D. 2 property in the name of his daughter this DW. 2 had no independent source of income.
81.During the course of arguments through written arguments, the Learned Public Prosecutor highlighted before the Court that initially DW. 2 was a house wife, so she completely dependent upon her husband's income. So, there is a remote possibility that Ex.D. 2 coming into existence in her name. Again I say that Ex.D. 2 has to be read along with Ex.D. 3 and D.4. As on the date of filing the charge sheet or giving 122 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 evidence by the two IOs, Ex.D. 2 to D.4 were not set aside in accordance with law so no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. There is no recitals in Ex.D. 2 which says that this accused acted as an ostensible owner who has purchased the property in his better-half's name. When this is not at all the case of the prosecution, it is hard to digest that this item No.1 asset belonged to the accused exclusively.
82.Now, the question comes is, even if this Court were to consider that the suit item No.1 property belongs to the wife, then the sale consideration for the purchase of the said property has to be accounted as the assets of accused or not. According to me, no, because there is a thin line of 123 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 demarcation. Even though Ex.D. 2 is a sale deed and there is a reference to sale consideration, but under the given circumstances, virtually that becomes a gift deed, because it is the admitted case of DWs.1 and 2 that it is late Honnaiah who purchased site No.319 of R.T.Nagar in the name of his daughter, subsequently he also helped her financially. So, when the cross- examination of DWs.1 and 2 are gone through, this Court has not come across any such infringing material or evidence that will uproot the defence of the accused.
83.So in all fairness, the sale consideration as mentioned in Ex.D. 2 requires to be accepted. Here, the IO should have led evidence and placed documents to show that 124 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 on what basis he has considered the value of the Site No.319 of R.T.Nagar in a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/-. On the other hand, both DWs.1 and 2 have shown with Rs. 2,15,000/- is the only sital value as per the title deeds. So, under such circumstances, this value has to be accepted as deposed by DWs.1 and 2. So according to me, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- shall have to be deducted from the total assets. The calculation goes as under:
Total Assets Rs. 65,39,803/-
Deduction to be given - Rs. 1,20,000/- The net asset of the accused will be Rs. 64,19,803/-
84.Coming to the other site of R.T.Nagar i.e. also the site purchased by Smt.Hemalatha, wife of the accused is concerned, similar 125 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 yardstick is adopted by this IO. According to him, this Rs. 3,35,000/- quoted by the IO in this case are the sital values of both properties i.e. Site Nos.319 and 403 of RT Nagar, Bengaluru. In fact, when we go through Ex.D. 2 to D.4, there are split sale consideration are given, which only show that they were purchased in a short interval. Hence, these sale deeds in respect of sites stand in the name of DW. 2 and as on the date of submitting the charge sheet, they were not disputed or the said title deeds are not set aside, so question of ignoring the recitals found in them does not arise at all. As I have said earlier, the greatest impediment which this Court faces is that Mr.Chandra Kanth, Police Inspector who 126 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 conducted major part of the investigation is no more and his evidence is not available before the Court. PW.10 is only a name lender who has submitted the charge sheet by receiving the sanction order in respect of the accused and he makes it clear that most of the investigation was done by his predecessor Mr.Chandra Kanth. So, this evidence of PW. 10 is not helpful to the Court.
85.On the other hand, when we come to the evidence of PW. 6, who also undertaken initial investigation spoke to the fact that he has collected some documents and that as he was transferred, he handed over the further investigation to his successor. But, as PW. 6 examination-in-chief was restricted 127 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 only to collect the documents, in the cross- examination the learned Counsel for the accused has not bothered much to pose any questions by way of any cross-examination. So, mere collection of documents by itself has not shown before the Court that PW. 6 has done the investigation on a concrete basis. So, that evidence according to me is not very much helpful to the prosecution but only limited to the effect of collecting the documents.
86.Coming to the aspect of putting up investment for the purpose of construction, they also done in the name of DW. 2. The main grievance of the accused is that when PW. 5 was examined, Ex.P. 8 got marked through that Technical person, inherently 128 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the valuation report is defective, because he has not taken into consideration the schedule of rates for the year in which those houses were constructed. In respect of house property No.319, even though it was constructed in the year 1989, he has considered the S.R. rate in for the year 1993-94. So, according to them, there it makes a lot of difference. Because, 4 years interval can only make the construction materials prices to go up and this escalation in the price of essentials and other construction materials have not at all been considered by the PW. 5. So, according to the IO, building constructed in the name of DW. 2 in respect of house property No.319 is shown to be Rs. 21,20,750/-, whereas 129 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 according to DW. 1 and 2 it is only Rs. 7,12,470/- and according to them, the difference amount is Rs. 14,08,280/-. So, the major difference is that PW. 5 has taken the S.R.rate for the year 1993-94, whereas in that year it was constructed.
87.In this regard, I would like to again fall back on the evidence of PW. 5 before I could discuss in respect of this witness's ocular evidence, the first attack by the accused to this witness is, first of all this official is not an authorized person to furnish Ex.P. 8. According to him, SP., Lokayuktha Rural writes a requisition letter to Chief Engineer, Technical Wing, KLA to inspect three properties i.e. 2 properties at R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and one property at Madure and 130 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 to furnish valuation report. In turn this Chief Engineer sub-delegates his power to the Asst.Engineer. Here, the defence Counsel drew my attention as per the hand book of administration/PWD Code/Manual maintained with the PWD department that sub-delegation of powers by the Chief Engineer cannot be to the Asst.Engineer, but according to DW. 1, the Asst.Engineer is not a competent person to undertake this commissioner work. According to the accused, so long as the prosecution is unable to convince this Court that this PW. 5 is also a competent person to do this commission work, till then his report cannot be accepted or cannot attain finality.
88.Another limb of argument was Ex.P. 8 not 131 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 only lacks merits, but also bonafides, because this commissioner who accompanied the police inspector Jairaj when he visited three spots did not collect samples of construction materials, no notices were caused to the accused or his family members and he was not provided with minimum documents i.e. the date of commencement of construction, completion certificate, license or a sanctioned plan. So, according to this accused, looked from any angle, the evidence of PW. 5 is only on complete approximate basis and on guess work.
89.The Learned Public Prosecutor through his written arguments tried to touch the conscious of this Court by highlighting the 132 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 aspect that PW. 5 is an expert of experts who possess specialized skill in civil Engineering and construction work, his report is complete in all the sense because he has looked into in all angles and spheres of construction. The examination-in-chief as I have already culled out and this witness deposes that so far as house No.319 as constructed in the year 1993-94, farm house was constructed in the year 1999-2000 and he values the house No.403 in a sum of Rs. 11,22,000/- , house No.319 in a total sum of Rs. 9,98,750/- and lastly, farm house in a sum of Rs. 5,84,000/-. But, in the cross- examination, there is an admission extracted from the mouth of this witness that he has not mentioned the dimension of 133 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 each of the properties in Ex.P. 8 which is a report. Subsequently, a question was posed to this witness that without knowing the measurement of the property, valuation cannot be done, this has been denied by this witness. Another sorry state of affairs is that, according to this witness, he has not verified the title documents to know who was the owner. The said admission is extracted below:
"I did not verified the documents in respect of these buildings to know the ownership. Police had tole that these three buildings belongs to Rajanna and his family members. Police who showed the bulding to me...... Police did not give me any documents in support of their assertion with 2 residential buildings had been put up during 1993-94. I do not have any documentary evidence other than the information given by the police in writing about the year of construction".
90.This cross-examination also bring home 134 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 another important aspect as to, can there be any valuation report on a guess work? According to me, the Court cannot give a finding or come to any conclusion that whether any accused has committed any unlawful or not justifiable act only on the basis of conjunctures. So, the legal implication is that this type of evidence cannot be termed as a legal evidence. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts have voiced their concern that so long as the prosecution does not tender legal evidence, then they are unacceptable in the eye of law. So, according to me, this ocular evidence of PW.5 were to be read in continuation of Ex.P. 8, the prosecution has no legs to 135 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 stand at all.
91.This Court has also come across very peculiar circumstances where the IO who has submitted the charge sheet has blindly accepted the report of Ex.P. 8. No where, this Court is able to find any material to show that when Ex.P. 8 is gone through to the naked eyes, it is evident that it does not mention the measurement of the building, no specification in respect of the samples collected, nothing in the report to speak in respect of procuring the construction materials, that report is silent as to whether that was constructed under self supervision or entrusting through a contractor, then why the IO did not get any doubt in respect of Ex.P. 8. According to me, this evidence of 136 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 PW. 5 cannot definitely show before the Court that as deposed by this witness, the 3 buildings were of the above approximate values.
92.When Lokayuktha police themselves have not given any documents in respect of these three properties, no doubt, this Court cannot consider this type of evidence terming them as a legal evidence.
93. Again it is the duty of this Court to look into Ex.P. 8. When this valuation report is gone through, this PW. 5 has right royally involved in furnishing his opinion completely based on a guess work. This combined report of all the three properties is showing I.e., nothing in this report show that 137 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 whether he was given or furnished with complete documents by the Lokayuktha police or not. In para-7 of Ex.P. 8, he comes to the conclusion as to what was the area of construction of those three buildings and what is their approximate value. So far as area of construction is concerned, this Ex.P. 8 is silent before the Court. Definitely, there is an escalation of prices of construction materials from year to year. Ex.P.8 also does not convey that before issuing Ex.P. 8, he has consulted accused or his wife DW. 2. When DW. 2 herself is not consulted to collect information, definitely this approximate valuation cannot be right.
94.Definitely, questions would arise as to when the accused himself has not placed any 138 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 valuation report, how to accept the value of those properties furnished by the accused. In this regard, DW. 1 has examined his wife DW. 2 and also DW.2's sister and brother who have financially helped her in putting up construction and also to show before the Court that there was a family settlement deed and also the loan obtained by DWs. 1 and 2 for the purpose of putting up construction. As the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and it is only the accused should lead rebuttable evidence. So according to me, prosecution in this regard has completely failed and in this regard, so far as valuation is concerned, both oral and documentary evidence tendered by the accused are more 139 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 realistic and they have been cross examined by the prosecution. Hence, they have to be accepted. So, according to me, the valuation in respect of both the buildings is taken together as Rs. 7,12,470/- and excess amount of Rs. 14,08,280/- shall have to be deducted from Rs. 64,19,803/-, which comes to Rs.50,11,523/- which is the net asset.
95.I feel that it is relevant to mention in respect of the oral evidence of PW. 5 and Ex.P. 8. All along, it is the practice and custom adopted by the Karnataka Lokayuktha police that they will examine one technical person in respect of valuation in respect of immovable property and obtain his report and claim that he is an expert. No doubt, in the 140 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 present case on hand, the witness examined PW. 5 does not possess any specialized training in valuation of the immovable properties. Likewise, Ex.P. 8, which is a report in respect of three immovable properties makes it clear that he has given the approximate value of those properties on the basis of his spot inspection and also the limited documents furnished by the Police Inspector of KLA Jairaj. Now, merely because Ex.P.8 is marked, merely because PW. 5 claims that he is the Asst. Engineer, Technical Wing of Lokayuktha can it be considered as an expert evidence. Of course, in this regard, the learned defence counsel through written arguments highlighted the same aspect that whenever they examine the 141 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Asst.Engineer or the Joint Director of Statistics in respect of Food and invisible report, the Lokayuktha police claim that they are experts. Accused was also opposing these two reports on the ground that they are not at all experts. According to me, having gone through the examination-in- chief of PW.5, I am not inclined to accept the evidence of PW. 5 and Ex.P. 8 because this witness is not well-versed in assessing the immovable property or that he has not possesed any specialized skill. Further, it has to be borne in mind that any expert who undertakes inspection for the purpose of valuing the property shall have to follow the proper procedure. In the instant case, PW. 5 has not sought for commencement 142 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 certificate, completion certificate, sanction plan of the building, he did not confer with either accused or DW. 2 to ascertain their view as to when was the construction started and what is the procedure adopted for entrusting that construction work. Further, this PW. 5 has not collected samples of the building materials, in the examination of PW. 5, he gives a vague answer that for want of time, he could not seek the assistance of a carpenter to know that what was the quality of the wood used and the craftsmanship involved. Under such circumstances, I am declined to accept the contentions of the PW. 5. In this regard, I would like to rely upon the decision reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court 143 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 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 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 or 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.
F. Evidence Act, 1872- S.45-Expert opinion- evidence of witness, when can be accepted 144 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 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."
96. Likewise touching this aspect, I also rely upon one more decision reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221 in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
Y. Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss.64,62, 67 and 115 _Proof of a document -Held, a document is 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 and 244.
AZ. Evidence Act, 1872 - S.45 -Expert opinion - Held, is advisory in nature and not binding on Court - Practice and procedure - expert opinion - medical practice and practitioners- Medical negligence- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
-Ss.13, 18 and 22.
Held:
145
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 A Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts which is to a large extent advisory in nature. The Court must derive its own conclusion upon considering the opinion of the experts which may be adduced by both sides, cautiously, and upon taking into consideration the authorities on the point on which he deposes. Medical science is a difficult one. The court for the purpose of arriving at a decision on the basis of the opinions of experts must take into consideration the difference between an `expert witness' and an `ordinary witness'. The opinion must be based on a person having special skill or knowledge in medical science. It could be admitted or denied. Whether such an evidence could be admitted or how much weight should be given thereto, lies within the domain of the court. The evidence of an expert should, however, be interpreted like any other evidence.
97.Both decisions are relied upon to show that the evidence of PW. 5 and Ex.P. 8 are completely on a guess work.
98.Now, I have already stated that the IO has adopted the valuation report as it is and taken approximate value of those buildings mentioned therein. Here, the problem 146 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 comes is, when this Court has already come to the conclusion that construction of those buildings was not exclusively by the accused or that he did not invest the money only to avoid his skin in this case makes no sense at all. Because, if DW. 2 Hemalatha with the able assistance of her father, brother, sister and accused have constructed those buildings, question of considering the entire value of 3 buildings in a total sum of Rs.
21,20,750/- does not arise at all. Of course, DW. 1 and 2 with the assistance of her brother DW. 3, sister DW. 4 and also have examined their friends and relatives who lent money as hand loans to DW. 2 only to canvas before this Court that those buildings were constructed by herself, 147 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 According to DW.2 the valuation of these buildings would be Rs. 7,12,470/-. So, I have given deduction to Rs. 14,08,280/- from the net total assets of the accused family. But, the elementary aspect is that when DW. 2 has proved herself that even though she was a housewife, but she was taken care of better than her husband by her father Honnaiah, who was a retired Professor in the Government College and her brother Mohan. According to me, here the IO should have conducted investigation on these aspects. In the cross-examination of DW. 1, the material suggestions posed to this witness by the Learned Public Prosecutor has been squarely denied, confirming the stand that it is his father-in- 148
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 law and brother-in-law are responsible for the purchase of R.T.Nagar sites in the name of DW. 2. When Ex.D. 3 and D.4 are gone through, they are self-explanatory which show that since DW. 2 with other family members entered into family settlement, a site 319 was purchased by her father and a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was given to her for construction. Subsequently, Ex.D. 5 came into existence which is an agreement entered into between DW.2 and M/s.Sathish Chandra Enterprises. So, these aspects clearly go to show that DW. 2's name was not used by her husband to purchase the property in her name. Surprisingly, the IO has added these properties on the ground that this accused acted as an ostensible 149 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 owner to make investment in the name of his wife to purchase those three buildings. The prosecution ought to have proved these aspects beyond all reasonable doubt. But, in order to rebut this allegation, the accused has placed Ex.D. 1 to D.5. So, in this regard, I place reliance on a decision reported 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 "e; of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue".
99. So, according to me, considering the evidence of PW. 5 and Ex.P. 8 to draw 150 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 conclusion that these valuable properties were able to be acquired by the accused in the name of his wife falls to the ground.
100.Coming to the another important property that is purchased from Kanva Eco Systems is valued by the IO in a total sum of Rs. 10,61,500/-. Here, according to me, both the police inspectors have very badly mixed up the facts. On one hand, the IOs claimed that it is a benami transaction and on the other hand, according to the prosecution this accused made his wife DW. 2 to take the lead role to purchase the said property. Of course, the accused has valued the said farm house in a total sum of Rs. 5,84,000/-. Now, the question is if according to the prosecution, it is a benami property, the 151 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 prosecution has to prove the same. Admittedly, this property do not stand in the name of either the accused or his wife i.e. one farm house and another one is the land, which is valued at Rs. 5,84,000/- and the land in the name of Kanva Eco Systems in a sum of Rs. 10,61,500/-. In this regard, on a glance through of the prosecution documents, they are nil. But, PWs.7, 8 and 10 have referred to this aspect as a benami. On the other hand, according to DW. 1, as none of the property documents stand in his name there is no question of connecting both husband and wife to this transaction. But, it is sorry to mention here that the IOs have not taken pain to explain how it was a benami transaction. Nevertheless, it is the 152 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 duty of this Court to look into benami or benami property. The definition of benami property defined as "benami property means any property which is the subject matter of benami transaction and also includes the proceeds from such property. Further, the commentary reads as " The 'benami property ' includes (I) any property which is a subject matter of a benami transaction, and (ii) the proceeds from such property. Sub-section (26) of Section 2 of the act defines 'property' as assets of any kind, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal and includes any right or interest or legal documents or instruments evidencing title. But, the said definition under Sec.8(2) of the 153 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Act does not specify the nature of the property, but only defines what property should be. There are certain tests contemplated to determine how a benami transaction has to be identified. This test is evolved through customs and precedents. They are (i) motive of entering into benami transaction (ii) relationship between the beneficial owner and benamidar, (iii) nature and possession of property after purchase, (iv) source from which purchase money came and lastly
(v) custody of title deeds after sale. In the instant case, it was the burden on the part of the prosecution to prove these aspects. I should say with confidence that first of all Mr.Chandra Kanth, the Police Inspector, the 154 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 IO in this case who has investigated major part of this case as he is no more, his evidence is not available, but even other Officers PWs. 6 to 10 who claim to have conducted part of the investigation are not at all able to prove that these two properties were benami acquisitions. More over, the prosecution ought to have collected some documents in this regard. But, even in the cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2, many suggestions were posed, but it is held that suggestion evidence is no evidence at all. In the instant case, so long as the prosecution does not show that there was a benami transaction or no materials were placed to show that how they claimed to be benami till then, this allegation can only be an 155 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 allegation. Further more, how an IO is called upon to hold investigation or conduct investigation is also well directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in LAWS (MAD) 2007 12 547 in the case of R.Kannappan & K.Chandrasekaran Vs. State by Dy.Superintendent of Police, wherein the Hon'ble High 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 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 156 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 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.
101. So, in the instant case, so far as PWs.8 and 9 are concerned, they were not authorized under Sec.17/ 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to hold 157 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the investigation and lastly PW. 10 has only submitted the charge sheet by obtaining sanction order against the accused. I should say that the valuation of farm house in a sum of Rs. 5,84,000/- and that a land purchased from Kanva Eco Systems in a sum of Rs. 10,61,500/- cannot be considered to be the value of those properties, because, they do not form assets of the accused or his family. So, out of the net assets of Rs. 50,11,523/-, Rs. 10,61,500/- and Rs. 5,84,000 to be deducted, then the net asset will come to Rs. 33,66,023/-.
102. Then the I.O. has focused on the household articles found in the house of the accused both in Bengaluru and Belgaum in 158 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 total sum of Rs. 10,65,715/-, separately he has also shown Rs. 3,05,300/- total approximate value of gold and lastly Rs. 28,168/- as an approximate value of silver. In these three items again the three Police Inspectors who conducted search and raid of the premises of the accused at Bengaluru and Belgaum have badly jumbled up the facts. Now, when they conducted raid of the house premises at R.T.Nagar Bengaluru, then at farm house, it is the claim of the accused that the household articles found and lastly in Madure farm house not exclusively belonged to the accused and his family at all. That also included the household articles of Mrs.Kanthi, DW. 4 who is the elder sister of DW. 2 and was a retired 159 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 bank officer of Punjab National Bank. After separating from her husband, earlier she was residing with her parents, after the death of her parents, she was residing with DW. 2' in their house. So, it was her consistent claim that along with household articles claimed in the house of the accused at Bengaluru and farm house at Madure, she also had some household articles, but they were not separated either in Ex.P. 1 to 3 or P.62. In fact, in the schedule furnished by the accused, these aspects have been spoken too by the accused. When we glance through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they gave a consistent reply that they were not aware as to household articles belonged to which specific person, they only 160 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 accompanied the raiding team and the Lokayuktha Police Inspector and his team who completed the most part of the work including determining and identifying the household articles and their values.
103.In respect of the household articles, there are three houses from which according to the IOs, as per Ex.P. 3, P.4 and P.62, they have made an inventory of those articles. Ex.P.62 is in respect of house No.319 of R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru, Ex.P. 3 is in respect of farm house and lastly Ex.P. 4 is in respect of Belgaum house. In this regard, the Mahazar witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have failed to convince before this Court that raids at those different places have been done in an 161 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 organized manner.
104.Coming to the evidence of PW. 1, this person by name Dayananda Murhty, who was the Second Division Assistant with Transport Department, Bengaluru whose services were taken to act as pancha to assist the Lokayuktha Police. According to this person, he along with Lokayuktha Dy.S.P. went to the house of the accused at R.T.Nagar and spoke about the raid and drawing of Ex.P. 1. One notable aspect which is found in the evidence of this witness is that he was not told about the purpose for which that raid is going to be undertaken. The relevant portion of this witness's cross-examination is extracted as below:
162
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 " Even after going to the house of the accused, police did not tell me the details of their visit to the house of the accused. I had not seen this accused prior to the raid".
105.In fact further in the cross-examination that he also gives admission that he does not know the rank of each Police Officers and the name of other police personnel. It is his evidence that excluding gold and silver, the approximate value was assessed by them and he makes it very clear that it was only on approximate basis. According to him, he does not know the nature of the wood used for furniture, so also coming to the electrical gadgets, he does not know the date of purchase, warranty period, etc. But crucial admission is that DW. 2 who was present told them that some of the household articles belonged to her relative, which 163 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 admission is extracted as below:
" Wife of the accused told the police officers that some of the items noticed by the police belong to their relatives."
106. So, the question is whether Ex.P. 1 which is also a mahazar contains separate list of household articles which does not belonged to the accused and his family. According to me, no such clarity is found in that document too.
107.Coming to the evidence of PW. 2, Syed Ejaz Razwi who was also an Assistant with the Bescom office, Bengaluru, he was also asked to assist Lokayuktha police in drawing panchanama and conducting raid. According to this person, he was taken to the farm house at Madure and they came across a watchman cum driver and the 164 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Lokayuktha Police told them that the said house also belonged to the accused. According to this person, when the search of the house premises took place, they were able to seize some documents come across, note books, in it they written the labour charges and they also found one tractor parked outside. Apart from that, they noticed 10 sheep and a cow. Through this witness Ex.P. 3 came to be marked. But, in the cross-examination, even this witness has displayed his ignorance. The entire procedure of drawing Ex.P. 3 was on an approximate basis. Ultimately, according to this witness, he has no experience in valuing the vehicles and any household articles. He also admits that he did not verified in 165 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 respect of tractor. So, this evidence of PW. 2 also does not help the Court to form a considered opinion that how fair Ex.P. 1 to P.3 have taken place.
108. Coming to the evidence of PW. 3 who was a SDA attached to the District Treasury, Bengaluru and he was also part of the raiding team and directed to assist the Lokayuktha Police in their search. According to this witness, he is a signatory to Ex.P. 4, panchanama and I should say, according to the version of the prosecution, from the house of Belgaum, they were able to come across many household articles, but in the cross-examination, the cat has come out of the basket which is extracted below:
" I did not give my assistance about the 166 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 valuation of the articles mentioned in the mahazar. Mahazar was got typed in the house of the accused. S.P. was dictating to his staff over typing machine."
109. Again, this type of an answer cannot show before the Court that household articles found from the three premises were exclusively belonged to the accused. Likewise, in spite of DW. 2 telling the Police Inspector that there were also articles belonged to her sister, but no special care taken by the Lokayuktha police in this regard. Now, when such is the confusion, when such is the mixed up mahazars question would arise is, how far this Court has to take into consideration the contents of Ex.P. 1 to P.3 and P.62.
110.In the evidence of DW. 2, according to this lady, she also has reiterated some of these 167 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 aspects and in the cross-examination, I should say for the reasons best known, effective cross-examination seems to have not been done. These were the areas which should have helped the Court in coming to know the correct procedure adopted by the IO's in drawing these panchanama at different places.
111.But, there is some clarity that can be gathered when we go through the evidence of defence evidence. On much relying upon the ocular evidence of these DWs.1 and 2 who have place some relevant materials because at the costs of repetition, it is stated that the IO Mr.Chandra Kanth's evidence is not before the Court, in my opinion, in the case of present nature, the role played by 168 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the main IO becomes very much necessary and important, because he is the police Officer who undertakes the work of calculation and prepares the final report and placed the same before the S.P. for seeking sanction order from the competent authority. The Dw.1 in his further examination-in-chief spoke about these aspects in brief in para-26 of the examination-in-chief, there is a stray reference to these aspects and his only effort was to show before the Court that no proper procedure was adopted by the Police Officers in drawing the inventory and mahazar. In fact, in the cross-examination of this witness, no effort has been made by the prosecution to elicit information as to which 169 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 of the household articles belonged to their family, out of them, gifts they received from the relatives and friends from different family functions. In the instant case, the task which was before the Lokayuktha police made difficult because, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that both DWs.1 and 2 inherited joint family and ancestral properties. In fact, the first stand of the DW . 1 is that even now, they are in joint family and his younger brother Narayana Gowda is managing the property and affairs of the family as Kartha. Likewise, the entire stand of the DW. 2 is that had it not been her father Honnaiah and brother Mohan and her sister Kanthi, definitely she would not have gained that financial strength as she was 170 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 when the charge sheet was submitted. When we gather the pith and substance of evidence of DW. 2, her only consistent voice is that she is an income tax assessee and she got financial support from her maternal side. These aspects requires to be shook by the prosecution by way of effective cross- examination of DW. 1 to 4. But, they have not made.
112.Coming to the core issue now, whether the value of household articles as projected by the IO in a sum of Rs. 10,65,750/- requires to be accepted or not. In fact, to compare Ex.P. 1 to 3 and P.62, there must be another document for comparison. Quite naturally, the accused should lead defence evidence and has not placed those cogent 171 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 documents. In fact, the accused has to make out and say that which items were gifts, which were ancestral properties, which belonged to DW. 4 and which were purchased by them. In this regard also, they have not made any attempts.
113.The Police Inspector who headed the raiding team especially PW. 7 who conducted the raid in farm house, drawn Ex.P. 3, PW. 8 D.Narayanaswamy who conducted raid of house at R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru drawn Ex.P. 62 are tight lipped in respect of giving break ups about the acquisition, gifts and also ancestral properties. In fact, in the cross-examination of PW. 7, he gives a candid admission which should settle the score on hand which is 172 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 extracted below.
" The valuation drawn in the mahazar about articles and items was on the basis of fair analysis and consensus of the witnesses present there. ..... It is true that we have not made a mention about the approximate age of the items mentioned. It is not true to suggest that I did not summon any goldsmith at the time of conducting mahazar. ... I do not know the quantum of those materials. I may not be able to give the exact price for the items that prevail in the market at that time."
So, this answer is completely on the basis of guess work and nothing else.
114. Coming to the cross-examination of PW. 8, this gentleman happens to be the Police Officer was also instrumental in conducting the raid, but some of the answers which were extracted from his cross examination below definitely can become a matter of surprise.
" As PW. 7 instructed me that house belongs to the accused, I did not again verify that whether that house really belong to the 173 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 accused or not before conducting the search. ..... I did not verify as to whom each of the article/articles belonged to while assessing the value of each of the articles in consultation with the younger brother of the accused and also the witnesses, I mentioned the value to each of the articles except to the gold and silver articles."
115. In respect of Ex.P. 62, according to this witness, he has taken the help of the goldsmith. Nevertheless, both PWs.7 and 8 have right royally involved in drawing the mahazar on approximate basis. The items included in these mahazars are furniture, electrical and electronic gadgets, utensils, valuables in the nature of gold and silver, hard cash, whiskey, groceries and its is their claim that they have also come across the provisions in the kitchen. If these Police Officers generalise these items values and come out with a figure that household 174 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 articles at R.T.Nagar, Madure and Belgaum amount to Rs. 10,65,715/- cannot be a right one. As I have said earlier, this generalization of the approximate value cannot become a legal evidence. Equally, the accused has not helped the Court in placing the price list item wise giving margin to the gifts and the properties they derived from their parents, in all fairness, according to me, household articles at R.T.Nagar, Madure and Belgaum are considered in a total sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. Hence, a sum of Rs. 3,65,715/- shall have to be deducted from net total asset i.e. Rs. 33,66,023 - Rs. 3,65,715/-, the net total asset will be Rs. 30,00,308/-.
116.Coming to the value of gold in an 175 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 approximate sum of Rs. 3,05,300/- and silver in a sum of Rs. 28,168/-, as their approximate value comparatively less when compared to the household articles without there being any proper evidence, it may not be proper to touch these assets and lower or scale up their approximate value. So these approximate value are kept as it is. Lastly, coming to the cash found in the house of the accused in a total sum of Rs. 54,250/-, again there is some variations. According to the accused, it is far far less when figure of cash is quoted. But, it is a simple arithmetic that if he has already claimed that amount by way of interim custody, this question may not survive. More over, the entire procedure adopted by the Lokayuktha 176 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Police, in also trying to conduct the raid becomes questionable. Especially PW. 8 is without any authorization required under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So, the basic question that would arise is how far it is safe to consider Ex.P. 1 to P.3 and P.62. In the nutshell, it can be summed up that without authorization, execution of the search warrants will definitely amount to being completely without any power and that can also tantamount to abusing the search warrants and entering the house of a citizen.
117.In respect of the amounts found in the savings bank account of the accused and his family members are concerned, according to the IO's, they have given the total figure in a 177 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 sum of Rs. 4,69,838/-. I should say again that there is some confusion on the part of the accused in coming up with this figure. The mistake which they seems to have committed is that they have also added the amount outstanding in the bank account of M/s. Kanva Eco Systems which accounts for Rs. 1,74,001-23. I have already made it clear that if according to the PWs. 6 to 10, M/s. Kanva Eco Systems wherein DW. 2 was a sleeping partner along with Smt.Muddamma and Smt. Geetha who were the regular partners and that was the partnership, this aspect has not at all been proved. In fact, the unregistered partnership deed produced by the accused through schedule cannot be looked into, because 178 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 partnership deed has to be compulsorily registrable. Even assuming that initial investment made by DW. 2 Hemalatha or the agricultural lands given to that Kanva Eco System was the benami transaction entered into in the name of Smt.Muddamma and Smt.Geetha are concerned, this aspect requires to be proved. So far s benami transaction is concerned, onus is on the shoulder of the prosecution and that it shall have to be discharged in accordance with law. So, out of Rs. 4,69,838/- a sum of Rs. 1,74,001-23 shall have to be deducted. If this calculation is undertaken out of the total value of the assets i.e. Rs. 30,00,308/- minus Rs. 1,74,001/-, the net asset will be Rs. 28,26,307/-.
179
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
118.In fact in the cross-examination of PW.7, PW. 8, PW. 9 and PW. 10, there is not much of any assistance in respect of these calculations. So, I will discuss in detail when I take up the next point for consideration i.e. the authorization required under Sec.17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
119.So far as considering Rs. 40,000/- towards Kisan Vikas Pathra is concerned, accused has taken up a contention that there is a double entry in respect of Rs. 30,000/-. But, I will not touch this aspect, because even in the evidence of DW. 1, he has not spoken too about the relevant either APR or ITR touching this aspect. So, I am of the considered opinion that this aspect neither has been proved by the prosecution nor 180 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 disproved by the accused.
120.So far as amount credited as premium to LIC policies, amount spent on LPG, land line phone bills, GPF contribution, amount invested in GPF, KGID, according to me, the calculation of the prosecution has to be correct. Because if at all the IO has considered them, it is only on the basis of salary particulars received from the respective DDOs of the department, where accused has worked. Under such circumstances, in respect of the value of the assets as claimed by the prosecution in a sum of Rs. 65,39,833/- can only be an imaginary one. I should say that the greatest blunder that is committed by all the IOs in this case are that they have 181 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 consumed most of the time in only collecting the documents by issuing requisition letters. Even now it is a matter of myth that how the documents and the contents of them have to be considered for the purpose of coming out with clear calculation. In respect of valuation report, definitely I can say that the IO has not applied his mind at all. Ex.P.8 is minus the sital value of those properties. So, it is also the duty on the part of the IO's also to consider the sital value including the building value, then giving break ups as to how he has arrived at that figure. Another grey area that was detected by this Court is that, up to the time of filing of a source report, there were some acquisitions by the accused. No doubt, in the evidence of 182 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 DWs.1 and 2 one can pick up from the evidence that even though this accused was a law graduate, but he did not practice law and by then, he has already 7.5 acres of agricultural land which was an ancestral property, even now, according to him, it is undivided. Quite naturally, there will be some quantum of agricultural income and prior to check period this accused was also a public servant, so it is not known as to when IOs has considered the commencement of check period, till then what was the economic status of the accused to which there is no reference at all.
121.The IOs seems to have focused much of their energy only to the aspect that DW . 2 is only a housewife, she had no source of 183 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 income. In this process they have forgotten to consider the Ex.D. 1 to 5, moreover as I have said, no original title deeds are available in this case. IOs have not made any efforts to at least offer explanation as to why these title deeds of the immovable properties are not before the Court. Under such circumstances, having come to know that DW. 2 is an income tax assessee having come to know that her father Mr.Honnaiah, elder sister Kanthi, younger brother Mohan, they have financially helped her to uplift her economic status, this aspect has not at all been considered. The debacle according to me is that the IOs. have failed to segregate/ bifurcate the income of the accused as well as DW. 2. Even though, there is a 184 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 presumption that the properties acquired in the name of better-half/legally wedded wife can also be considered as the properties of the public servant/accused but it is only a rebuttal presumption. In the instant case when the ITRs Ex.D. 1 to 5 are gone through, the role of Honnaiah, DW . 3 and 4 are very much seen. Hence, according to me, the net total assets of the accused and his family members works out to be Rs.28,26,307/-.
EXPENDITURE
122. It is well known that there are three major classifications under which calculation has to be undertaken for the purpose of arriving at, whether accused has committed offences under Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of 185 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Corruption Act, 1988. I have already held detailed discussion in respect of assets which makes remarkable difference in ascertaining as to the lawful income and the source of income for purchase of immovable properties, which take away major chunk of investment. This IO has come to a conclusion that total expenditure of the accused and his family was Rs. 8,00,622/- for the entire check period. In this regard according to me, the lion share of the said value of money is spent by the accused towards food and invisible expenditure. In fact, the IOs are so much serious that they got examined according to them, an expert at PW. 4 by name Jayadev Prakash who was the Joint Director of statistics attached to 186 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Karnataka Lokayuktha. According to this person, on 03-08-2004, he receives a letter from the Lokayuktha police asking him to undertake assessment and furnish the report in respect of food and family expenditure of the accused. It is also his evidence that requisition letter sent by the Lokayuktha Police had minimum information and vide Ex.P. 7 which is his report, he came to a conclusion that the total food expenditure for the check period from 1-05-1980 to 22-01-2000, it was around Rs. 1,90,131/-. He also makes it very clear that he relied upon 1987-88 National Sample Survey of Karnataka, 1985- 86 Karnataka State Pay Commission report and consumer price Index of all the relevant 187 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 years of the check period. It is also the evidence of this person that while issuing Ex.P. 7, he has taken into consideration price of the milk, cereals, edible oil, sugar, vegetables, fruits, salt, spices, beverages, stimulants, non-vegetable food items, etc. Ex.P.7 according to PWs.7 to 10 are the gospel truth. Whatever this person has spoken to him in his evidence and that document, the said police have blindly accepted. But, in the cross-examination, this so called expert himself has expressed opinion that his report at Ex.P. 7 may not be all with accuracy. The admission given by this witness reads as under:
" All these statistics are based on average. The average is based on survey result. ... If the Government employee is from an agriculturist family, there will be scope for getting many food items from his family and 188 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 then the average could be less than the normal average. I have not taken into account the food items given to the accused by his family while evaluating the average food expenditure. If a person is not non- vegetarian, there will be some reduction in the average. .... IO told me that accused was a non-vegetarian..... But, on the basis of the information given by the IO, I have adopted non-vegetarian items also to work out the average expenditure. In my report, I have not mentioned that the family of the accused are non-vegetarian."
123. When this admission of PW. 4 is compared with Ex.P. 7, there is no impress of truth at all.
124. Of course, I did not find much assistance from the oral evidence of DWs.1 and 2 touching Ex.P. 7. But, what requires to be considered is, the accused family consists of how many members, in particular number of adults, minors and infants. In the entire materials available for scrutiny, there is very minimum information in respect of children 189 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 or child of the accused. There is one stray reference found in one of the documents placed by the accused that he has a son by name Abhiman. But, nothing much is available to appreciate further in that regard. If that is considered, quite naturally Ex.P. 7 should also speak about when DW. 2 was carrying or was in her family ways, when did she go to her parental house, how long she stayed for the delivery, what was the post pregnancy period or giving birth of the son and what was the maternity period this DW. 2 was with her parental house, then for that specific period, deduction must be given to food and invisible expenditure.
125.Then coming to a baby, when a male baby is born expenses will be quite different from 190 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 that of a female baby. This Ex.P. 7 does not speak in respect of amount spent towards baby food, then the nature of food consumed by adults. Even assuming that the family of accused are non-vegetarian, again separate bifurcation has to be given as to whether food habits to be followed by the accused and his family members, whether they are consuming spicy food and also the type of beverages they consumed. Of course, DW. 1 and his wife DW. 2 hard pressed the fact that the family of the accused was an agrarian one and he used to get his share of the food grains from his native place M.Hosahalli of Channapatna Taluk, even though it was looked after by her brother Narayana Gowda. Likewise DWs.2 and 3 191 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 gave evidence that even though their father Mr.Honnaiah was a retired History Professor in Government College, he owned agricultural lands and it was managed by other family members and they were also getting food grains from that agricultural land for their personal use. This aspect requires to be highlighted by the PW. 4 in order to make his report at Ex.P. 7 comprehensive.
126.Ex.P.7 is a format, which is filled up by this person, now to apply the consumer price index or to follow the National Sample Survey of Karnataka, there are certain parameters. During the course of arguments, the learned defence counsel highlighted that this sample survey was 192 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 done by both Central and State Government not in connection with furnishing food and invisible expenditure report, but it is in connection with another connected Government schemes, but that has been borrowed by PW. 4. He has strenuously contended that this PW. 4 cannot be considered as an expert. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regency Hospital Limited cited above to canvass his arguments that this official has no specialized knowledge or skill in this sphere of activity. I do find substantial in this argument.
127.Because, the expert's knowledge or skill which is expected of an expert or scientific 193 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Officer must be such that, which should encompass in itself all sphere of that particular activity. When these aspects are not taken into consideration, I completely lost as to how to take into consideration his report on its face value. Under such circumstances, according to me, a sum of Rs. 1,90,131/- as the approximate value projected by the accused may not depict the correct picture. Likewise, the position of the accused is no better than that of the accused. He should have given break ups to make the things clear, but he has also not taken this risk either.
128.The accused has valued the food expenses for the entire check period in a total sum of Rs. 85,000/-. According to me, considering 194 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the life style of the accused and his family members as admitted by them, DW.2's family was far better placed economically than the accused family. Their life style is even though may not be of a affluent rich family but definitely they are richer than the accused. Moreover, the food expenditure also depends upon the quality of food, for example, for rice, there are different varieties of rice depends upon their quality, its price was fixed. Even assuming that the family of the accused got rice from their parental house, even then there will be some reasonable expenses towards purchase of provisions. Hence, I consider the food expenditure in a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 90,131/- 195
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 shall have to be deducted from the total value of expenditure i.e. from Rs. 8,00,622/- minus Rs. 90,131/-, the net total expenditure comes to Rs. 7,10,491/-.
129. Then the IOs have focused their attention on stamp duty and registration charges in respect of purchase of site in a sum of Rs. 47,134/-. But, again reverting back to the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, the said site i.e. Site No.403 and 319 stand in the name of DW . 2. So far as Site No.319 is concerned, it got purchased by the DW. 2 daughter of Honnaiah through her father, so question of taking that into consideration said charges will not arise at all. But, even in respect of stamp duty of the above value, as the title deeds stand in the name of DW . 2, there is 196 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 nothing on record to show that the accused has paid this amount. In fact, in the cross- examination of DW. 1, a question was posed to this witness, he has denied the same. But, in the evidence of IO also, there is an admission given by that person stating that but for collecting documents, he has not done anything.
130.The PW. 8 in his cross-examination deposes the same which is extracted as under:
"ಈ ಪಪ ಕರಣಕಕ ಸಬಧಸದತ ಆರರಪಯ ಆದಯ , ಆಸಸ ಮತಸ ಖರರಗ ಸಬಧಸದತ ನನ ಯವದದರ ಲಕಕ ಹಕಲಲ ಎಎದರ ಸರ . ನನನ ಸಕಕ ವಚರಣಯ ವಳ ಹಳರವ ದಖಲಗಳನನ ಹರತ ಪಡಸ ಆರರಪ ಮತಸ ಆತನ ಪತನ ಗ ಸಬಧಸದ ಯವದ ದಖಲಗಳನನ ನನ ಅಮನತಸ ಪಡಸಕಎಡಲಲ ಎಎದರ ಸರ ."
131. So, the IO himself does not know as to who has paid the stamp duty and 197 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 registration charges. As I have said earlier, when title deeds at Ex.D. 1 to 4 are gone through, they can only convey that the vendee who purchased the property by paying the sale consideration has only remitted the stamp duty and registration charges. There is no recitals in that title deeds which show that this accused has borne that expenses. Again as DW . 2 herself has shown that she was economically solvent enough to pay the said amount so she has done it. In respect of another property at R.T.Nagar, it is in the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 that her father Honnaiah has paid this amount. Hence, a sum of Rs. 47,134/- requires to be deducted from the total net expenditure of Rs. 7,10,491/-, so 198 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the total net expenditure will be Rs. 6,63,357/-. Coming to the registration and stamp duty charges of Rs. 1,62,102/-, which was spent on purchase of agricultural lands in connection with M/s Kanva Eco Systems, right royally all along the IO canvasses that it was a benami transaction.
Land purchased in the name of Smt.Muddamma and Smt.Geetha were
directly on account of investment made by the accused. In fact prosecution did not collect any documents in this regard. But, when accused furnished schedule along with the documents, the unregistered partnership deed. Now, Muddamma and Geetha according to the prosecution if they are benamidars, that requires to be proved. On 199 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the other hand, DW. 2 in her evidence including her husband have given evidence that Smt.Muddamma is a landlord lady and her husband has vast extent of agricultural land and after his death as Muddamma was issue-less, she continued to be the owner of land. This evidence was brought in by DWs.1 and 2 only to show that she was not a benamidar. Likewise, in respect of Geetha, there is a little evidence on the ground that she is from a family of one Mr.Boraiah who was a Class-I contractor, who constructed Vidhana Soudha during Mr.Kengal Hanumanthaiah's period. But, as I have said earlier, neither accused nor any of the family members were subjected to any test either by way of cross examination or 200 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 summoning to the court to get their evidence recorded in order to know whether it is a benami transaction or not. So long as these tests are not applied, one cannot know what is the percentage of contribution on the part of the accused, because admittedly according to the prosecution Kanva Eco Systems is a partnership firm. According to them, there were 3 partners. If DW. 2 is one of the partners, what is her contribution and her investment. These aspects have not at all been proved. Hence, according to me, considering this Rs. 1,52,102/- as expenditure on the part of the accused does not arise and cannot be considered at all towards his expenditure. Hence, this expenditure of Rs. 1,52,102/- will be 201 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 deducted from the total net expenditure of Rs. 6,63,357/-, the net total expenditure comes to Rs. 5,11,255/-.
132.In respect of bank interest, other expenses and income tax, a sum of Rs. 75,602/- is shown as expenditure. According to me, this is proved by the prosecution, because there are direct evidence. Likewise, house tax, electricity and water charges in a sum of Rs. 1,36,758/-, the version of IOs will have to be accepted. The accused has not led any evidence in this specific direction. So, the documents collected and limited evidence led have not been disproved by the accused. So far as non verifiable expenses of Rs. 75,000/-, this aspect has not proved by the prosecution. In fact, I should say the 202 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 evidence of PWs.6 to 10 are so much bald that they have limited their investigation to collection of documents only. So, this Rs. 75,000/- will have to be deducted from the net expenditure of Rs. 5,11,255/-, the total net expenditure will be Rs. 4,36,255/-.
133.Coming to the last caption i.e. other deductions of salary, the IO has considered a sum of Rs. 39,584/-. In fact this is a new addition to the expenditure table. If accused wants to prove this, first he must place before the Court that all the ITRs for the check period to convince this Court that whether there is a double entry or not. If income tax is paid on the gross income and emoluments, this question may not arise at all. It is quite but natural that premium 203 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 paid towards LIC Policies, KGID and GPF subscriptions including payment of professional tax out of the gross salary only. In fact, they become statutory deductions. If gross salary includes statutory income, on that only income tax will be paid. There may be some concession or rebates offered in case of paying interest on home loan or secured debt. According to me, this bald calculation arrived at by the IOs has no legs to stand.
134.The IOs must make it clear that how they arrived at this figure. So long as this does not take place, this cannot be accepted at all. Hence, according to me, a sum of Rs. 39,584/- shall have to be deducted from the total net expenditure of Rs. 4,36,255/-, the 204 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 net total expenditure comes to Rs.3,96,671/-.
INCOME
135. In this category of items all the investigating officers seems to have played a very surprising role, because according to them, total value of the income of the accused and his family members was only shown in a total sum of Rs.10,95,176/-. Apart from this, another surprising aspect is that they have only included two items in it. One is the salary during the check period of the accused and another one is interest from the deposits. There are materials placed by the prosecution themselves that the accused had an agricultural income, DW. 2 hails from a rich family, wherein she was placed 205 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 with immovable properties to her credit, which were also revenue yielding and apart from that, the accused as a Group-A Officer was holding the Executive post during the latter half of his service, wherein he was on touring duty. Quite, naturally the accused as a public servant who was asked to undertake any official work on OOD basis, as such, public servant will automatically be entitled for traveling allowances and dearness allowances as per the K.C.S.R. But, these procedures have been thrown to shackles in considering their values by the IO's. It is the cardinal principle of law that whenever investigation takes place, it must be not only be fair but such investigation must be done seemingly to be seen by 206 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 others. Likewise, there is no fairness found in judging these two items. In the instant case, this Court entertained a doubt whether the IOs have approached the investigation in a fair/neutral or predetermined manner.
136.So far as this total salary received by the accused in the check period is concerned, it is not disputed. But, as I have said earlier, they have not taken into consideration traveling allowances, which according to the accused comes to Rs. 1,54,032/-. DW. 1 reiterated this aspect in his examination-in- chief. But, in the cross-examination, there is no such infringing materials, which show that he was not paid TA or DA. Likewise, in the ITRs available for scrutiny before the prosecution, they did not think it twice to 207 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 look into these details. Under such circumstances, as evidence of DW. 1 is been able to show that he has received Rs. 1,54,032/-, so this amount shall have to be added to the total income of the accused i.e. 10,95,176/-, then the total net income of the accused will be Rs. 12,49,208/-.
137.Coming to the very important aspect of the accused getting agricultural income. The calculation of the IO is nil. In fact, all the three IOs. have not touched this aspect at all. We must not forget that, apart from documentary evidence placed by both the prosecution and the accused, there is also the evidence of DW. 14 who is an expert. In this regard, DW. 14 by name Nagaraj Datthathreya Bhat who is an agricultural 208 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 consultant gave evidence. According to this person, he practices agricultural consultancy and also in the panel of valuators for Central Co-operative bank and Syndicate bank for the entire Uttara Kannada District. He also claims that he has given expert evidence and report in several Lokayuktha and CBI disproportionate assets cases. Coming to the case on hand, he was requested by the accused, so he visited the agricultural property of the accused situated at Mainakanahosahalli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramnagar District in the year 2000 and when he measured, it was totally 7 acres. He also found 360 standing coconut trees in 6 acres of land with pepper vines 209 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 surrounding the coconut trees.
138.According to this witness, he has assessed the income of one coconut tree per year and worked out the calculation on the basis of the value of crop as prevailing at APMC rate. So far as income from black pepper, he calculated on the basis of the rates prevailing at the spice board. Though ginger and turmeric plants were also standing on the land, he did not assess the value of the said crops, since such entries are not found in the relevant years RTCs. So he has given Ex.D.13 report and has identified his signature on Ex.D. 13 at Ex.D. 13(a). According to this expert, the net income per year from the above crops is Rs. 20,79,952/-, total gross income is Rs. 210
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 29,71,360/- per year. He has deducted 30% towards the expenditure which comes to Rs. 8,91,408/-. So far as income from turmeric and ginger which was grown on 6 acres of land was Rs. 2,00,000/- per year.
139. The prosecution had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine this witness. In fact, even though cross-examination takes place, but in the cross-examination, there is not even one question which shows that Ex.P. 13 statistics are incorrect. In respect of coconut yield, black pepper, turmeric and ginger, there is not even one suggestion, but there was an attempt made by the Learned Public Prosecutor that Ex.P. 13 is cut, copy, paste report prepared only for the purpose of this case. Survey number, extent, applicant's 211 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 name and yields have been changed and Ex.P. 13 is nothing but duly filled up format which has no credibility in the eye of law. I keep repeating the fact that if the prosecution has to show that Ex.D.13 and evidence of DW. 14 have no basis and they are not legal evidence, then they must place better evidence. In the instant case, when the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 10 are gone through, but for PWs.4 and 5 and the panchas rests only are Police officers, except the evidence of Asst. Engineer and Joint Director of statistics, no one is an expert. So, under such circumstances, the prosecution is estopped from contending that Ex.D. 13 cannot be looked into and it is a cooked up document.
212
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
140.The hollowness of the claim of PWs.6 to 10 are that none have spoken about the agricultural income. Repeatedly, DW.1 and his wife DW. 2 give evidence that both the families of the accused and DW. 2 have agricultural lands. The evidence of DW. 1 is so much clear that property situated at M.Hosahalli of Channapatna Taluk or Mainakanahosahalli, where the lands of the accused are situated, they are all ancestral properties, even now they are not divided and earlier Narayana Gowda was looking after the same and for the time being DW. 1 is the Kartha of the family. When such is the evidence available, they have not been disproved or no effective evidence led to show that the rebuttal evidence of DW. 1 213 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 cannot be accepted at all.
141.As the IOs have not touched this agricultural income, so the evidence led by the accused by examining DW. 14 and Ex.D. 13 cannot be considered as rebuttable evidence. So, the prosecution was able to get satisfaction by cross-examining DW. 14 and nothing else. But, this is not the burden of proof which was not called upon to be discharged by them. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to go against the contents of Ex.D. 13 and evidence of DW.14 and the agricultural income of the accused and his family in a total sum of Rs. 24,67,000/- and this amount will have to be added to net agricultural income of Rs. 12,49,208/-, then 214 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the net total agricultural income will be Rs. 37,16,208/-.
142.Of course the accused has given another break up that their family received a sum of Rs. 12,48,000/- which was the hiring charges during the check period for having lent the tractor and trailer, but this Court is not convinced in this regard. No documents in the form of receipt or any passbook entry is coming forward. Likewise, there is only limited evidence which is found in DW.1's deposition which is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that it was the hire charges for the entire check period. Hence, this amount is not taken into consideration.
143.So far as interest earned on bank accounts of both accused and his family members 215 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 during the check period, there are passbook entries which were found along with schedule. Hence, the IO has already considered a sum of Rs. 15,537/-. Again reconsidering the same will not arise at all.
144.The accused has also spoken about the income derived from various savings schemes in a total sum of Rs. 1,51,980/-. Again I say that this has already been considered, when interest are taken into account on some of the bank accounts standing in the name of accused and his family members so again reconsidering under different bank schemes will not arise.
145.So far as Rs. 30,000/- claimed by the accused as an income when he was an 216 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 advocate before joining service. Again this aspect has not been substantiated by him.
146.Coming to another income of Rs.2,63,000/-, which the accused claims that it is the revenue they derived out of leasing out coconut garden. Even in respect of the same, I have not come across any documents. So, even this amount is not taken into consideration.
147.So far as a sum of Rs. 20,79,952/-, which according to the accused is an income earned from plantation crops to which there is no direct evidence at all. Further, there must be an evidence to show that such income was generated and as DW . 1 himself has admitted that no partition is taken 217 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 place, now the question is what was the specific amount which was given to this accused. So, in this regard, there is no clarity. Hence, this amount is not considered.
148.The greatest grievance of the accused is that even though DW. 2 was financially secure, her income has not been considered by the accused. In fact, there are documents both title deeds and revenue documents, which subscribed to this aspect.
149. Coming to the very important aspect of Investigating Officers considering the financial assistance received by DW. 2 from her father, DW. 3 and 4 are concerned, virtually IOs have not shown any interest. 218
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Repeatedly DW.1 through his schedule and documents forcefully submitted that for the purchase of Site No.319 and 403 of R.T.Nagar, it is only with the help of Mr.Honnaiah father of his wife was able to acquire those properties and put up construction in them. More over, Ex.D. 3 and 4 are crystal clear. Whenever we go through the contents of relinquishment deed, that document has sprung up only on account of the fact that this DW. 2 gave consent to her father and DW. 3 to put up construction in site No.319 of R.T.Nagar in lieu of foregoing her rights in Jayanagar three storied building. So definitely the relinquishment deed in the given circumstances of the case makes some 219 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 sense. But, these were the important aspects, they have not been touched by them for the reasons best known to the Lokayuktha Police Officers.
150.Likewise, even in respect of income derived from No.319 house at R.T.Nagar, the recent Memorandum of documents between DW. 2 and M/s Sathish Chandra Enterprises, who participated in the construction. So, according to me, the financial assistance given by Mr.Honnaiah in a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- and second installment of Rs. 30,000/- and lastly income received from M/s.Sathish Chandra Enterprises in a sum of Rs. 7,32,000/- shall have to be added to the total net income i.e. Rs. 37,16,208/-, the total net income will be (Rs. 37,16,208/- + 220 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 7,32,000/-) Rs.46,58,208/-.
151.This DW. 2 has raised hand loans from DW. 4 in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, DW.6 in a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, DW.7 in a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, DW.8 in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, DW.9 in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and lastly DW.13 in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The evidence of DW.4 to 9 and 13 have shown that they have also issued respective certificates/documents in their regard. Even though these witnesses were cross- examined, the factum of DW.2 receiving hand loans from them have not been disputed. Ultimately, common suggestions to these witnesses were that the respective documents issued by the persons who gave 221 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 the money were created, but for that the prosecution has not led any evidence. So, according to me, so long as the respective certificates are not set aside, this raising of hand loans cannot be disputed. So, according to me, a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- requires to be added to the total value of net income i.e. Rs. 46,58,208/-, the net total income would be Rs. 48,98,208/-.
152.In respect of Rs. 54,000/-, which is the worth of 54 cubic feet of teak wood given to DW. 2 for construction of house is concerned, there is no substantiation found to this document. But, it has already come in the evidence that with the able assistance of Mr.Honnaiah, DWs.3 and 4, that house was constructed. All along it was claimed by 222 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 DW. 4 that towards the latter part of her life after the death of her parents, she stayed in the house of DWs.1 and 2. Since she was a pensioner of Punjab National Bank, she substantially helped her younger sister DW. 2 not only for putting up construction work, but to her day today life. Hence, this amount of Rs. 54,000/- is not taken into consideration.
153.Likewise, interest of Rs. 1,25,000/- paid by the accused to the HDFC loan account, it has already came in the evidence that all these financial assistance were utilized for putting up construction of two houses at R.T.Nagar.
154.Coming to the last segment of this category, financial assistance from DW. 4 in 223 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- is concerned, there is a substantial evidence given by DW . 4 herself. When we go through this evidence, there can be no any second opinion in coming to the conclusion that Mrs.Kanthi who was the Officer in Punjab National Bank spoke about this aspect. Apart from canvassing her contention that she is also one of the party to the family settlement deed at Ex.D. 3, she spoke that she used to stay with her mother and when her mother died on 22-06-1988, she was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 51,000/-. In the year 2000 her salary was hardly Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Further, according to this lady, after the marriage of DW. 4, she started to live with DW. 2 and the relevant evidence 224 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 of this lady is extracted as follows:
"Whatever salary I received I have paid it to my younger sister Hemalatha. ... My personal expenditure was borne by my younger sister Hemalatha" and she has produced Ex.D. 39 to certify her stand in this regard. In fact in the cross-examination, some of the questions posed to this witness has brought out an one important element is, when she was a bank officer at Bengaluru, Hubballi, she was very much attached to the house of DW. 2 and she was continuously helping DW. 2, so this evidence of DW. 4 definitely show before the Court that this lady has financially helped DW. 2 and Ex.D. 39 itself is not disproved by the prosecution. So according to me, this Rs. 10 lakhs shall have to be added to the net income of Rs.225
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 48,98,208/-, the net total income will be Rs.
58,98,208/-. This is the total value of income of the accused and his family members.
155. The available calculation is:
Total value of assets is Rs. 28,26,307/- Total value of expenditure Rs. 3,96,671/-
Total Rs. 32,22,978/- The total value of lawful income is Rs.58,98,208/-.
156.When this calculation is kept in mind, income is much much much higher than the total value of assets and expenditure. So, there is no question of prosecution alleging that the accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. As I have said early, when the 226 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 items shown in the income category are looked into, all the investigating officers have not undertaken fair investigation. It can only show before the Court that some where in the line there are chances that it might be a pre-plan or pre-conceived notion only to see that value of assets and expenditure are shown on a higher rate/scale and income is kept low, only to submit a charge sheet before the Court. In this regard, according to me, some of the documents placed by the prosecution have not at all been marked. Rightly, the counsel for the accused relied upon the decision reported in 2009 AIHC Noc 800 (Mad) in the case of K.Subramani Vs. P.Rajesh Khanna, wherein the Hon'ble 227 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 High Court of Madras has held as "Mere marking of an exhibit on a document does not mean that the document has been proved". On similar analogy one more decision reported in 2010 4 SCC 49 in the case of LIC of India Vs. Rampal Singh Bisen, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as "Mere marking of an exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof which is required to be done in accordance with law." The principles enunciated in both the decisions squarely applicable to the case on hand. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. Accordingly, I 228 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 have answered this point No.1 in the negative.
POINT NO.2:-
157. Coming to the very important aspect of authorization as required under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, again there are many questions raised in respect of the Police Inspectors who conducted search and raid of the premises of the accused at Bengaluru as well as at Belgaum. Especially, the Police Officers by name Narayana Swamy and Jairaj who have been examined as PW. 8 and 9 are without any authorization. In fact, both PWs.8 and 9 were requested by their colleague Shashidhar PW. 7 who prepared the source 229 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 report to carry out raid at the premises of the accused both at Bengaluru and Belgaum. In this regard it is apt to look into the requirement of Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is extracted as under:
"Sec.17. Persons authorized to investigate: Notwithstanding any thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank....
provided further, than an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police."
158. Now both PWs.8 and 9 in their respective evidences have admitted that they had no any authorization, the relevant evidence found given by PW. 9 in his examination-in- chief is extracted as below:
"I was provided with two panch witnesses PW. 2 Syed Ejaz Razwi and C.W.5 and I was also given one of the warrants taken by PW. 7 and the said Dy.S.P. Shashidhar from the 230 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Court. Thereafter, I was asked to conduct the raid the house of the accused which is located at Opp. to Vittala Mandira, Kannamangala, Nelamangala Taluk on 23- 01-2000".
159.Likewise, coming to the evidence of PW. 8 by name Dr.Narayana Swamy who makes it very clear in his cross-examination, which is extracted as under:
" ನನ ಆರರಪಯ ಮನಯ ಶರಧನ ನಡಸ
ಪಚನಮಯ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಅಮನತಸ ಪಡಸಕಎಡ
ದಖಲಗಳನನ ಪಪ ಸ 7 ತನಖಧಕರಯವರಗ
ನರಡದದ ರನ . ಭಪ ಷಷ ಚರ ತಡ ಕಯದ ಯ ಕಲ 17
ರಡಯಲಲ ಹಗ ಸ . ಆರ. ಪ . ಸ . ಕಲ 165 ರಡಯಲಲ ತನಖ ನಡಸವದಕಕ ನನಗ ಯವದ ಅಧಕರವನನ ನರಡಲಗರವದಲಲ . "
160. Further, as I have extracted earlier, this witness also deposes that he has only collected the documents for the purpose of calculation and nothing else. Now, when both PWs.8 and 9 have under taken this investigation without any of the 231 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 authorization, definitely, it is against law. In this regard, I rely upon the following decisions:
(1) 2002(1) AIR Kar 425 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. B.Narayana Reddy, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held, investigation, is illegal. Accused was discharged/ offences under Sec.13(1)(e)- investigation entrusted to a lower rank officer i.e. Inspector of Police.
(2) 2006 AIR SCW 4576 in the case of State of A.P. by Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as "Respondent-accused had suffered miscarriage of justice as investigation made by Investigating Officer was not fair. Investigation is illegal".
(3) Lastly, 2010 (2) AIR KAR 413 in the case of Babappa Vs. State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha Police, 232 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held "Investigation by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police without authorization of law vitiates investigation".
The ratio laid down in these cases aptly applicable to the case on hand.
161. In this regard, the defence counsel also relies upon the following decisions which are applicable to the case on hand AIR 1963 SC 1116 in the case of M.Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala and one more decision reported in 2002 Cr.L.J. 845 (Karn) in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. B.Narayana Reddy.
162. The evidence of PWs.8 and 9 definitely cannot help the prosecution because they 233 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 were not authorized to take any type of work including investigation. The above citations makes it very clear that it has got the ramification of vitiating the entire trial. Now, whether PW. 7 Mr. Shashidhar was empowered to sub-delegate powers to PWs.8 and 9 is again another question. But, nevertheless as admitted by both PWs.8 and 9, they were only requested by PW.7 to undertake search and raid of the accused premises at different places. So, Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is blatantly violated. The accused has also raised another important aspect that PW.7 who is the Police Inspector has filed the source report and registered the FIR, but he has also undertaken investigation, that 234 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 resulted in this police officer acting in a dual capacity, which according to the accused, not permissible under law. When we go through the examination-in-chief of PW. 7, he admits that he submitted a source report and through this witness, Ex.P. 17 and P.17(a) came to be marked. Ex.P.18 is the authorization letter and Ex.P. 19 is the source report. Interesting aspect is that he undertakes further investigation of the matter. In fact, this witness collects information in respect of the vehicles stood in the name of DW. 2 and also collects RTC in respect of agricultural land situated at Ramadevana Halli at Doddaballapura Taluk and also bank account details in respect of the accused and his family members in 235 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 various branches situated in all over the State. In fact, the cross-examination of PW. 7 was mainly focused on this aspect to bring home the fact that the dual role played by PW. 7 is not permissible in the eye of law. In this regard, the accused relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000(2) ALD (CRI) 147 in the case of Maddu Laxmanarao, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "On information that a public servant had amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, the District Krishna ACB registered a case and took up investigation. This Court on the facts and circumstances of the case held that the complainant cannot act as 236 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 investigating officer and that the investigation is vitiated".
163.On the same footing, the other decisions are 1998 Cr.L.J. 3182 in the case of Xavier Vs. State of Kerala, 2975 SCC (Cri)737, in the case of Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 Cr.L.J. 377 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sheshadri Shetty. So, even these aspects have not been clarified by the prosecution, why authorization was not given to PWs.8 and 9, how did PW. 7 was authorized to undertake further investigation when he was a complainant and why there is a breach of Sec.17 proviso of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to me, these inherent defects found in the 237 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 prosecution papers definitely go to the root of the case. One cannot imagine the fact that if a Police Officer, if he is not empowered/is not authorized to undertake investigation barges into the house of any public servant by wrongly holding search warrant issued by the Court, then at the most it can only amount to misuse or abuse of process of law. When PWs. 8 and 9 are entrusted with the holy work of searching the articles, then seizing them by drawing a separate inventory, they must be empowered first under the law, then by the competent higher police officers/authority.
164.In the instant case, when PW. 7 is a complainant on behalf of the State who generated source report was asked to 238 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 register a FIR, takes up another task of undertaking further investigation. The law and procedure comes up with necessary checks and balances so in the given case on hand the complainant was not permitted to act as an Investigating Officer and this is only to see that he shall not be prejudiced against the accused. So, here definitely an adverse inference has to be drawn because when the items mentioned in the category of income are looked into, they are only two in numbers i.e., one is the salary for the check period of the accused and the other is the bank interest. Intentionally many items have been omitted. So, at no stretch of imagination the investigation undertaken by the Karnataka Lokayuktha police can be 239 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 termed as a fair investigation. Definitely the interest of the accused, the reputation of the accused and his service as a public servant have all been damaged because of these acts which are not legal. When there is an embargo for PWs.8 and 9, both have undertaken investigation without there being any authorization. Under such circumstances, the present case lacks authorization for the IOs also to look into the assets and expenditure and income of the accused.
165.During the course of arguments, the learned defence counsel also highlighted that on the basis of PWD code/circular that even the Asst.Engineer PW. 5 by name K.N.Srinivasan who conducted investigation 240 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 and submitted Ex.P. 8 valuation report is not a competent person to undertake these commissioner work. So, looked from any angle, there is a gross deviation from the required procedure to be adopted by the investigating agency to conduct and investigate as per law. The prosecution thoroughly failed to prove before the Court that both PWs.8 and 9 were legally empowered and authorized under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undertake firstly raid, search and to investigate the matter. I find force in the argument and submission made by the defence counsel. Accordingly, I have answered this point No.2 in the negative. 241
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 POINT NO.3:
166. Touching the allegation of criminal misconduct, it is for the prosecution to explain whether how and when that has been committed by the accused. Ultimately, any allegation made in respect of Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (unamended) can only touch the question of criminal misconduct. Here, the Lokayuktha Police Officers failed to segregate or to show before the Court that how benami transactions took place and how can the income, expenditure and assets of DW. 2 Hemalatha can also be construed as income of her husband when her economic status and footing is far far better than the DW. 1. So, these were the very important 242 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 circumstances to which the IOs failed to convincingly offer explanation.
167. The Learned Public Prosecutor through his written arguments submitted before the court that the accused has not only amassed wealth, but right royally found misusing and abusing his office powers and that no lenience be shown to him and conviction be given to him so as to send positive signals to the society at large. In this regard , he has relied on a decision reported in 2017 (6) SCC 263, in the case of State Of Karnataka vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"A. Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - S. 13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) - Disproportionate assets case -243
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 quantification of assets, expenditure and income during the check period - Evidentiary value of income tax returns/orders -Estoppel, if any, if prosecution fails to object thereto, or that State had accepted income concerned as lawful vide income tax orders- Preference to be given to direct evidence of the transaction(s) in question, whether they relate to alleged illegal acquisition/ possession of assets concerned/ expenditure incurred or to purportedly lawful sources of income, instead of income tax orders/returns relating thereto - This approach of the trial Court emphatically affirmed and applied by Supreme Court itself - Approach of High Court in principally relying on income tax orders/returns comprehensively rejected - [Ed.: This approach is evident in the manner of adjudication adopted by Supreme Court right through Short notes X to Y and YA to Z, below]
- Held, income tax orders and returns, no doubt are admissible but these are not conclusive proof as to whether assets or income concerned are from lawful source(s) as contemplated under S.13(1)(e) Expln., PC Act - Furthermore, omission on part of prosecution to question admissibility of income tax orders/returns would not endow contents thereof with probative efficacy.
- Income tax assessment proceedings are directed only to quantify taxable income and orders passed therein do not authenticate source as lawful and thus are not relevant for proving a charge under S.13(1)(e), PC Act
- Property in name of assessee cannot be a 244 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 ground to believe that it actually belongs to assessee -Otherwise corrupt public servants would amass wealth in names of known persons and pay income tax and then escape from law.
- Even otherwise, findings in one set of proceedings cannot be held to be binding on another set of proceedings and both have to be decided on basis of evidence adduced herein. "
168.So far as the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court definitely not in dispute, but the IOs who undertook the sacred errand of investigating the matter were completely powerless as they were not authorized to take such investigation. Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a mandate and operates as "shall" to the law implementing agency.
169.In the instant case, the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police cannot claim any 245 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 exemption in this regard. Further more, important items in the category of income seems to have been wantonly ignored or not considered for the reasons best known. All these aspects can only demonstrate before the Court that it was not a fair investigation. So, if it is not a fair investigation, then the investigation under taken by them in the present case has to be construed as what? This question haunts for ever. Under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt in the given circumstances shall have to be extended to the accused. Because, initially at the inception only, the approach adopted by the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police are completely wrong and erroneous. Hence, having found demerit in the case, I proceed 246 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 to pass the following :
O RD ER The accused is found not guilty of the offences alleged against him.
Acting under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused and his surety shall stand hereby discharged.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I and also to Stenographer, transcript thereof and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024).
(S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE & C/C OF LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.247
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 A N N E XU RE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 Dayananda Murthy
PW2 Syed Ejaz Razwi
PW3 Basavaraja Kalagoda Patil
PW4 Jayadeva Prakash
PW5 K.N. Srinivasan
PW6 P.R. Pashupathi Math
PW7 S.V. Shashidhar
PW8 Dr. D. Narayanaswamy
PW9 Jayaraj
PW10 Mohammad Jaffer
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of accused
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of Smt. Shoba Rani
Ex.P.1(d) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.2 Requisition letter dated 22.01.2000
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2
248
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW9
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of Kemparaj
Ex.P.4 Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW9
Ex.P.5 Covering letter dated 19.08.2004
Ex.P.6 Report of PW4
Ex.P.7 Estimate
Ex.P.8 Valuation Report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.9 Covering letter dated 15.12.2001
Ex.P.10 Authorization of Superintendent of
Police
Ex.P.11 Compilation of pay particulars
Ex.P.11(a) Covering Letter
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.12 Covering letter with the copies of
revenue documents from Tahsildar Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW6 with endorsement Ex.P.13 Revenue documents with G-tree Ex.P.14 Letter of Asst. Director of Sericulture, Chennapatna Division Ex.P.15 Letter of Senior Horticulture Director, Chennapatna Taluk Ex.P.16 Letter of Asst. Director of Agriculture, Chennapatna Ex.P.17 Source Report 249 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.18 Proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police Ex.P.19 FIR Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.20 Application under Sec.93 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.21 Three Search Warrants Ex.P.21(a) & Signature of PW8
(b) Ex.P.21(c) Warrant issued to PW9 Ex.P.22 PF No.1/2000 Ex.P.23 PF No.2/2000 Ex.P.24 PF No.3/2000 Ex.P.25 Letter of Sub-Registrar, Bannur Ex.P.26 Certified copies of the Sale deeds Ex.P.27 Letter containing details of vehicles Ex.P.28 'B' Extract of Hero Honda Motor cycle Ex.P.29 Letter of ARTO, Bangalore North Ex.P.30 'B' Extract of Mahindra Jeep Ex.P.31 'B' Extract of Maruti Omni Ex.P.32 'B' Extract of Ambassador car Ex.P.33 Letter of Tahsildar, Doddaballapura Ex.P.34 RTC's (9) and Mutations Ex.P.35 Letter of Manager, SBM Ex.P.36 Accounts Extract of Smt. Muddamma Ex.P.37 Letter of SRO, Doddaballapura (along with five certified copies of the Sale 250 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Deeds) Ex.P.38 Copies of Sale deeds (5) Ex.P.39 Letter dated 23.02.2000 of SBM, Holalu Branch Ex.P.40 11 Documents attached with Ex.P.39 Ex.P.41 Letter of Registrar of Firms, Bengaluru Ex.P.42 Four documents sent with Ex.P.41 Ex.P.43 Letter of SRO, Bannur Ex.P.44 Two Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.45 Letter of New India Assurance Co.
Hassan Branch Ex.P.46 Copy of the Policy with proposal and receipt Ex.P.47 Letter of Tahsildar, Maduvalli Taluk Ex.P.48 13 RTC's Ex.P.49 Letter of Dena Bank Branch, PNT Colony, RT Nagar, Bengaluru Ex.P.50 Accounts extract Ex.P.51 Connected documents of Dena Bank Ex.P.52 Letter of M/s. Mahindra Finance Ex.P.53 Documents of Hire purchase pertaining to Mahindra Jeep Ex.P.54 Letter of Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru Ex.P.55 Connected documents in respect of SB account details of Smt. Geetha Ex.P.56 Letter of Assistant Executive 251 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Engineer (Electrical) Bengaluru Ex.P.57 Electricity charges details Ex.P.58 Letter of Tahsildar, Mandya Ex.P.59 RTC's (6) and One Khatha Extract Ex.P.60 Letter of Income Tax Ward/ 6(2) Ex.P.61 Extract of the Income Tax Assessment Ex.P.62 Mahazar Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.62(b) Signature of Sathish Ex.P.63 Sanction Order Ex.P.64 Letter dated 28.12.2001 of Joint Director, State Huzur Treasury, Bengaluru Ex.P.65 Salary particulars of the AGO Ex.P.66 Letter dated 17.01.2002 of the then Dy. Director of Treasuries, District Treasury, Mysore Ex.P.67 Extract of the check register of AGO Ex.P.68 Letter dated 20.11.2001 of Treasury Officer, Hassan Ex.P.69 Copy of the KTC 18 regarding Salary, allowance of AGO Ex.P.70 Letter dated 12.09.2011 of District Treasury Officer, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore Ex.P.71 Statement showing salary details of the AGO Ex.P.72 Letter dated 18.09.2000 of Treasury 252 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Officer, Mandya Ex.P.73 Statement showing salary particulars of the AGO Ex.P.74 Letter dated 11.09.2011 of District Treasury Officer, Chikkamagalur Ex.P.75 Statement showing details of duty period of pay and allowance of the AGO Ex.P.76 Letter dated 16.01.2002 of District Treasury Officer, Shimoga Ex.P.77 Statement showing salary details of AGO Ex.P.78 Letter dated 11.10.2001 of Deputy Director of Treasury, Gulbarga Ex.P.79 Statement showing salary details of AGO Ex.P.80 Letter dated 11.09.2011 of Dy.
Director of Treasuries, District Treasury, Belgaum Ex.P.81 Letter dated 23.01.2000 of Branch Manager, SBI, RT Nagar, Bangalore Ex.P.82 Letter dated 15.05.2004 of Branch Manager, SBI, RT Nagar, Bangalore Ex.P.83 Statement of account showing details of SB account of the AGO Ex.P.84 Statement of account showing details of SB Account of the wife of AGO Ex.P.85 Statement of account showing the details of Current account of AGO Ex.P.86 Letter dated 28.01.2000 of Senior 253 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Ex.P.87 Letter dated 27.01.2004 of Senior Manager, LIC of India, KG Road Branch, Bangalore Ex.P.88 Letter dated 05.02.2004 of LIC of India, JC Road Branch, Bangalore Ex.P.89 Letter dated 14.10.2004 of Post Master, RT Nagar, HPO, Bangalore Ex.P.90 Letter dated 06.01.2005 of Manager, Kanishka Gas Agency Ex.P.91 Subscription voucher dated 06.04.1987 of Kanishka Gas Agency Ex.P.92 Letter dated 14.10.1995 of AGO Ex.P.93 Subscription voucher dated 16.01.1995 of Kanishka Gas Agency Ex.P.94 Details of booking quantity of cylinder Ex.P.95 Letter dtd.07.02.2004 of Assistant Revenue Officer, Jayamahal Division, Queen's Road, Bangalore Ex.P.96 Letter dtd.10.02.2004 of Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.), KPTCL, E- 1, Sub-Division, Bangalore Ex.P.97 Letter dtd 22.05.2000 of AGM, Comml. North, Bangalore Telecom District Ex.P.98 Statement Ex.P.99 Letter dtd.2/04.06.2004 of Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Water supply and Sanitary Sub-Division, RT Nagar, 254 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Bangalore Ex.P.100 Statement showing the details of monthly demand consumption, recovery etc. of wife of AGO Ex.P.101 Letter dtd 26.10.2004 of St. Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore Ex.P.102 Statement showing the details of fee paid by the AGO Ex.P.103 Letter dtd 23.11.2004 of Principal, Baldwin Boys High School Ex.P.104 Letter dtd.01.10.2004 of Principal, Asha Kiran Special Needs School Ex.P.105 Letter dtd.05.02.2004 of Senior Officer - Legal, HDFC Ltd., Kasturba Road, Bangalore Ex.P.106 to Statements of Loan account of AGO P.109 and his wife Ex.P.110 Letter dtd.16.11.2004 of Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Chamarajanagar Ex.P.111 Statement showing details of Income Tax Ex.P.112 Intimation under Sec.143(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 Ex.P.113 Letter dtd.11.01.2005 of Under Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore Ex.P.114 to Property details furnished by AGO P.116 Ex.P.117 Letter dtd 29.12.2004 of Under 255 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Secretary, Finance Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore Ex.P.118 Letter dtd. 20.04.2004 of Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Rural District, Bangalore Ex.P.119 Letter dtd.04.08.2004 of Registrar of Firms, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore Ex.P.120 Partnership registered in the name of Madakari Resorts Ex.P.121 Letter dtd.22.04.2002 of Sub-
Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore Ex.P.122 to Extracts of the Sale Deeds P.124 Ex.P.125 Letter dtd.28.08.2011 Ex.P.126 Letter of Accounts Officer dtd 28.08.2001 Ex.P.127 Letter of Accounts Officer dtd.05.02.2000 Ex.P.128 Service details of the AGO Ex.P.129 Letter dtd 15.10.2004 with regard to Delta Net.com Ex.P.130 Letter dtd. 11.08.2000 of Tahsildar, Mandya taluk Ex.P.131 Letter of Bank Manager, Sree Thandaveshwar Swamy Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank, Holalu, Mandya Ex.P.132 Letter dtd 27.05.2000 of Tahsildar, Malavali taluk 256 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.133 Letter dtd.31.03.2000 Ex.P.134 Letter dtd. 02.05.2000 of Asst.
Revenue Officer, Revenue
department, Hebbal Range,
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Ex.P.135 Extract of Tax Assessment Register issued by the Asst. Revenue Officer, Revenue department, Hebbal Range, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Ex.P.136 Extract of Tax Assessment Register issued by the Asst. Revenue Officer, Revenue department, Hebbal Range, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Ex.P.137 Letter dtd.21.02.2000 of Tahsildar, T.Narasipura taluk Ex.P.138 to RTCs P.146 Ex.P.147 to Extracts of M.R.s issued by the P.155 Tahsildar, T.Narasipura taluk for the year 1995-96 Ex.P.156 to RTCs P.159 Ex.P.160 to Extracts of M.R.s issued by the P.162 Tahsildar, T.Narasipura taluk for the year 1996-97 Ex.P.163 Annual Property returns filed by the accused (9 in numbers) Ex.P.164 Cheque of Malleshwaram Co-
operative Bank Ex.P.165 Cheque of State Bank of Travankur 257 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.166 Lease Agreement dated 19.02.1997 Ex.P.167 Lease Agreement dated 23.07.1991 Ex.P.168 Rental Agreement dated 04.05.1996 Ex.P.169 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.170 On Demand Promissory Note dated 15.06.1996 Ex.P.171 NSC Certificates and P.172 Ex.P.173 Share Certificate of Kubera Mutual Benefit Limited Ex.P.174 Two receipts of Telecom Department, Bengaluru Ex.P.175 Telephone Registration Card Ex.P.176 Share Certificate of Unit Trust of India Ex.P.177 Acknowledgement of UTI Ex.P.178 LIC receipts (10 Nos) Ex.P.179 LIC Policy (2 Nos) Ex.P.180 Chit Fund pass book Ex.P.181 Dena Bank pass book Ex.P.182 Syndicate Bank pass book Ex.P.183 Two Cheque books of Sudha Co-
operative Bank Ex.P.184 Cheque book of Syndicate Bank Ex.P.185 Cheque book of Dena Bank Ex.P.186 Payment receipt from Automobile Service Centre, Victoria Road Ex.P.187 Invoice of Swarna Chakra Company 258 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.188 Insurance cover note of TVS Excel Ex.P.189 Insurance premium paid receipt Ex.P.190 Two vouchers from Kanishka Gas Agency Ex.P.191 Invoice of Mejestic Motors Ex.P.192 RC book of the vehicle bearing No.KA 04 L 1395 Ex.P.193 to Acknowledgements from Sub- P.196 Registrar, Doddaballapur (4 Nos) Ex.P.197 Acknowledgement from Sub-
Registrar, Bengaluru South Ex.P.198 Endorsement from Sub-Registrar, and P.199 Bengaluru South (2 Nos) Ex.P.200 Memo of understanding dated 12.06.1996 Ex.P.201 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 16.09.1998 Ex.P.202 Sale Agreement dated 03.09.1998 Ex.P.203 Sale Deed dated 18.08.1997 Ex.P.204 Sale Deed Ex.P.205 Sale Deed Ex.P.206 On Demand Promissory Note dated 17.04.1999 Ex.P.207 Ledger book (Page 1 to 184) Ex.P.208 Pass book of Gokul Chit Fund Ex.P.209 Requisition letter for issuance of cheque book Ex.P.210 Tax receipts (3 Nos) 259 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.211 Tax receipts (2 Nos) Ex.P.212 Show cause notice from BBMP Ex.P.213 Endorsement from BBMP Ex.P.214 Licence letter from Karnataka Forest Department Ex.P.215 Delivery note from Sales Tax Department Ex.P.216 Bill from Timber Merchant, Sagara. Ex.P.217 Work Order from BWSSB Ex.P.218 Payment Receipt towards road digging Ex.P.219 Payment Receipt from Sanitary Wing of BWSSB Ex.P.220 Copy of the Application sent to BWSSB along with 3 blue prints of the house Ex.P.221 Receipt towards payment of Sales Tax by Abhiman Bar and Restaurant Ex.P.222 Declaration in Form - III in respect of Abhiman Bar and Restaurant Ex.P.223 Professional Tax receipt Ex.P.224 Receipts towards payment of Sales and 225 Tax Ex.P.226 to Declaration in Form - III in respect of P.229 Abhiman Bar and Restaurant (4 Nos) Ex.P.230 to Copy of Receipts towards payment of P.233 Sales Tax (4 Nos) Ex.P.234 Certificate of Abhiman Bar and Restaurant 260 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.235 Bill for purchase of Alcohol from Balaji Enterprises Ex.P.236 Copy of the licence for transport of Narcotics Ex.P.237 Bill for purchase of Alcohol from Excel Enterprises Ex.P.238 Copy of the licence for transport of and P.239 Narcotics (2 Nos) Ex.P.240 Bill for purchase of Alcohol from and P.241 Balaji Enterprises (2 Nos) Ex.P.242 Statement of sale of Abhiman Bar and Restaurant for the month of February Ex.P.243 Copy of the Statement of sale of Abhiman Bar and Restaurant for the month of October Ex.P.244 Copy of the licence for transport of Narcotics Ex.P.245 Copy of the receipts for the payment and P.246 of Sales Tax Ex.P.247 Statement of sale of Abhiman Bar and P.248 and Restaurant for the month of March and April'1991 Ex.P.249 Annual turnover statement in respect of Abhiman Bar and Restaurant Ex.P.250 Receipt towards payment of fine on Sales Tax Ex.P.251 to Summons (7 Nos) P.257 261 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.258 to Notices under KST Act (5 Nos) P.262 Ex.P.263 Professional Tax receipt in Form - 33 Ex.P.264 to Statement of Sales of Abhiman Bar P.266 and Restaurant (3 Nos) Ex.P.267 to Notices from Commercial Tax P.269 Department (3 Nos) Ex.P.270 Sales Tax Assessment Order Ex.P.271 to Sales Tax paid Receipts (5 Nos) P.275 Ex.P.276 to Charge sheets (7 Nos) filed in the P.282 cases registered by Sales Tax Department Ex.P.283 Annual turnover statement of and P.284 Abhiman Bar and Restaurant (2 Nos) Ex.P.285 Notice given by Commercial Department Ex.P.286 Court Notices to Anand Wines (2 Nos) and P.287 Ex.P.288 Copy of the first sheet of the Application in C.Misc.3432/1999 registered by Commercial Tax Department Ex.P.289 to Receipts regarding payment of permit P.296 fee to Excise Inspectors of Hebbal Zone (8 Nos) Ex.P.297 Sales Tax Assessment Order Ex.P.298 Payment receipt issued by the Karnataka Wine Merchants Association 262 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.299 Copy of application for renewal of licence Ex.P.300 Payment receipt for Rs.15,000/- Ex.P.301 Registration Certificate and and P.302 Profession Tax Certificate Ex.P.303 Map related to Abhiman Bar and Restaurant Ex.P.304 Pass book of Dena Bank Ex.P.305 Pass book of Post Office Ex.P.306 One cheque leaf each in two Cheque and P.307 books of Dena Bank Ex.P.308 7 counter foils of Dena Bank Ex.P.309 Notice dated 28.08.1999 from LIC Ex.P.310 LIC installments paid receipts (3 Nos) Ex.P.311 LIC installments paid receipts (13 Nos) Ex.P.312 LIC installments paid receipt Ex.P.313 LIC installments paid receipt Ex.P.314 Premium Notice dated 04.03.1999 issued by LIC Ex.P.315 LIC installments paid receipts (3 Nos) Ex.P.316 LIC installment paid receipt Ex.P.317 Letter dated 28.03.1995 to L.I.C Ex.P.318 LIC installments paid receipts (2 Nos) Ex.P.319 Letter dated 18.03.1996 of LIC Ex.P.320 Letter dated 30.03.1996 of LIC Ex.P.321 Letter of allotment of site dated 04.03.1998 of National Technological 263 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Institute Ex.P.322 Visiting card of Plywood Associates Ex.P.323 Two estimate receipts of Nateshan Enterprises Ex.P.324 Payment Receipt of Sri Balaji Plywoods Ex.P.325 Receipt regarding payment of rent for ground floor Ex.P.326 Receipt for payment to Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Tarikere Ex.P.327 Receipt for payment to Lakshmi Saw Mill Ex.P.328 Official memorandum regarding ground rent charges paid by Koppa Conservator of Forests Ex.P.329 Approval letter dated 08.09.1994 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Ex.P.330 Form - 29 dated 08.09.1994 issued by Karnataka Forest Department Ex.P.331 Letters dated 06.07.1999 to Gulbarga Post Office (4 Nos) Ex.P.332 Sale deed dated 26.02.1997 Ex.P.333 Sale deed dated 28.01.1980 Ex.P.334 G.P.A. Cancellation letter dated 13.08.1997 Ex.P.335 Certificate dated 14.06.1998 Ex.P.336 GPA dated 20.07.1989 264 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.337 Rental Agreement dated 01.07.1997 Ex.P.338 Certificate dated 20.07.1989 Ex.P.339 GPA dated 13.03.1992 Ex.P.340 Letter dated 31.10.1998 regarding renewal of a policy by LIC Ex.P.341 Registration fee receipt dated 16.01.1993 issued by Sub-Registrar, Channapatna Ex.P.342 Registration Fee Receipt dated 13.08.1997 issued by Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk Ex.P.343 Letter of one Jagdish dated 14.07.1995 regarding receipt of money Ex.P.344 Vehicle Insurance Certificate from United India Insurance Company Ex.P.345 Receipt of Spice Telecom Ex.P.346 A map relating to Plot No.618 of Phase 2, HAL Ex.P.347 R.C. book of vehicle No. KA 09 Q 4153 Ex.P.348 R.C. book of vehicle number CKI 4255 Ex.P.349 Note book Ex.P.350 Notice dated 29.12.1998 of Tahsildar, Mandya Ex.P.351 Endorsement dated 11.09.1997 by the Land Survey Office Ex.P.352 Payment Receipt dated 22.10.1994 of Shantaveereshwar Saw Mills 265 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.P.353 Two payment receipts dated and P.354 09.03.1995 of Shankar Wood Industries Ex.P.355 Form 29 issued by Tirthahalli Forest Department Ex.P.356 Form 29 issued by Anavatti Forest Department Ex.P.357 Two notices dated 05.10.1999 and and P.358 20.09.1999 issued to Anand Wines by the Commercial Tax Authorities Ex.P.359 Notice dated 11.04.1999 issued to Anand Wines by the Commercial Tax Authorities Ex.P.360 Order dated 30.03.1999 of the Commercial Taxes Department Ex.P.361 Receipt dated 19.06.1998 of Commercial Tax Officers Ex.P.362 Notice dated 15.04.1999 issued by the Commercial Tax Authorities to Anand Wines Ex.P.363 Order dated 30.03.1999 of the Commercial Tax Department Ex.P.364 Endorsement dated 01.04.1999 of Commercial Tax Officer Ex.P.365 Cash Bill dated 31.07.1998 issued by Balaji Enterprises to Anand Wines Ex.P.366 Copy of the statement of Anand Wines Ex.P.367 Permission letter issued by Bangalore Excise Inspector regarding Liquor 266 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 shipment Ex.P.368 Copy of the order dated 07.02.1996 of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore Ex.P.369 Certificate issued by Bangalore Collector of Excise in Form C.L. - 2 Ex.P.370 Power of Attorney dated 03.07.1998 Ex.P.371 Order dated 31.03.1999 of Commercial Tax Department Ex.P.372 Notice dated 01.04.1999 of Commercial Tax Department Ex.P.373 Copy of the application dated 02.01.1999 by Anand Wines to the Commercial Tax Authorities Ex.P.374 Copy of the statement dated 20.05.1999 Ex.P.375 Tax Assessment Order of Commercial and P.376 Tax Department Ex.P.377 Notice dated 05.04.1999 of Commercial Tax Department Ex.P.378 Commercial Tax Department Payment Receipt Ex.P.379 Copy of Liquor transaction statement Ex.P.380 Map of the Liquor store LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
NIL 267 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW1 R. Rajanna DW2 Hemalatha H. DW3 Mohan H. DW4 H. Kanthi DW5 N. Karigowda DW6 C. Mohan DW7 Devegowda DW8 Nagarathnamma DW9 Usha DW10 Sathish DW11 B.K. Madhukumar DW12 H.V. Summegowda DW13 Ravindranath Prabhu DW14 Nagaraj Dattathreya Bhat LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Assets and Liabilities Statement of accused Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the Sale Deed Ex.D.2(a) Relevant portion marked in Ex.D.2 Ex.D.3 Family Settlement Deed Ex.D.4 Release Deed Ex.D.5 Articles of Agreement between accused wife and M/s. Sathish Chandra Enterprises 268 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.D.5(a) Signature of DW2 Ex.D.5(j) Signature of DW10 Ex.D.6 Copies of Income Tax Returns Ex.D.7 Unregistered Partnership Deed with Kanva Eco System Ex.D.8 Copies of Indra Vikas Patra, Kisan Vikas Patra, Social Securities Certificates and NSC Certificates Ex.D.9 Letter of DW6 Ex.D.9(a) Signature of DW6 Ex.D.10 Letter of DW7 Ex.D.10(a) Signature of DW7 Ex.D.11 Letter of DW8 Ex.D.11(a) Signature of DW8 Ex.D.12 Letter of DW9 Ex.D.12(a) Signature of DW9 Ex.D.13 Report of DW14 Ex.D.13(a) Signature of DW14 Ex.D.14 to Copy of the Report of DW14 and D.19 other documents Ex.D.14(a) Signature of DW14 to D.19(a) Ex.D.20 Letter Ex.D.21 Detailed profile of accused as per Volume - I Ex.D.22 Detailed profile of accused as per Volume - II Ex.D.23 Release Deed 269 Spl.C.C. No.591/2015 Ex.D.24 to Salary particulars of Smt. Kanthi D.26 Ex.D.27 Copy of the caveat in Special Leave Petition in 9732/1989 Ex.D.28 Copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition in 9732/1989 Ex.D.29 Copy of a letter dated 02.09.1989 Ex.D.30 Copy of a letter dated 28.09.1989 Ex.D.31 Copy of a letter dated 20.10.1989 Ex.D.32 Copy of a letter dated 15.11.2009 Ex.D.33 RTC Extracts Ex.D.34 File containing appreciation letters, incentives and cheques received by accused Ex.D.35 Certificate of Village Accountant Ex.D.36 Mutation Order Ex.D.37 Certificate of Punjab National Bank Ex.D.38 Certificate of Commemoration by Punjab National Bank Ex.D.39 Copy of Pension Payment Order (S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE & C/C OF LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.