Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayukta vs N.Shanthkumari on 12 August, 2025
KABC010191112015
IN THE COURT OF LXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act), BENGALURU.
(CCH No.79)
Present: Sri. Nandeesha. R.P., B.A., LL.B., LLM.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
C/c LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge (Special Judge P.C. Act.),
Bengaluru.
Dated: 12th August 2025
Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Complainant: The State of Karnataka
Represented by the Lokayukta Police,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Reptd., by Ld., Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: Smt. N. Shanthakumari
BBMP Member,
Ward No.127, Moodalapalya,
Bengaluru.
R/at No.03, 4th B Cross,
Byraweshwara Nagar,
Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bengaluru560 072.
(Reptd., by Sri. Parameshwara N.
Hegde, Advocate)
2 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Date of commission of offence : From 25.11.1996 to
17.12.2011
Date of report : 02.11.2011
Date of arrest of accused : Not arrested
Date of release of accused on bail : 07.09.2015
Date of commencement of evidence : 22.07.2019
Date of closure of evidence : 06.03.2023
Name of the complainant : Sri. M. Jayaram
Offence complained of : Section 13(1)(e)
r/w. Section13(2) of
the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, by name Sri. Mohamad Mukaram has laid this charge sheet against the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The complainant Sri. M. Jayaram has given a written complaint to the office of the Lokayukta, Bengaluru, in turn office of the Lokayukta has referred 3 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the case to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, City Division, Bengaluru for investigation. On the basis order of the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta police, City Division, Bengaluru, CW73/PW2 has registered the case in Cr.No.67/2011. CW73/PW2, CW74/PW8, and CW75/PW9 have conducted investigation, after completion of the investigation, PW9 has laid this Charge Sheet against the accused making allegation the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
On 25.11.1996 the accused by name Smt. N. Shanthakumari was elected as councilor of BBMP and she was also a member of various Standing Committees of BBMP from December1997 to November2006 and she was also a Deputy Mayor from November 2004 to December 2005, on the date of raid she was a member of BBMP. During the check period, which starts from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011, total value of assets of the 4 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused and her family members was Rs.2,72,89,920 75, total expenses of the accused and her family members was Rs.1,61,00,35364 and total income of the accused and her family members was Rs.2,95,38,275 67, thus during the check period the accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.1,38,51,99872 i.e., 46.90% excess to her known source of income and she could not give satisfactory accounts for the disproportionate assets thereby, the accused has committed the aforesaid offence. Thus, according to the prosecution, value of the assets, expenditure and income of the accused and her family members during the check period are:
Assets Rs.2,72,89,92000
Expenditure Rs.1,61,0035300
Income Rs.2,95,38,27500
Disproportionate Assets Rs.1,38,51,99800
(46.9%)
4. As there are primafacie materials to take
cognizance, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken and process was issued 5 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 against the accused. In response to the summons, the accused has appeared through her counsel and she was on bail. Heard arguments of both sides on question of charges and as there are sufficient materials to frame charges, the charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her, after understanding the same, the accused has not pleaded guilty and she claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined 9 witnesses and got marked 142 documents. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are as under:
Sl. Witness Name of the Evidence given Exhibits No. Number witness about marked Submission of his complaint before office of Lokayukta, obtaining information from PW1/ Sri. M. Ex.P1 to Ex.P
1. BBMP office about CW1 Jayaram 32 service and salary of the accused, production of documents about properties of 6 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused and her family members.
Registration of FIR, receipt of documents from offices of Sub Registrar, BBMP Ex.P33 to office, Schools, PW2/ Sri. Anjan Ex.P44 and
2. Colleges, Banks, LIC CW73 Kumar K. Ex.P46 to Ex.P office, RTO office 117 etc., Search and Mahazar in the houses of accused and her relatives.
Search and Mahazar Ex.P47(b)
Sri. in the house of Ex.P47(c),
PW3/
3. Gangarudrai accused Ex.P49(b)
CW2
ah Ex.P49(c),
Ex.P49(d)
Search and Mahazar
PW4/ Sri.
4. in the house of one Ex.P52(a)
CW5 Sreedhar
Sri. Gopal
Assessment of
construction cost of
PW5/ Sri. R. buildings, which Ex.P108 (a) to
5.
CW10 Nithin belong to the Ex.P108 (h)
accused and her
family members
Providing APRs
details, details of
service of the
Sri. Dr. K. N.
PW6/ accused in BBMP,
6. Chandrashe Ex.P75(a)
CW8 her salary and
kar
allowance details to
the Investigating
Officer
Assessment of cost of
PW7/ Sri. H.A. maintenance and
7. Ex.P77(a)
CW50 Upendra expenses incurred
for rearing of dogs
8. PW8/ Sri. Receipt of property Ex.P118 to P
CW74 Narasimham documents and 127 and P135
urthy P. details of expenses of
the accused and her
husband
7 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Receipt of details of
expenditure of the
Sri. Ex.P108(i),
PW9/ accused, receipt of
9. Mohamed Ex.P136 to
CW75 documents of
Mukaram Ex.P142
properties and
registration of FIR
6. The documents got marked by the prosecution are as under:
Witness through Exhibit Nature of document whom the number document marked Ex.P1 Copy of Form. No. 1 (Complaint) PW1 Copies of information obtained Ex.P2 PW1 under RTI Copy of affidavit of the accused filed Ex.P3 PW1 before the Election Commission.
Copy of the sale deed dated
Ex.P4 PW1
02.07.2003
Ex.P5 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P6 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P7 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P8 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P9 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P10 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P11 True copy of GPA PW1
Ex.P12 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P13 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P14 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P15 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P16 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P17 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P18 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P19 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P20 True copy of the sale deed PW1
8 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Ex.P21 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P22 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P23 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P24 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P25 True copy of the agreement of sale PW1
Ex.P26 True copy of the agreement of sale PW1
True copy of the agreement of sale Ex.P27 PW1 deed True copy of the agreement of sale Ex.P28 PW1 deed True copy of the agreement of sale Ex.P29 PW1 deed True copy of the agreement of sale Ex.P30 PW1 deed Ex.P31 True copy of agreement of sale. PW1 Ex.P32 True copy of the ale deed PW1 Authorization order by S.P., Ex.P33 PW2 Lokayuktha Ex.P34 FIR PW2 Sale deed of Sy.No. 50/P2 Sy.No. Ex.P35 PW2 169 and E.C., Sale deed of Site No. 2/83/2, Nagarabhavi and Sale deed of Site Ex.P36 PW2 No. 2/83/2 of Nagarabhavi and E.C., Sale deed of site No. 78 of Ex.P37 Nagarabhavi, memorandum of PW2 deposit of title deed and E.C., Account statement of H. Ravikumar Ex.P38 PW2 in Union Bank.
Sale deed of Site No. 83/74, Ex.P39 PW2 Nagarabhavi and E.C., Sale deed of Site No. 78, Ex.P40 PW2 Nagarabhavi and E.C., Sale deed of Site No. 152, Ex.P41 PW2 Nagarabhavi and E.C., Ex.P42 Sale deed of Site No. 2/83/2 of PW2 Nagarabhavi, sale deed of Site No. 47 of Malagala Village, sale deed of Katha No. 821 and E.C., 9 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Bank account statement of accused Ex.P43 PW2 in Syndicate Bank.
Bank account statement of Ex.P44 PW2 husband of accused in ICICI Bank.
Ex.P46 Report of Search Warrant PW2
Ex.P47 Search warrant PW2
Ex.P48 P.F. PW2
Ex.P49 House search mahazar PW2
Ex.P50 Report of Police Inspector PW2
Ex.P51 Search warrant PW2
Ex.P52 House search mahazar PW2
Ex.P53 Search warrant PW2
Ex.P54 House search mahazar PW2
Ex.P55 Report of Police Inspector PW2
Ex.P56 P.F. PW2
Loan account statement and A/c.
Ex.P57 No. 635 in Rajajinagar CoOperative PW2 Bank of H. Ravikumar E.C. of Site No. 2/83/2 of Ex.P58 PW2 Nagarabhavi Account statement of H. Ex.P59 Ravikumar in Janatha Seva Co PW2 Operative Bank Account statement of H. Ex.P60 PW2 Ravikumar in Canara Bank Agreements of sale dated 09.09.2008, 11.07.2008, Ex.P61 PW2 28.08.2008, 09.09.2008 & 28.08.2008 Accounts statement of accused in Ex.P62 PW2 Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P63 Mobile bill statement of accused. PW2
Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P7 and
Ex.P64 PW2
16/P7
Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P4 and sale Ex.P65 PW2 deed of Sy.No. 16/P4 Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P6 and Ex.P66 PW2 16/P6 Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P5 and Ex.P67 PW2 16/P5 10 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Sale deeds of Sy.No. 50/P3 and Ex.P68 PW2 50/P5 Ex.P69 Sale deed of Sy.No. 50/P5 PW2 Ex.P70 Sale deed of Sy.No. 50/P4 PW2 Sale deed and consent deeds of Ex.P71 PW2 Sy.No. 67, Ex.P72 BSNL phone bill statement PW2 School fee details of son of the Ex.P73 PW2 accused Sharath Kumar Details of premium paid towards Ex.P74 PW2 Reliance Policies Details of period of service of the Ex.P75 PW2 accused given by BBMP.
Details of stamp duty, gift deed in Ex.P76 PW2 favour of husband of accused.
Details of expenses of rearing of Ex.P77 PW2 dogs.
Passport particulars of accused and Ex.P78 PW2 her husband.
College fee details of son of the Ex.P79 PW2 accused Sharath Kumar.
LIC policy details of husband and Ex.P80 PW2 sons of accused.
Ex.P81 Details of Bescom bills PW2 Ex.P82 Vehicle details of K.A.41 S 5319. PW2 Ex.P83 Details of health insurance. PW2 Account statement of accused in Ex.P84 PW2 Canara Bank.
Ex.P85 LIC policy details and premium PW2
Ex.P86 Revenue receipts etc., PW2
Ex.P87 ITR details of accused PW2
SBI account details of son of the
Ex.P88 PW2
accused Bharath Kumar
College fee details of son of the
Ex.P89 PW2
accused Bharath Kumar
LIC policy details of husband of the Ex.P90 PW2 accused Ex.P91 Muthoot Finance loan details PW2 Ex.P92 Revenue details of the properties of PW2 husband of the accused 11 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Revenue details of the properties of Ex.P93 PW2 husband of the accused Ex.P94 Sale deed PW2 Medical expenses details of the Ex.P95 PW2 accused.
Ex.P96 Letter of Bescom PW2 Details of Registration and stamp Ex.P97 duty of Site No. 48, Rajarajeshwari PW2 Nagar, Bengaluru.
Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank Ex.P98 PW2 accounts statement of the accused. Details of electricity charges paid by Ex.P99 PW2 husband of the accused.
Details of electricity charges paid by Ex.P100 PW2 husband of the accused.
Details of electricity charges paid by Ex.P101 PW2 husband of the accused.
Details of purchase of solar water Ex.P102 PW2 heater.
Janatha Seva CoOperative Bank Ex.P103 PW2 details of husband of the accused.
Registration and Stamp duty details Ex.P104 PW2 of site No. 38/2 of Mallathalli Details of water charges and deposit Ex.P105 PW2 in BWSSB.
Registration and Stamp duty details Ex.P106 of site assessment No. 47 of PW2 Nagarabhavi Registration and Stamp duty details of Sy.No. 64/1, 64/2 and 64/3 site Ex.P107 PW2 assessment No. 47 of Nagarabhavi Report of cost of construction of Ex.P108 PW2 buildings.
Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank Ex.P109 accounts statement of husband of PW2 accused.
Ex.P110 Details of fee paid by husband of PW2 accused towards the sketch for construction of house No. 47, Malagala, Bengaluru.
12 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Stamp duty and registration fee Ex.P111 paid towards Site assessment No. PW2 83/1 of Nagarabhavi Details of School fee paid for Ex.P112 education of son of the accused PW2 Bharath Kumar.
Details of School fee paid for Ex.P113 education of son of the accused PW2 Bharath Kumar.
Kanaka Loka CoOperative Bank Ex.P114 PW2 account details of the accused.
Stamp duty and registration fee Ex.P115 paid towards Sy.No. 10, 46/3 and PW2 46/4.
Education fee details of son of the Ex.P116 PW2 accused Sharath Kumar SBI account details of son of the Ex.P117 PW2 accused Sharath Kumar Stamp duty and registration fee Ex.P118 paid towards assessment No. 47 PW8 (Katha No. 2875) Details of expenses made by Ex.P119 husband of the accused in Gold PW8 Finch Hotel.
Details of membership fee paid by Ex.P120 the husband of the accused in PW8 Satellite Club.
Details of property tax paid by husband of the accused for Sy.No. 3 Ex.P121 PW8 (Property No. 47 and 48), Malagala Village.
Details of water charges paid by the Ex.P122 husband of the accused for Site No. PW8
3.
Details of payment made towards Ex.P123 PW8 gas connection and cylinders.
Details of payment made towards Ex.P124 PW8 gas connection and cylinders.
Ex.P125 Education fee details of son of the PW8 accused Bharath Kumar.
13 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Ex.P126 Sale deeds of Sy.No. 67 . PW8 Details of gold loan obtained by Ex.P127 PW8 husband of the accused.
Ex.P128 Authorization of S.P. given to PW9. PW9 Ex.P129 Report of invisible expenditure PW9 Stamp duty and registration fee Ex.P130 paid towards Katha No. 47 (Site No. PW9
8) Stamp duty and registration fee Ex.P131 paid towards Municipal No. 55 (Site PW9 No. 14) Stamp duty and registration fee Ex.P132 paid towards Katha No.821 (Site PW9 No. 2 and 3) Details of account of H. Ravikumar Ex.P133 PW9 in Rajajinagar CoOperative Bank. Copy of sale deed and other details Ex.P134 of Site No. 74 (Assessment No. 83) PW9 Nagarabhavi.
Authorisation given by S.P. Ex.P135 PW8 Lokayukta to PW8 Details of stamp duty and registration fee paid for Sy.No. Ex.P136 PW9 83/1 (Site No. 2 and 3 of Mudalapalya.
Details of water fee paid for Ex.P137 BWSSB in respect of Site No. 3 of PW9 Mudalapalya.
Documents traced out at the time of Ex.P138 PW9 mahazar Copies of rent agreements dated Ex.P138 (a) PW9 03.11.2006 and 17.09.2006 Copies of rent agreements dated 03.10.2007, details of allowance Ex.P138 (b) PW9 paid to the accused and statement of Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P139 Copies of documents PW9 Ex.P139 (a) Details of revenue paid by the PW9 accused, copies of gift deed, sale deed etc., 14 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Copies of ITRs acknowledgement Ex.P140 PW9 etc., Ex.P141 (a) to Receipts of purchase of electronic PW9 Ex.P141 (o) items Ex.P142 Phone bills and travel expenses PW9
7. After closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined, her statement was recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, wherein the accused has denied all incriminating evidence appeared against her and she has chosen to lead evidence on her side. In order to probabalise her defence, the accused has got examined 7 witnesses including herself and got marked 6 documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. The witnesses examined and documents got marked by the accused are as under:
Sl. Witness Name of the witness Evidence given about No. No. Business of husband of the
1. DW1 Sri. Y.S. Srinivas accused and sale transaction with him Money transaction between the
2. DW2 Sri. K. Ravikumar accused and his father Krishnamurthy Golden ornaments said to be kept
3. DW3 Sri. Manjula in the house of accused Money transaction between him
4. DW4 Sri. A.S. Manjunath and husband of the accused Money transaction between him
5. DW5 Sri. Kariyappa and husband of the accused 15 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Relationship with the accused, his business, income, purchase of properties, receipt of gifts, golden
6. DW6 Sri. H. Ravikumar ornaments and properties purchased and sold by him and his wife.
About family members, nature of
7. DW7 Sri. Shanthakumari N. work of her husband, her income, her job, her APR and ITR etc.,
8. The documents got marked by the accused on her side are as follows:
Exhibit Witness through whom
Nature of document
number marked
Ex.D1 Sale agreement DW1
Ex.D2 Death Certificate DW2
Ex.D3 Hand Loan Agreement DW2
Ex.D4 Affidavit of Smt. S. Manjula DW3
Ex.D5 Hand Loan Agreement DW4
Ex.D6 Hand Loan Agreement DW5
9. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has also submitted his written arguments twice. The Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused have also relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts. The learned public prosecutor has relied on following decision:16 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
i. 2021 (4) Crimes 141 (SC), (Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., v/s Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr); ii. 2017 (6) Supreme Court Cases 263 (State of Karnataka v/s J. jayalalitha and others); iii. Crl.A. No.996/2011 (Mr. E.D. Prasad v/s State of Karnataka) by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has relied on the following decisions:
i). 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 379 (State of Maharastra v/s Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla);
ii). G. Malliga, Selvaraj and others v/s. State (High Court of Madras);
iii). (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 (State of Maharashtra v/s Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar);
iv). (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 (M. Krishna Reddy v/s State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad);
v). (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 442 (Vasant Rao Guhe v/s State of Madhya Pradesh);
vi). 2000 CRI.L.J. 1178 (Subhash Kharate v/s State of M.P.);
vii). (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 185 (Kaptan Singh and Others v/s State of MP and Others);
viii). (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171 (Vijender v/s State of Delhi);17 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
ix). (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 62 (Director of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi v/s Ranaq Education Foundation);
x). (1995) 1 SCR 185 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v/s Ogale Glass Works Ltd, Ogale Wadi);
xi). 1998 SCC OnLine AP 752 (G.V.S Lingam v/s State of A.P.);
xii). 1963 SCC OnLine SC 48 (Sajjan Singh v/s State of Punjab);
xiii). Crl.A.No.53/2017 (Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras);
xiv). 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4053 (Virendra Singh v/s Central Bureau of Investigation).
11. After hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused and perusal of the materials on record, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
1. Does the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused being a public servant in the capacity of a Corporator of BBMP, Ward No.127 and also member of several Standing Committees of the BBMP, during the check period from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011 was found in possession of disproportionate assets worth about Rs.1,38,51,99872 i.e., 46.90% disproportionate to her known source 18 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of income, for which she could not satisfactorily account, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What order ?
12. After hearing the arguments of both sides, perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on record and applying the principles of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court which have been relied on by both sides, I have answered the above said points as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
13. Point No.1: It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of the charge sheet the accused was not a public servant and hence no sanction is required hence no sanction order obtained to file the charge sheet. It is also an admitted fact that, the accused has challenged order of this Court dated 25.03.2019 in Crl.R.P.No.551/2019 19 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court, in that petition the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that 'if the accused is not a public servant for a period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 the assets said to have been earned by the accused for the said period cannot be taken note of by the trial court at the time of considering the merits of the matter'.
14. After hearing the arguments of learned public prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused and perusal of oral and documentary evidence, I came to know that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. In his crossexamination, the investigation officer/ PW9 has admitted that from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 the accused was not a public servant. The prosecution has not disputed the defence of the accused that the accused ceases to be a public servant for the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. As stated above, the investigating officer has taken the check period from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011. The accused has not disputed the case of 20 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the prosecution that the accused was a public servant from 25.11.1996 to 23.11.2006 and from 23.04.2010 to 17.12.2011. Further, the accused has not disputed the sanctioning order and also the authorization issued for investigating officers of the Lokayukta for investigation of the case. Before proceeding to discuss the factual aspects, I keep in mind the settled principles to be followed in deciding a case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 13(1)(e), namely:
(1) the prosecution must prove that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which are found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known source of income i.e., known to the prosecution, (4) it must prove that the resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known source of income. If the prosecution has successfully proved these ingredients to the satisfaction 21 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of the Court, the burden shifted to the accused to account for such resources or property. If the accused not able to account for such resources or property the offence under Section 13(1)(e) becomes complete, if he able to account for the properties which he owns, then the prosecution has made out no case. I have also kept in mind that the accused should account for his properties to the satisfaction of the Court means he has to establish his case by preponderance of probabilities and it is not necessary for him to establish his case by proving it beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of burden placed on his is not the same as one placed on the prosecution. Keeping in mind these settled principles of law, I proceed to discuss oral and documentary evidence and also the points urged by both sides at the time of arguments.
15. Arguments of the learned public prosecutor:
(a). In Crl.R.P. No.551/2019 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed this court not to consider 22 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 'assets' of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 and the Hon'ble High Court has not directed not to consider expenditure, hence expenditure incurred by the accused in this period should be taken into consideration. Issue of check period has already been settled before the Hon'ble High Court, so this court should confine to that order of the Hon'ble High Court, if this court gives different interpretation, it would amounts to contempt. Since the accused has not proved what was her income before the check period, question of considering spilling over income does not arise, the prosecution has successfully proved the mahazar, raid in the house of accused, the investigating officer has collected all documents pertaining to the assets, income and expenditure of the accused and lead evidence of witnesses who supported case of the prosecution, thereby the prosecution has proved that the accused was having disproportionate assets during the check period hence, she is liable for conviction. 23 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
16. Arguments of learned counsel for the accused:
(a). In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, this Court cannot consider the assets acquired by the accused during the period between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, similarly this Court has to exclude the expenditure incurred by the accused and her family members. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, if the income is probabalized, same has to be given credit to the accused, since the Investigating Officer has admitted and furnished the details of the income received by the accused and her family members during the period between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, income of the accused during this period has to be taken into consideration. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt and he needs to bring out preponderance of probability, but the prosecution has failed to prove that during the check 24 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 period the accused was in possession of disproportionate assets. In his chief examination, PW9 who is the Investigating Officer has not stated the reason for taking particular assets as assets of the accused and so also the expenditure. The Investigating Officer has not considered the spilled over income, the accused and her husband were having income before the check period and also in the middle of the check period when the accused was not a public servant, thus there is a defect in investigation and the Court has to consider the spilled over income. The investigating officer has not deposed assigning reason for excluding certain income of the accused and her family members. Fixation of the check period is not only wrong but also unscientific.
17. In the light of this argument of learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has ordered not to consider assets for a period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 if the 25 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused was not a public servant during that period. On the other hand, the prosecution has also not objected the contention of the accused that the accused was not a public servant in for during a period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Undisputed fact is that this Court has framed charge on 25.03.2019, wherein the check period is considered as from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011. The accused has filed Crl.R.P. No.551/2019 after framing of the charge and accused has not challenged the check period considered by this Court while framing charge. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not split the check period, but directed this court not to consider the assets during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 if the accused is not a public servant in that period. As aforesaid, when the Hon'ble High Court has issued this direction, this Court has to consider the expenses made and income earned by the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not the assets of accused. It is pertinent to note that as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, in the final 26 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 report, the Investigating Officer has not stated anything about the assets and income of the accused on the day immediately before the check period. The arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is that the spilled over income and assets have to be taken into consideration by the Court. But the learned public prosecutor has argued that there is no compulsion under law to consider previous income, income means the income known to the prosecution, if there was a spilled over income accused has to establish it through his evidence.
18. Admittedly, nowhere in the final report, the investigating officer has mentioned about spilled over income of the accused before commencement of check period, but the accused has also not even stated what was her income and assets immediately before the check period, though the husband of the accused and the accused are examined on defence side as DW6 and DW 7 respectively, they have not deposed that they were having certain income and assets previous to the check 27 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 period. It is settled principles of law that 'known source of income' means 'income known to the prosecution'. If really the accused was having some income and assets before commencement of check period, she should have disclosed it before the investigation officer or before the court. In her schedule submitted to the investigating officer by the accused, she has not stated that she was having certain income and assets before commencement of the check period. Even in the cross examination of PW9, the learned counsel for the accused has not suggested that the accused was having some assets and income immediately before the check period i.e., before 25.11.1996 and but he has not considered it. Apart from this, the accused has also not contended that spilled over income was used to purchase the assets in the check period. Thus, the accused has not probabalised existence of the assets spilling over from anterior period. During the course of arguments also the learned counsel for the accused has not mentioned what was the spilled over income of the accused and what are all the assets 28 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 existing immediately before the date of check period. Interestingly, even in her schedule which was submitted to the Investigating Officer, the accused has not mentioned about her assets and income which were said to be existing immediately before the check period. Therefore, I decline to give credit to the accused on the income side.
19. Further arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is that the investigation is biased one, it involved political element, the check period should provide correct picture, the check period considered by the investigating officer would prejudice the accused. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 379 (State of Maharashtra v/s Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla). In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that:
16. the choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and 29 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 rests. However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the facts and circumstances of a case, a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such a true and comprehensive picture. The assets spilling over from the anterior period, if their existence is probabalised, would, of course, have to be given credit to on the income side and would go to reduce the extent and the quantum of the disproportion".
20. I have applied the principles of the decision to the case on hand. In the present case, the investigating officer has taken the check period from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011. As aforesaid, the accused has filed Crl.R.P. No.551/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein it is held that:
'...However, the observation made by the learned trial judge that taking advantage of the definition that the public servant is to be construed for the purpose of appreciating the case of the prosecution is concerned, it is crystal clear that if the accused is not a public servant for a period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the assets said to have been earned by the accused for the said period cannot be taken note of by the trial court at 30 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the time of considering the merits of the matter....'
21. Thus, after considering the check period taken by the investigating officer, the Hon'ble High Court has held as mentioned above. Further, the check period considered by the investigation officer is taken to assess the assets, expenditure and income of the accused after excluding the period mentioned by the Hon'ble High Court, the period taken is capable and sufficient to get true comprehensive picture of assets, expenditure and income of the accused. Further, the accused has not probabalised existence of spilling over income from anterior period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the check period would not prejudice the accused in any way.
22. The learned counsel for the accused has further argued that, in his entire chief examination Investigating Officer (PW9) has not spoken the reason for taking particular assets as assets of the accused so also the expenditure, similarly he has not deposed assigning 31 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 reason for excluding certain income of the accused and her family members, therefore the Court cannot decide the case relying only on the investigation in the absence of evidence. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 185 which arose between Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of MP and another and also (1997) 6 SCC 171 which arose between Vijender vs. State of Delhi. The gist of these decisions is that 'a trial court is required to base its conclusion solely on the evidence adduced during the trial and it cannot rely on the investigation or the result thereof'. It is further held that ''the result of investigation under Chapter XII of Criminal Procedure Code is a conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws on the basis of materials collected during the investigation and such conclusion can only form the basis of a competent court to take cognizance there upon under Sec.190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case for trial, where the materials collected during investigation 32 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 are to be translated into legal evidence'. I have applied principles of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court to the case on hand. In the background of observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have gone through the evidence of PW9. After perusal of para No.1 to 169 of the evidence of PW9, I came to know that Investigating Officer has deposed on the basis of the materials collected during at the time of Investigation. The Investigating Officer has also gone through the documents while giving evidence which were collected in the case during the course of investigation and he has also deposed why he has accepted the contents of the documents and report of the experts. At para No.169 of his evidence, PW9 has deposed why and how he concluded that the accused and her family members were having disproportionate assets during the check period. When that being the case, argument of the learned counsel for the accused that Investigating Officer has not spoken the reason for taking particular assets as assets of the accused and so also the expenditure and he 33 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has not given reason for excluding some income hence his evidence cannot be considered for decisions of the case, not holds good. After given findings to the legal questions raised by the learned counsel for the accused, I proceed to discuss about the assets said to be earned by the accused during the check period.
23. As per the final report, the Investigating Officer has considered assets under 73 heads, out of 73 heads of assets, the accused has not disputed 42 heads of assets and she has disputed only 31 heads of assets.
The heads of assets and their value/ purchase price, which are considered by the investigating officer and heads of assets and their value/price, according to the accused are as follows: Property Value of assets as Sl. Description of Value of assets as Code per investigating No. Assets per the accused No. Officer Value of the site and Construction cost on Rs.3,60,00000 + Rs.3,60,00000 + 1 A11 Site No.63 & 64 of (2 Rs.22,33,93000 Rs.15,00,00000 & 3) of Nagarabhavi Value of the 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16, 2 A12 present No.16/p7 of Rs.2,40,00000 Rs.2,40,00000 Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Value of Site 3 A13 No.2/83/2 of Rs.3,30,00000 Rs.3,30,00000 Nagarabhavi Village 34 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Value of the site and Rs.1,32,00000 + Rs.1,32,00000+ 4 A14 Construction cost on Rs.22,80,49700 Rs.11,50,00000 Site No.47 of Malagala Value of Site No.2 & 3 5 A15 of Nagarabhavi Rs.8,21,00000 Rs.8,21,00000 Village, Mudalapalya Value of 2 acre 33 guntas at Sy.No.16, 6 A16 present No.16/p7 of Rs.2,82,50000 Rs.2,82,50000 Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Value of 3 acre at Sy.No.16, present 7 A17 No.16/p7 of Menasi Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000 Village, Doddaballapura Value of 3 acre at Sy.No.16, present 8 A18 No.16/p7 of Menasi Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000 Village, Doddaballapura Value of Site No.1, 4th 'B' Main Road, 9 A19 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.1,00,00000 Byraveshwara Nagar, Nagarabhavi Value of site and Construction cost on Rs.30,00,00000 + Rs.30,00,00000 + 10 A110 Site No.78 of Rs.6,99,60500 Rs.3,00,00000 Nagarabhavi Value of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p3, 11 A111 Kannamangala Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Village, Doddaballapura Value of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p5, 12 A112 Kannamangala Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Village, Doddaballapura Value of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p4, 13 A113 Kannamangala Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Village, Doddaballapura Purchase price of 14 A114 Sy.No.67, Rs.10,00,00000 Rs.00 Doddaballapura Purchase price of 15 A115 Sy.No.464/1 of Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.00 Kollegala 16 A116 Purchase price of Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Kollegala 35 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Purchase price of 17 A117 Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Rs.62,50000 Rs.00 Kollegala Purchase price of 18 A118 Sy.No.116/B of Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Kollegala Purchase price of 19 A119 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Sy.No.88 of Kollegala Purchase price of 20 A120 Rs.62,50000 Rs.00 Sy.No.116 of Kollegala Purchase price of 21 A121 Sy.No.228/1 of Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Kollegala Purchase price of 22 A122 Sy.No.50/p2 of Rs.25,00,00000 Rs.00 Kollegala Value of site No.14, Ward No.38, 23 A123 Rs.4,72,00000 Rs.4,72,00000 Nagarabhavi Main Road Construction cost on 24 A124 Site No.8 of Rs.15,27,36400 Rs.9,00,00000 Nagarabhavi Value of property bearing Assessment 25 A125 Rs.1,98,00000 Rs.1,98,00000 No.47, Katha No.2875 of Nagarabhavi Village Purchase price of Site 26 A126 Rs.3,36,00000 Rs.00 No.48 of Malagala Value of Sy.No.169 of Kannamangala 27 A127 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Village, Doddaballapura Value of property bearing House List 28 A128 Rs.00 Rs.00 No.5, Katha No.1200 of Mallathalli Village Value of Site No.7, 29 A129 Rs.00 Rs.00 Nagarabhavi Village Value of Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 & 64/3 of 30 A130 Rs.7,20,00000 Rs.7,20,00000 Ranganathapura, Doddaballapura Value of Sy.No.10, 46/3 & 46/4 of 31 A131 Rs.1,90,00000 Rs.1,90,00000 Chikkadevarahalli Village, Kanakapura Value of Site No.8, 32 A132 Rs.00 Rs.00 Nagarabhavi Village 33 ABA1 Balance amount in Rs.57800 Rs.57800 A/c.
No.4242010090711 of 36 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Syndicate Bank Balance amount in 34 ABA2 A/c. No.15901520429 Rs.19,50300 Rs.19,50300 of ICICI Bank Balance amount in A/c.
35 ABA3 Rs.4,52600 Rs.4,52600 No.563402010000577 of Union Bank Balance amount in A/c. No.014995 of 36 ABA4 Rs.12,72300 Rs.12,72300 Janatha Cooperative Bank Balance amount in A/c.
37 ABA5 Rs.2,01500 Rs.2,01500 No.31941401001774 of Canara Bank Balance amount in A/c.
38 ABA6 Rs.2,44600 Rs.2,44600 No.04282010104266 of Syndicate Bank Balance amount in A/c. No.635 of 39 ABA7 Rs.8,21800 Rs.8,21800 Rajajinagar Co operative Bank Balance amount in A/c.
40 ABA8 Rs.38,14,65300 Rs.14,65300 No.8401101027550 of Canara Bank Balance amount in 41 ABA9 A/c. No.31665883104 Rs.4,35000 Rs.4,35000 of State Bank of India Balance amount in A/c. No.3812 of 42 ABA10 Rs.2,90200 Rs.2,90200 Cauvery Kalpataru Gramina Bank Balance amount in A/c. No.64074953326 43 ABA11 Rs.1,38700 Rs.1,38700 of State Bank of Mysore Payment made to 44 AB1 Souharda Credit Co Rs.5,52500 Rs.00 operative Ltd., Payment made to 45 AB2 Souharda Credit Co Rs.5,52500 Rs.00 operative Ltd., Share Certificate No 003275 of Janatha 46 AB3 Rs.3,00000 Rs.3,00000 Seva Cooperative Bank Shares in GGSE 47 AB4 Rs.8,00000 Rs.8,00000 Financial Ltd., 48 AV1 Value of Honda Deo Rs.42,12800 Rs.42,12800 No.KA41HM5319 37 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Gold articles found in 49 AJ the house of the Rs.17,45,70000 Rs.8,64,22500 accused Silver articles found 50 ASA in the house of the Rs.1,59,90000 Rs.00 accused Household articles 51 AHA found in the house of Rs.10,33,91300 Rs.4,11,80000 the accused 52 ALIC1 LIC premium Rs.80,00000 Rs.00 53 ALIC2 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 54 ALIC3 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 55 ALIC4 LIC premium Rs.2,19,22000 Rs.1,09,20000 56 ALIC5 LIC premium Rs.2,17,53000 Rs.1,09,17000 57 ALIC6 LIC premium Rs.1,60,64400 Rs.80,32200 58 ALIC7 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.54,98100 59 ALIC8 LIC premium Rs.1,66,60800 Rs.83,30400 60 ALIC9 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.54,98100 BESCOM deposit 61 ADE1 towards House No.3, Rs.2,01000 Rs.2,01000 Byraveshwara Nagar BESCOM deposit 62 ADE2 towards House No.3, Rs.12,80000 Rs.12,80000 Byraveshwara Nagar BESCOM deposit 63 ADE3 towards House No.47, Rs.34,44000 Rs.34,44000 Malagala BESCOM deposit towards House No.8, 64 ADE4 Rs.1,15,07000 Rs.1,15,07000 Nagarabhavi Main Road BESCOM deposit 65 ADE5 towards House No.78, Rs.1,71000 Rs.1,71000 Nagarabhavi Telephone deposit 66 ADT1 towards Phone Rs.3,75000 Rs.3,75000 No.08023217778 BWSSB deposit 67 AWC1 towards House No.47 Rs.1,14,37000 Rs.1,14,37000 of Malagala BWSSB deposit towards House No.3 68 AWC2 Rs.2,34000 Rs.2,34000 of Byraveshwara Nagar Membership for 69 AC1 Bangalore Gurmith Rs.3,86000 Rs.00 Club Membership for Sati 70 AC2 Rs.10,65500 Rs.00 Light Club 71 AGC1 Payment made Rs.80000 Rs.80000 towards Gas 38 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Payment made 72 AGC2 Rs.1,90000 Rs.1,90000 towards Gas Deposit towards 73 ACM1 Rs.2,40000 Rs.2,40000 mobile Total Rs.2,72,89,92000 Rs.1,34,03,87500
24. As the value of assets taken by the investigating officer and the accused is contrary to each other, I proceed to discuss the heads of 'assets' one by one so as to arrive at a conclusion about possession of assets by the accused, their purchase price etc., A. ASSETS OF ACCUSED (I). AI1: Site Nos.63 and 64 in assessment No.83/1 and the building, in Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). As per the final report, husband of the accused by name H. Ravikumar has purchased these sites on 17.01.2003 for a sum of Rs.3,60,00000 and he has put up a residential house over these sites, cost of the construction was Rs.22,33,93000, cost of construction of the building has been assessed by the Executive Engineer, who has submitted the report, hence the Investigating Officer has considered Rs.25,93,93000 as an asset of the accused. 39 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (Rs.3,60,00000 as purchase price of the sites and Rs.22,33,93000 as cost of construction). PW2 who has collected documents from office of SubRegistrar, Peenya, Bengaluru has got marked those documents as Ex.P111. PW9 has deposed about purchase price of the site and cost of construction. The accused has admitted purchase value of the sites, but he has not admitted the case of the prosecution that husband of the accused has spent Rs.22,33,93000 for construction a residential building in the said sites. The learned public prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved purchase value as well as cost of construction by examining PW5, hence same has to be considered as asset of the accused. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution has got marked certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.03.2003 as Ex.P5 through PW1, which says that Sri. H. Ravikumar has purchased site No.63 and 64 for Rs.3,60,00000. At para No.11 of his evidence, PW9 has deposed that he has considered purchase 40 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 price of the sites on the basis of Ex.P111. A perusal of Ex.P5 and Ex.P111 (copy of the sale deed which is at page No.455 of Book No.3(1), shows that husband of the accused has purchased these sites for Rs.3,60,00000. As aforesaid, the accused has not disputed purchase price of the sites, but he has objected cost of construction of the building. Therefore, I would like to discuss only about the cost of construction of the building.
(b). As per the Final Report, the building was assessed by PW5, who is the Executive Engineer who has reported that cost of construction of the building was Rs.22,33,93000, hence the Investigating Officer has considered the same towards asset of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that Investigating Officer has got assessed the cost of construction through PW5 who visited and assessed the cost, apart from that the prosecution has also got examined PW5, if the accused was not satisfied with the Report of an expert, she should have got assessed 41 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the building, but no assessment report is filed by the accused, hence Report given by PW5 cannot be rejected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that in his cross examination, PW5 has admitted that he has not enquired owner of the building while assessing the property, he has not verified the materials used for the construction and his Report does not accompanied with the Notification or Circular indicating the rate adopted by him to calculate the cost of construction. He further argued that in his evidence, husband of the accused (DW6) has deposed that he has spent Rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs for construction and there is no suggestion by the learned prosecutor in this regard, therefore value of the property is to be considered as Rs.15,00,000
00.
(c). In his chief examination, DW6 has deposed that he has spent Rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs for construction of the house. In his crossexamination, 42 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 DW6 has denied the suggestion of the learned public prosecutor that he has not produced any document to show how much amount has spent for construction of the house. But no document has been produced by the accused or by DW6 to show cost of construction. DW6 has further denied the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that he falsely deposed that he spent rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs for construction of the house. But DW6 has admitted the suggestion of the learned Public prosecutor that he has put up ground floor in 1,400 sq.ft., 1st floor in 1,200 sq.ft. and flooring of the 1st floor is made of granite and he used teak wood. PW5 has deposed that he has visited site No.2 and 3 of Nagarabhavi Village on 12.09.2012, he has measured ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor and assessed the cost of the construction as per the Circular of the Department of Karnataka State Registration and Stamps. A perusal of Report of PW5, which is marked as Ex.P108 and P108(a) makes it clear that PW5 has measured 43 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 ground floor, 1st and 2nd floor, he has fixed the price as per the Notification of the Department of Karnataka State Registration and Stamps and hold that cost of the construction was Rs.22,33,93000.
(d). The Report further reveals that the building assessed by him was of RCC building, flooring was of granite and used teak wood. In Ex.P108(a), PW5 has mentioned that he has considered the measurement and the materials used for the construction to assess cost of the building. In his crossexamination, PW5 has denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that the Circular of the Department of Karnataka State Registration and Stamps is only for registration of the document. It was further suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that he had to assess the cost of the construction on the basis of the Notification of the PWD. For this suggestion witness has stated that there was no such Notification. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that though PW5 has denied his 44 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 suggestion, cost of the building has to be assessed as per the notification of Public Works Department. No doubt, notification of Karnataka Registration and stamps is only for the purpose of registration of document, but not to assess the cost of the buildings. The Karnataka Public Works Department issues Karnataka Schedule of Rates for Buildings comprising of the Specifications, Rate Analysis & Technical details for the State Engineers time to time in the form of G.O. for valuation purposes. Therefore, I am of the opinion that PW5 should have assessed the building on the basis of the specification given in the notification of the year by the Karnataka Public Works Department. Apart from this, in his cross examination, PW5 has stated that he has not enquired owner of the building and he has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the materials seen by him and he did not find out what are all other materials used for construction. I am of the opinion that unless an expert dig the ground to know what 45 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 materials used to put up basement and to dig the wall and pillars to know what type of cement used for construction of walls and what was the quality of pillars used to put up 1st and 2nd floors, one cannot assess the cost of the building. Further, PW5 has not deposed whether he was an expert to assess or find out what type of wood used for doors, cupboards and windows.
(e). It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that Report of PW5 is not accompanied with the Circular based on which rate has been applied. After I have gone through the report (Ex.P
108), I came to know that PW5 has specifically mentioned that on the basis of Notification of the Department of Karnataka State Registration and Stamps he has assessed the building, which is to be used for the purpose of registration of immovable properties. In that event, if the report of PW5 is accepted, definitely it would cause injustice to the accused. Now, the question is, if report of PW5 is not 46 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accepted what is the way to conclude about cost of construction. Admittedly, the accused has not got assessed the cost of construction and not produced any document to show that cost of construction was only Rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs. But, primary burden was on the prosecution to prove that husband of the accused has spent an amount of Rs.22,33,93000 for construction of the building, if the prosecution able to prove its contention then only the burden shifts on the accused to substantiate his contention or to rebut the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that admittedly, husband of the accused has got constructed the building, therefore considered view of this court is that in the absence of acceptable evidence on cost of construction, husband of the accused is the proper person to say about cost of construction. When the prosecution has failed to substantiate its contention to the satisfaction of the court that cost of construction is Rs.22,33,93000, admitted cost of construction has to be accepted. In 47 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 his chief examination, DW6 has specifically deposed that he has spent Rupees 14 lakhs to Rupees 15 lakhs for construction of the building and he withstood his cross examination. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the accused that he had spent Rupees 15 lakhs for construction of the building. Accordingly, I have considered cost of construction at Rs.15,00,00000. Thus, the total value of Asset No.1 ie., AI1 is considered as Rs.18,60,00000 (purchase price of site: Rs.3,60,00000 + cost of construction:
Rs.15,00,00000).
(II). AI2: 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16/p7 of Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer, by considering sale deed dated 02.07.2003 has taken this site as an asset of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this site for Rs.2,40,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to consider this property as an asset of the accused. The prosecution 48 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has also got marked copy of sale deed dated 02.07.2003 as Ex.P64. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property (AI2) as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.2,40,00000.
(III). AI3: Site No.2/83/2 of Khata No.2964 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). The investigating officer, by considering sale deed dated 27.03.2003 has taken this site as an asset of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this site for Rs.3,30,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to consider this property as an asset of the accused. The prosecution has also got marked copy of sale deed dated 27.11.2003 as Ex.P42. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property (AI3) as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.3,30,00000.
49 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(IV). AI4: Site No.47 in Sy.No.3 of Malagala, Yeshwanthpura and a building on this site:
(a). As per the final report, on 23.06.2004 husband of the accused Sri. H. Ravikumar has purchased this property for Rs.1,32,00000 and constructed a building spending Rs.22,80,49700, hence this property is considered as an asset of accused and its value at Rs.24,12,49700. The accused has not disputed purchase of the site for Rs.1,32,00000 and construction of the building on it. But the accused has disputed the contention of the prosecution that cost of construction is Rs.22,80,49700. As there was no dispute regarding purchase value of the site and as the sale deed dated 23.06.2004 (Ex.P7) states that the site was purchased for Rs.1,32,00000, I considered purchase price of the site at Rs.1,32,00000.
(b). Now, cost of the construction of the building has to be decided. As aforesaid, as per the contention of the prosecution, cost of construction is Rs.22,80,49700, but the accused has contended 50 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 that it is Rs.11,50,00000. As discussed under AI1 above, PW5 has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the Notification of the Department of Karnataka State Registration and Stamps, but not on the basis of Notification of Karnataka Public Works Department. PW5 has given a report which is at Ex.P108(e). It was the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that he had to assess cost of the construction on the basis of the Notification of the PWD. For this suggestion witness has stated that there was no such Notification. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that though PW 5 has denied his suggestion, cost of the building has to be assessed as per the notification of PWD. No doubt, the notification of Karnataka Registration and stamps is only for the purpose of registration of document, but not to assess the cost of the buildings. The Karnataka Public Works Department issues Karnataka Schedule of rates for Buildings comprising of the Specifications, Rate Analysis & Technical 51 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 details for the State Engineers time to time in the form of G.O. for valuation purposes. Therefore, I am of the opinion that PW5 should have assessed the building on the basis of the specification given in the notification of the year of the Karnataka Public Works Department. Apart from this, in his cross examination PW5 has stated that he has not enquired the owner of the building and he has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the materials seen by him and he did not find out what are all other materials used for construction. I am of the opinion that unless an expert dig the ground to know what materials are used to put up basement, unless he dig the wall to know what type of cement used for construction of walls and what was the quality of pillars used for construction to put up 1st and 2nd floors, one cannot assess the cost of the building. Further, he has not deposed whether he was an expert to find what type of wood used for doors, cupboards and windows.
52 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(c). It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that Report of PW5 is not accompanied with the Circular based on which rate has been applied. After I have gone through the report [Ex.P 108(e)], I came to know that PW5 has mentioned that on the basis of Notification of the Department of Karnataka State Registration and Stamps he has assessed the building, which is to be used for the purpose of registration of immovable properties. In that event, if the report of PW5 is accepted, definitely it would cause injustice to the accused. Now, the question is if report of PW5 is not accepted what is the way to conclude about cost of construction. Admittedly, the accused has not got assessed the cost of construction and not produced any document to show that cost of construction was only Rs.11,00,00000 to Rs.11,50,00000. But, primary burden was on the prosecution to prove that husband of the accused has spent an amount of Rs.22,80,49700 for construction of the building, if 53 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the prosecution was able to prove its contention then only the burden shifts on the accused to substantiate his contention or to rebut the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that admittedly, husband of the accused has got constructed the building, therefore it is considered view of this court that in the absence of acceptable evidence on cost of construction, he is the proper person to say about cost of construction. When the prosecution has failed to substantiate its contention to the satisfaction of the court that cost of construction is Rs.22,80,49700, admitted cost of construction has to be accepted. DW6 has specifically deposed that building was constructed in the years 2004 in which there were 12 rented houses, it was constructed under his supervision and he has spent Rs.11,00,00000 to Rs.11,50,00000. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the accused that he had spent Rs.11,50,00000 for construction of the building. Thus, total value of asset No.AI4 is considered as Rs.12,82,00000 (purchase price of 54 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 site: Rs.1,32,00000 + cost of construction:
Rs.11,50,00000).
(V). AI5: Site Nos.2 and 3 in Sy.No.83/1 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). By considering the sale deed dated
06.07.2004, the investigating officer has taken these properties as assets of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased these sites for Rs.8,21,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to consider these sites as assets of the accused. The prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P10. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted these sites as assets of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.8,21,000
00. (VI). AI6: 2 acres 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.16/p4 of Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer by considering the sale deed dated 10.03.2005 has considered this 55 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 property as an asset of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.2,82,50000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that she has no objection to consider purchase value of this property as her asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale deed, dated 10.03.2005 as Ex.P13, which proved purchase of this property by husband of the accused for Rs.2,82,50000. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.2,82,50000.
(VII). AI7: 3 of acres land in Sy.No.16/p4 of Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer by considering the sale deed dated 04.03.2005 has added this property to the list of assets of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.3,00,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to 56 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 consider purchase value of this property as her asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P14, which state that husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.3,00,00000. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.3,00,00000.
(VIII). AI8: 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16/p5 of Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer on the basis of the sale deed dated 07.03.2005 has considered this property as an asset of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.3,00,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to consider purchase value of this property as her asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P12, which states that husband of the accused had purchased this property 57 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 for Rs.3,00,00000. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.3,00,00000.
(IX). AI9: Site No.1 of Khata No.1233 and Assessment No.83 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). On the basis of the sale deed dated 05.04.2006, the investigating officer has considered this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,00,00000. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.1,00,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to consider purchase value of this property as her asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P39, as per this document husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.1,00,00000. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,00,00000. 58 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (X). AI10: Site No.78, situated at 8 th block, of Nagarabhavi Extension, Bengaluru and the building constructed on this site:
(a). As per the contents of final report, on 25.06.2006 husband of the accused has purchased this property for Rs.30,00,00000 from one Chaudhari and put up a building over it by spending Rs.6,99,60500, this property is considered as an asset of accused and total price of the site was Rs.30,00,00000 and cost of construction is Rs.6,99,60500, hence, total amount of Rs.36,99,60500 is considered as an asset of the accused. Though the accused has admitted purchase value of the site, she has not admitted cost of construction and she has contended that building was constructed by spending Rs.3,00,00000 only. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has got marked copy of the sale deed and other related documents as Ex.P40. But a perusal of Ex.P40 makes it clear that this site was purchased by the accused on 25.01.2006 for Rs.30,00,00000 and not 59 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 by the husband of the accused on 25.06.2006. The accused has not disputed purchase of the site for Rs.30,00,00000 and construction of the building on it. As there was no dispute regarding purchase value of the site and as Ex.P40 states that the site was purchased for Rs.30,00,00000, I have considered purchase value of the site as Rs.30,00,00000.
(b). Coming to the construction cost of the building, as aforesaid, as per the contention of the prosecution cost of construction is Rs.6,99,60500, but the accused has contended that she spent only Rs.3,00,00000. As discussed under the head AI1 (Sl.No.1 of the assets), PW5 has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the Notification of the Department Registration and Stamps, but not on the basis of Notification of Karnataka PWD. PW5 has given a report which is at Ex.P108(g). It was the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that he had to assess the cost of the construction on the basis of the Notification of the PWD. For this 60 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 suggestion, DW5 has stated that there was no such Notification. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that though PW5 has denied his suggestion, cost of the building had to be assessed as per the notification of PWD. No doubt, the notification of Karnataka Stamps and Registration is only for the purpose of registration of document, but not to assess the cost of the buildings. The Karnataka Public Works Department issues Karnataka Schedule of Rates for Buildings comprising of the Specifications, Rate Analysis & Technical details for the State Engineers time to time in the form of G.O. for valuation purposes. Therefore, I am of the opinion that PW5 should have assessed the building on the basis of the specification given in the notification of the concerned year of the Karnataka Public Works Department. PW5 has also stated that he has not enquired the owner of the building and he has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the materials seen by him, but he did not find out what 61 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 are all other materials used for construction. When PW5 has not find out the materials and their quality which are used for construction of the building, he could not properly assess the cost of the building. Further, I am of the opinion that unless an expert dig the ground to know what materials are used to put up basement and unless he dig the wall to know what type of cement used for construction of walls and which quality materials are used for construction, one cannot assess the cost of the building. Further, PW5 has not deposed whether he is an expert to find what type of wood used for doors, cupboards and windows. In his report, PW5 has mentioned that on the basis of Notification of the Department of Stamps and Registration he has assessed the building. But, Notification of the Department of Stamps and Registration, would be used for the purpose of registration of documents of the movable and immovable properties. In that event, if the report of PW5 is accepted, definitely it would 62 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 cause injustice to the accused. It is true that in his crossexamination, DW6 has stated that he has no bills for having purchased building materials, payment made for laborers and he has not written it down. DW6 has deposed that the houses were constructed during the years 200506. When the houses were built during the years 200506, it cannot be expected from him to produce the bills after a long time i.e., after 6 years from the date of construction.
(c). It is pertinent to note that admittedly, husband of the accused has got constructed the building. In the absence of acceptable evidence on the side of the prosecution to substantiate cost of construction, it is considered view of this court that husband of the accused is the proper person to say about cost of construction. When the prosecution has failed to substantiate its contention to the satisfaction of the court that cost of construction is Rs.6,99,60500, admitted cost of construction has to 63 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 be accepted. In his chief examination, DW6 has specifically deposed that in the said site he put up sheet roofed houses spending Rs.3,00,00000 and they were rented out. In his crossexamination, except suggestion that he spent Rs.6,99,60500 for construction of houses, nothing is elicited to disbelieve chief examination of DW6. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the accused that he had spent Rs.3,00,00000 for construction of sheet roofed houses. Thus, the total value of Asset No.10 i.e., AI 10 is considered as Rs.33,00,00000 (purchase price of site: Rs.30,00,00000 + cost of construction:
Rs.3,00,00000).
(XI). AI11: 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p3 of Kannamangala village:
(a). The investigating officer by considering the sale deed dated 17.05.2006 has taken this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked the copy of the sale deed dated 64 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 15.07.2006 as Ex.P68. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.1,50,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that he has no objection to consider purchase value of this property as her asset. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000.
(XII). AI12: 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p5 of Kannamangala village:
(a). By considering the sale deed dated 17.05.2006 the investigating officer has taken this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked the copy of the sale deed dated 15.07.2006 as Ex.P69. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.1,50,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that she has no objection to consider purchase value of this property as her 65 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 asset. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000. (XIII). AI13: 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p4 of Kannamangala village:
(a). By considering the sale deed dated 07.08.2006, the investigating officer has taken this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked the copy of the sale deed dated 07.08.2006 as Ex.P70. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property for Rs.1,50,00000 and the accused has admitted this fact and submitted that she has no objection to consider purchase value of this property as her asset. Therefore, without further discussion, I have accept this as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000.
(XIV). AI14 to AI22: 3 acres 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67, 4 acres of land in Sy.No.464/1, 0.75 cents 66 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of land in Sy.No.78/A1B1, 2 acres 59 guntas of land in Sy.No.502/A, 0.60 cents of land in Sy.No.116/B, 1.5 acres of land in Sy.No.88, 2.50 acres of land in Sy.No.116, land in Sy.No.228/1, land in Sy.No.169:
(a). The investigating officer has considered these properties as assets of accused on the basis of the sale deeds which are in the name of husband of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused has purchased land in Sy.No.67 of Raghunathapura Village (AI14) on 05.10.2007, he has purchased land in Sy.No.464/1 of Ikkadahalli Village ( AI15) on 09.09.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Ikkadahalli Village ( AI16) on 11.07.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.502/A of Ikkadahalli Village (AI17) on 28.08.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.116/B of Ikkadahalli Village (AI18) on 09.09.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.88 of Ikkadahalli Village (AI19) on 28.08.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.116 of Ikkadahalli Village (AI20) on 28.08.2008, he has purchased Land in Sy.No.228/1 of Ikkadahalli 67 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Village( AI21) on 28.08.2008 and he has purchased land in Sy.No.169 of Kannamangala Village ( AI22) on 05.01.2009. In this regard, the prosecution has got marked the documents as Ex.P61 and Ex.P35. I have perused these documents. As aforesaid, the accused was not a public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. A perusal of the sale deeds which are marked at Ex.P35 and Ex.P61 makes it clear that these properties were purchased on 05.01.2009, 09.09.2008, 11.07.2008, 28.08.2008, 09.09.2008 and on 28.08.2008 ie., during the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, I have not considered these properties as assets of the accused. (XV). AI23: Site No.14 at ward No.38 of Nagarabhavi Main Road:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has purchased this site on 15.12.2003 for a sum of Rs.4,72,00000. The prosecution has also got 68 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 marked the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 as Ex.P41. The accused has admitted purchase of this property for a sum of Rs.4,72,00000 during the check period. Therefore, without further discussion I have considered this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.4,72,00000. (XVI). AI24: Building constructed in site No.8, Khata No.47 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). As per the contents of final report, on 28.01.2002 grand mother of husband of the accused has gifted this property under a gift deed, husband of the accused has put up construction in this site spending a sum of Rs.15,27,36400, in this regard he has got assessed the cost of the construction through the Executive Engineer, hence he has considered this building as an asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed that grand mother of her husband has gifted the property to her husband and also construction of the building on that site. But the accused has disputed the cost of the construction as 69 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 mentioned in the Final Report. The learned public prosecutor has argued that in order to prove the cost of the construction, the prosecution has got examined PW5, who assessed the cost of the construction by visiting the property and he has also got marked his Report as Ex.P108(c). On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that as per the evidence of PW5, he has not enquired owner of the building, not verified the materials used for the construction and his Report is not accompanied with the Notification indicating the rate adopted by him. He further argued that husband of the accused has been examined as DW6, who deposed that he has spent about Rs.8,00,00000 to Rs.9,00,00000 for the construction of the building, hence cost of the construction be considered as Rs.9,00,00000.
(b). As per the case of prosecution, cost of construction is Rs.15,27,36400, but the accused has contended that it is about Rs.8,00,00000 to 70 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.9,00,00000. As discussed under AI1 (Sl.No.1 of the Assets), PW5 has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the Notification of the Department of Registration and Stamps, but not on the basis of Notification of Karnataka Public Works Department. PW5 has given a report, which is at Ex.P108(c). It was the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that he has to assess the cost of the construction on the basis of the Notification of the PWD. For the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that he had to assess the cost on the basis of notification of PWD, witness has stated that there was no such Notification. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that though PW5 has denied his suggestion, cost of the building has to be assessed as per the notification of PWD. No doubt, the notification of Karnataka Registration and Stamps is only for the purpose of registration of properties, but not to assess the cost of the buildings. Karnataka Public 71 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Works Department issues Karnataka Schedule of rates for Buildings comprising of the Specifications, Rate Analysis & Technical details for the State Engineers time to time in the form of G.O. for valuation purposes. Therefore, I am of the opinion that PW5 should have assessed the building on the basis of the specification given in the notification of the concerned year of the Karnataka Public Works Department.
(c). PW5 has also stated that he has not enquired owner of the building and he has assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the materials seen by him and he did not find out what are all other materials used for construction. In view of this evidence of PW5, I am of the opinion that unless an expert dig the ground to know what materials are used to put up basement and unless he dig the wall to know what type of cement used for construction of walls and which quality materials are used for construction of pillar and building, one cannot assess 72 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 real cost of the building. Further, PW5 has not deposed whether he is an expert to know what type of wood used for doors, cupboards and windows. In his report, PW5 has mentioned that on the basis of the Notification of the Department of Registration and Stamps, he has assessed the building, which is to be used for the purpose of registration of immovable properties. In that event, if the report of PW5 is accepted, definitely it would cause injustice to the accused. It is true that in his cross examination DW 6 has stated that he has no bills for having purchased building materials, payment made for laborers and he has not written it down. DW6 has deposed that the houses were constructed in the year 200506. If the houses were constructed long before the registration of the case, it cannot be expected from him to keep the bills for a long 6 years from the date of construction. Ex.P108(c) shows that PW5 has assessed cost of the construction on the basis of measurement of plinth area of the building, without 73 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 checking the quality of the materials used for the construction. In his Report PW5 has stated that if the building is made of RCC, Mosaic floor and teak wood, cost of the ground floor per sq.ft. is Rs.46000, cost of first and second floor per sq.ft. is Rs.41000. But PW5 has not deposed whether flooring of the house of the accused is made of mosaic tiles and he used teak wood for wardrobe, doors and windows. Undisputed fact is that, husband of the accused has got constructed the building, therefore in the absence of acceptable evidence on the side of the prosecution, it is considered view of this court that husband of the accused (DW6) is the proper person to say about cost of construction. When the prosecution has failed to substantiate its contention to the satisfaction of the court that cost of construction is Rs.15,27,364 00, cost of construction mentioned by DW6 who has got constructed the building has to be accepted. In his chief examination, DW6 has specifically deposed that in the said site he put up sheet roofed houses 74 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 spending Rs.9,00,00000 and they were rented out. In his crossexamination, except suggestion that he spent Rs.15,27,36400 for construction of houses, nothing is elicited to disbelieve chief examination of DW6. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the accused that he had spent Rs.9,00,00000 for construction of residential houses in the site No.8. Thus, total value of the Asset No.24 ie., AI24 is considered as Rs.9,00,00000.
(XVII). AI25: Site bearing khatha No.2875 and assessment No.47 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the accused has purchased this property on 05.02.2004 for a sum of Rs.1,98,00000, hence the investigating officer has considered this property as an asset of the accused. Accused has not disputed this fact and admitted that her husband has purchased this property on 05.02.2004 for consideration of Rs.1,98,00000. A perusal of certified copy of the sale deed dated 04.02.2004 which is at Ex.P118 says 75 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 that husband of the accused has purchased this property on 04.02.2004 for Rs.1,98,00000, which has not been disputed by the accused. Hence, this property is considered as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,98,00000. (XVIII). AI26: Site No.48 in Sy.No.3 of Malagala Village:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, husband of the accused has purchased this property under a sale deed dated 05.05.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,36,00000. In this regard, the prosecution has got marked copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P97, which shows that on 21.04.2007, husband of the accused has purchased this site for Rs.3,36,00000. The accused has not disputed purchase of the site on 21.04.2007 for Rs.3,36,00000. But as aforesaid, accused was not a public servant between the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, therefore as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I decline to consider this property as an asset of the accused. 76 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (XIX). AI27: One acre of land in Sy.No.169 of Kannamangala Village:
(a). As per the Final Report and evidence of PW9, husband of the accused has purchased this property on 15.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the prosecution has got marked the copy of sale deed as per Ex.P94. The accused has admitted that her husband has purchased this property on 15.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00000. Since, the accused has admitted purchase of the property and also its price, I have considered this property as an asset of the accused and its purchase price at Rs.1,50,00000.
(XX). AI28: House in assessment No.38/2 and Khata No.1200 of Yeshwanthpura:
(a). As per the gift deed dated 02.03.2007 (Ex.P
104) and the Final Report, on 02.03.2007 father of the accused has gifted this property in favour of the accused. The accused has admitted the gift of this property by her father. Since, this property is the 77 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 gifted property, the Investigating Officer has not considered this property as an asset of the accused. Therefore, I decline to consider this property as an asset of the accused.
(XXI). AI29: Site No.7 of Khata No.47 of Nagarabhavi Village:
(a). As per the gift deed dated 30.11.2010 (Ex.P
106) and Final Report, on 30.11.2010 grand mother of the husband of the accused has gifted this property in favour of husband of the accused. Since, this property is the gifted property, the Investigating Officer has not considered this property as an asset of the accused. Therefore, I decline to consider this property as an asset of the accused. (XXII). AI30: Lands in Sy.Nos. 64/1, 64/2 and 64/3 of Raghunathapura Village:
(a). As per the Final Report and evidence of PW9, husband of the accused has purchased these properties on 09.02.2011 for total consideration of Rs.7,20,00000. The accused has not disputed 78 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 purchase of these properties and also amount of consideration. Ex.P107 which is an undisputed document also shows that husband of the accused had purchased these properties on 09.02.2011 for Rs.7,20,00000. Hence, these properties have been considered as assets of accused and their purchase value at Rs.7,20,00000.
(XXIII). AI31 Lands in Sy.Nos. 10, 46/3, and 46/4 of Chikkadevarahalli Village:
(a). On the basis of sale deed dated 15.10.1998, the investigating officer has considered this property as an asset of the accused. As per the Final Report and evidence of PW9, husband of the accused has purchased these properties on 15.10.1998 for total consideration of Rs.1,90,00000. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.10.1998, which is marked at Ex.P115 says that husband of the accused has purchased these properties for total consideration of Rs.1,90,00000. The accused has not disputed purchase of these properties and also payment of 79 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 amount of consideration by her husband. Hence, these properties are considered as assets of the accused and their purchase value at Rs.1,90,000
00. (XXIV). AI32 - Site No.8 of Assessment No.47 of Nagarabhavi Village:
(a). As per the case of the prosecution, on 29.05.2010 grand mother of husband of the accused has gifted this property in favour of husband of accused, hence it is not considered as asset of the accused. As per the contents of Ex.P130, on 29.05.2010 one Smt. Siddamma has gifted this property in favour of husband of accused. Since the property has been gifted in favour of husband of the accused, I have not considered this property as an asset of the accused.
(XXV). ABA1: Bank balance of Rs.57851 in the account of the accused in Syndicate Bank:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating 80 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Officer traced out some documents pertaining to Syndicate Bank, the investigating officer has obtained account statement of the accused, which show that as on 08.12.2011 bank balance in the account of the accused was Rs.57851. The accused has not disputed this fact, after perusal of the account statement i.e., Ex.P62, I have considered Rs.57851 as an asset of the accused. (XXVI). ABA2: Bank balance of Rs.19,50314 in the account of the husband of accused in ICICI Bank:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating Officer traced out some documents pertaining to ICICI Bank, the investigating officer has obtained account statement of the husband accused, which shows that as on 29.11.2011 bank balance in the account of husband of the accused was Rs.19,503
14. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence 81 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.19,50314 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXVII). ABA3: Bank balance of Rs.4,52600 in the account of the husband of accused in Union Bank of India:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of search in the house of accused, the Investigating Officer traced out documents pertaining to Union Bank of India, he has obtained account statement of the husband accused, which shows that as on 17.12.2011 bank balance in the account of husband of the accused was Rs.4,526
00. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.4,52600 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXVIII). ABA4: Bank balance of Rs.12,72345 in the account of the husband of accused in Janatha Seva Cooperative Bank Ltd.,:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating Officer traced out some documents pertaining to 82 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Janatha Seva Cooperative Bank Ltd., and he has obtained account statement of the husband accused, which shows that as on 12.12.2011 bank balance in the account of husband of the accused was Rs.12,72345. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.12,72345 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXIX). ABA5: Bank balance of Rs.2,01500 in the account of the husband of accused in Canara Bank:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating Officer traced out documents pertaining to Canara Bank, he has obtained account statement of the husband accused which shows that as on 31.07.2011 the bank balance in the account of husband of the accused was Rs.2,01500. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.2,015 00 is considered as an asset of the accused.83 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XXX). ABA6: Bank balance of Rs.2,44635 in the account of the accused in Syndicate Bank,:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating Officer traced out some documents pertaining to Syndicate Bank, he has obtained account statement of the accused, which shows that as on 30.09.2011 the bank balance in the account of the accused was Rs.2,44635. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.2,44635 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXI). ABA7: Bank balance of Rs.8,21800 in the account of the husband of accused in the Rajajinagar Cooperative Bank Ltd.,:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of Final Report, at the time of search and ride in the house of accused, the Investigating Officer traced out some documents pertaining to Rajajinagar Co operative Bank Ltd., he has obtained account statement of husband of the accused, which shows that as on 17.10.2011 the bank balance in the 84 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 account of husband of the accused was Rs.8,21800.
The accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.8,21800 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXII). ABA8 Bank balance of Rs.38,14,65300 in the account No.8401101027550 of the accused in Canara Bank, BBMP Branch:
(a). As per the Final Report, as on 14.12.2011 there was a balance amount of Rs.38,14,65300 in the account of the accused in Canara Bank, BBMP Branch, hence same is considered as an asset of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that after sale of assets for Rs.70,00,00000, an amount of Rs.38,00,00000 is in the account of the accused and source of the said amount is sale of an asset, therefore the Investigating officer has rightly considered this bank balance as an asset of the accused. He further argued that, all the balance amount in the account cannot said to be lawful, the accused has to say how that amount came to his account, because all credits to the account cannot 85 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 said to be lawful. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has sold the property No.78 of Nagarabhavi Village for a sum of Rs.70,00,00000, out of this amount an amount of Rs.2,00,00000 was given to the accused in cash and Rs.38,00,00000 was paid through six cheques and remaining amount has been credited to the account of husband of the accused through cheques. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.70,00,00000 has been considered by the Investigating Officer as income under the head of income bearing Code No.ISA7, therefore the balance amount in the account of the accused cannot be treated as an asset.
(b). In view of rival arguments of both parties, I have gone through the materials available on record.
The sale deed dated 25.01.2006, which is marked as Ex.P40 and which has been produced by the prosecution itself shows that site No.78 was purchased by the accused for consideration of 86 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.30,00,00000. The prosecution has also produced the sale deed dated 12.12.2011, which has been marked as Ex.P37. This document says that the accused has sold site No.78 for total consideration of Rs.70,00,00000. Regarding purchase of the site No.78 for Rs.30,00,00000 and sale of the site for Rs.70,00,00000 is not in dispute. The contents of Ex.P37 state that purchaser of the property had issued a cheque bearing No.325816 for Rs.3,00,000 00, a cheque bearing No.72626 for Rs.3,00,00000, a cheque bearing No.71028 for Rs.20,00,00000, a cheque bearing No.72628 for Rs.3,00,00000, a cheque bearing No.325817 for Rs.3,00,00000 and a cheque bearing No.587597 for Rs.6,00,00000 in favour of the accused. The sale deed also reveals that Rs.2,00,00000 has been paid by the purchaser to the accused in cash. Thus, out of total consideration amount of Rs.70,00,00000, an amount of Rs.38,00,00000 has been credited to the account of accused through cheques. As this amount is the 87 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 consideration amount derived from the sale of an asset, it becomes the income of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that the property was in the name of the accused but part payment of the consideration amount was given to the husband of the accused, thus they have mutually sold the property. There is no bar to credit the amount of sale consideration in respect of sale of property by the accused to the account of husband of the husband. Therefore, the amount derived from sale of an asset credited to the account of the accused and her husband is an income of the accused and it is lawful income. The learned public prosecutor has further argued that the balance amount in bank balance is an intangible asset and same has not been invested therefore it has to be considered as an asset of the accused. Tangible assets are physical items with monetary value that can be touched and seen like building, equipment and inventory. On the other hand, intangible assets 88 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 lack physical substance but holds value such as patents, trademarks and goodwill. Here the property considered by the investigating officer is the bank balance and source of that bank balance is sale proceeds of the property of the accused. Further, there is no dispute about purchase of this property by husband of the accused in the year 2006 for a sum of Rs.30,00,00000 and sale of it under a sale deed dated 12.12.2011.
(c). Apart from that, under the heads of income (Code No.ISC7), the Investigating Officer has considered the sale proceeds of Rs.70,00,00000 as an income of the accused. The sale proceeds cannot be taken both under the head of income as well as under the head of asset. Therefore, the amount credited to the account of the accused out of the sale proceeds i.e., Rs.38,00,00000 cannot be considered under the head of an asset. As per Ex.P84 the balance amount in the account of the accused as on 14.12.2011 was Rs.38,14,65300, if the sale proceeds 89 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of Rs.38,00,00000 is deducted, it comes to Rs.14,65300. Therefore, only Rs.14,65300 is considered as an asset of the accused. (XXXIII). ABA9: Bank Balance amount of Rs.4,35000 in the account No.31665883104 which belonged to son of the accused in State Bank of India:
(a). As per the Final Report, as on 11.12.2011, there was a balance amount of Rs.4,35000 in a bank account, which belonged to son of the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar, hence same investigating officer has considered this amount as an asset of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked bank statement as Ex.P44, which shows the bank balance. Further, the accused has not disputed this asset hence, Rs.4,35000 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXIV). ABA10: Bank Balance amount of Rs.2,90275 in the account No.3812 of the accused in Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank:
(a). On the basis of bank statement, the investigating officer has considered Rs.2,90275 as 90 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 an asset of accused. As per the Final Report, as on 08.11.2011 there was a balance amount of Rs.2,902 75 in the account of the accused in Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank. In this regard PW2 has got marked bank statement as Ex.P98. Further, the accused has not disputed this asset hence, Rs.2,90275 is considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXV). ABA11: Bank Balance amount of Rs.1,38700 in the account of son of the accused in SBM:
(a). As per the Final Report, as on 17.12.2011, there was a balance amount of Rs.1,38700 in the account of son of the accused by name Sri. Sharathkumar, hence same is considered as an asset of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked bank statement as Ex.P117. Since, the accused has not disputed this asset, Rs.1,38700 is considered as an asset of the accused.
91 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XXXVI). AB1: Membership fee and share fee of Rs.5,52500 in Kanaka Souharda Credit Cooperative Society in the name of husband of accused:
(a). As per the case of the prosecution, husband of the accused was having membership in Kanaka Souharda Credit Cooperative Society, he has purchased 50 shares for Rs.5,00000, he paid share fee of Rs.50000 and admission fee of Rs.2500, hence an amount of Rs.5,52500 is considered as an asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed this asset. But, on 12.04.2009, when he has got membership and on 17.01.2009 when he has purchased shares and paid share fee and admission fee, accused was not a public servant (24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010). Hence, this asset has not been considered as an asset of the accused. (XXXVII). AB2: Membership fee and share fee of Rs.5,52500 in Kanaka Souharda Credit Cooperative Society in the name of the accused:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the accused was having membership in Kanaka Souharda Credit 92 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Cooperative Society, she was having 50 shares of Rs.5,00000, she paid share fee of Rs.50000 and admission fee of Rs.2500, hence an amount of Rs.5,52500 is considered as an asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed this asset.
But, as aforesaid, on 12.04.2009 when she had got membership and on 17.01.2009 when she had purchased shares and, paid share fee and admission fee, she was not a public servant. Hence, this asset has not been considered as an asset of the accused. (XXXVIII). AB3: Shares of Rs.3,00000 in Janatha Seva Cooperative Bank Ltd., in the name of husband of the accused:
(a). A perusal of final report and the documents on record, makes it clear that the accused has informed the Investigating Officer through her schedule at Annexure15A that her husband had purchased 30 shares of Rs.3,00000, hence the Investigating Officer has considered Rs.3,00000 as an asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.3,00000 for purchase of 93 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 shares. After perusal of Ex.P103 and by considering the admissions of accused, I have considered Rs.3,00000 as an asset of the accused. (XXXIX). AB4: Shares of Rs.8,00000 in GGSE Financial Ltd.,:
(a). As the accused has informed the Investigating Officer through a schedule at Annexure15A that her husband had purchased shares of Rs.8,00000 in GGSE Financial Ltd., the Investigating Officer has considered Rs.8,00000 as asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.8,00000 is considered under an asset of the accused.
(XL). AV1: Expenses of Rs.42,12800 made towards Insurance, payment of Tax and maintenance of a two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41 HM:5319:
(a). In the Final Report the Investigating Officer has stated that at the time of search in the house of the accused, he found a two wheeler vehicle, when he obtained documents of that vehicle from ARTO, he 94 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 came to know that said vehicle was in the name of son of the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar, an amount of Rs.87200 was paid towards insurance of this vehicle, an amount of Rs.4,67600 was paid towards Tax and spent sum of Rs.23,28000 for maintenance of this vehicle and as the said vehicle was purchased by the accused for her son, this amount has been considered as an asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed that said vehicle belonged to her son and they have spent Rs.42,12800 towards insurance policy, tax and maintenance. But, as this amount is an expenditure, the Investigating Officer should have considered it under the head of Expenditure. Hence, I decline to consider Rs.42,12800 as an asset of the accused and it will be considered under the head of expenditure.
(XLI). AJ: Golden articles found in the house of the accused:
(a). The prosecution has contended that at the time of search in the house of the accused, the 95 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Investigating Officer has found 759.50 grams of golden ornaments, they were weighed and their price was assessed by the goldsmith, the total value of the 759.5 grams of gold is assessed as per the price existing on that day and it comes to Rs.17,45,700 00, therefore said golden articles have been considered as assets of the accused. PW3 who is a mahazar witness has deposed that when they have searched the house of the accused they found 750 grams of golden ornaments and 3 Kgs of silver articles, one Rakesh has weighed gold and silver articles and assessed their value. PW2 is the Investigating Officer, who has conducted search in the house of the accused, but except marking of mahazar, he has not stated anything about golden ornaments said to be found in the house of the accused and also weight of the golden articles. But the accused has also not disputed the case of the prosecution that during the search there were golden ornaments weighing 759.5 grams in the house of the 96 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused. The defence of the accused is that out of 759.50 grams golden articles, 224 grams of golden articles belonged to her sister and 118 grams of golden articles were gifted to her and her husband by her parents during marriage. It is to be noted that once the prosecution has shown that the accused has been in possession of 759.50 grams of gold, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the same by explaining that she had resources with which she could have acquired those assets which were not taken into account by the prosecution. Further, it is settled principles of law that mere acquisition of property does not constitutes an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, but failure on the part of the accused for satisfactorily account for makes the possession offending. In a decision reported in (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 (State of Maharashtra v/s Wasudeo Ramachandra Kaidalwar), which has been relied by the learned 97 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 counsel for the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
'....To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 5(1)(e), namely, (1) it must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. The burden then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets under Section 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test laid by the court in 'Thingan case', i.e. to establish his case by a preponderance of probability....'
(b). The principles laid down in the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are applicable to the 98 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 facts of the present case hence, I have applied the principles to the case on hand. Contention of the accused is that some of the golden articles found in her house were belonged to her sister by name Smt. Manjula, as her husband has died and her two children were aged about 14 and 10 years, she had kept her golden ornaments in her house. Even in her schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer, the accused has explained stating that few months earlier her sister had kept her valuables in her house and they were also been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. In this regard, the accused has also got examined her sister as DW3, who deposed that during her marriage her parents have given her 10 grams of ear rings, 15 grams of necklace, 40 grams of bangles and her husband was having 80 grams of golden chain and 44 grams of golden bracelet, as her husband has died, she had kept her golden articles in the house of the accused for safety purpose. DW3 has also got marked her 99 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 affidavit as Ex.D4. As per the contents of this affidavit, as her husband has died she kept her gold and silver articles in the house of the accused for safety purpose.
(c). Arguments of the learned public prosecutor is that admittedly father of DW3 was poor, who was doing coolie, therefore statement of the accused that his father has gifted 224 grams of golden ornaments to DW3 cannot be believed. He further argued that if really DW3 had kept her golden ornaments in the house of the accused, she should have approached Lokayukta police immediately after the raid for release of ornaments claiming that they belonged to her. He has argued that the affidavit of DW3 has been sworn by her after the raid hence, it cannot be taken into consideration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has argued that giving golden ornaments in marriage such as earrings, Mangalya chain etc., is not unnatural. He further argued that in her evidence DW3 has spoken about 100 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 swearing of affidavit and she has categorically stated that total gold belongs to her which were kept in the house of the accused were weighing 224 grams and there is absolutely no cross examination disproving her evidence.
(d). No doubt, as argued by the learned public prosecutor, an affidavit has been sworn by DW3 on 10.09.2012 i.e., after the raid in the house of the accused by Lokayukta Police. But even in her cross examination, DW3 remain withstood her chief examination stating that she kept her jewels in the house of her sister as her children were little children and her home is a single house in that area. In her crossexamination, DW3 has admitted that immediately after the raid she did not told the police that she kept her golden articles in the house of her sister. DW3 has also stated that she had no bills for having purchased the golden ornaments. Only on the ground that she did not approach the police immediately after the raid, it cannot be concluded 101 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 that she has given false evidence before the Court because, it cannot be expected from a lady to approach the police immediately after raid. Further, it cannot be expected from any person to keep all bills of golden articles for a long time, because generally golden articles would purchase over a period of time and not at once. It is to be noted that though the accused has stated before the investigating officer that out of golden ornaments found in the house of accused, 224 grams of golden ornaments belonged to her sister, the investigating officer has not enquired her. Except putting suggestions to DW3, the learned public prosecutor has failed to elicit any favourable answer to disbelieve evidence of DW3. The prosecution has not disputed death of husband of DW3. Apart from that DW6 and DW7 have also deposed that as husband of DW 3 is no more and her children were young, for safety of her golden articles she kept them in their house.
Therefore, by accepting argument of learned counsel 102 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 for the accused, 224 grams of golden ornaments which were kept in the house of the accused by DW3 has to be deducted from 759.50 grams of gold. If we do so remaining weight of the golden ornaments comes to 535.5 grams.
(e). Further arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is that in her chief examination, DW7 has categorically deposed that during her marriage she has received two golden bangles, one necklace, a finger ring and a mangalya chain, similarly her husband has also received one bracelet and a finger ring, as gifts, in this regard the accused has furnished weight of these ornaments in her schedule, the total weight of these golden articles has been indicated as 118 grams, therefore this weight of gold has to be deducted from 535.5 grams of gold. Learned public prosecutor has argued that accused has not substantiated receipt of golden ornaments by the accused and her husband during their marriage, therefore contention of the accused cannot be taken 103 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 into consideration. DW6 and DW7 have deposed about gift of golden ornaments by their parents during their marriage. It is uncommon in Hindu tradition to present golden ornaments to bride and bride groom by their parents during marriages. Admittedly, marriage of the accused was taken place in the year 1991 and hence it cannot be expected from the accused to prove the presentation of the golden ornaments by examining the persons who were present during her marriage. Further, cross examination of DW6 and DW7 about presentation of golden ornaments by their parents is only denial of their chief examination. Therefore, I have accepted the contention of the accused and deducted 118 grams of golden ornaments from 535.5 grams of gold and after deduction, it comes to 417.5 grams. Admittedly, goldsmith has weighed the golden ornaments without separating beads, stone and waxes which were used for making of jewels, therefore I am of the opinion that 10% of the weight 104 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has to be deducted. If 10% of the weight is deducted then it comes to 375.75 grams.
(f). Admittedly, the accused has not produced bills for having purchased the golden ornaments. It cannot be assumed that accused has purchased 375.75 grams of various types of jewels at once and it is common that golden ornaments would be purchased over a period of time. Under the circumstances the accused cannot be expected to prove that she acquired the golden ornaments during a particular period at a particular price. It is also an admitted fact that the mahazar witnesses (Panch witnesses) and goldsmith have fixed the price of the gold which was existing on the date of mahazar. It is also not the case of the prosecution that all golden ornaments were purchased immediately before the raid. The accused has also not contended that she had purchased them before the check period or between the period when she was not a public servant i.e., from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. In Crl.A. 105 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 No.467/2020, judgment dated 14.07.2023, which arose between Sri. E. Kenchegowda v/s State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 Crl.L.J. 1026 (G.V.S. Lingam v/s State of UP), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: '.....In the absence of any evidence as to the period during which the gold was acquired, it appears more reasonable to presume that the gold might have been acquired periodically every now and then...'. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the market value prevailing in the relevant years by presuming that the gold might have been acquired proportionally in every year through out the check period. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I decided to take average rate of gold prevailing during the check period. Accordingly, I have taken average rate of gold from 106 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 starting year of the check period to closing year of check period i.e., from 1996 to 2011. After considering price of the gold per gram from 1996 to 2001, average price of one gram of gold from 1996 to 2011 comes to Rs.93300. As discussed above, weight of the golden ornaments of the accused is 375.75 grams. Thus, the total value of golden ornaments of 375.75 grams comes to Rs.3,50,57475 (375.75 x 933). Accordingly, I have taken 375.75 of golden ornaments as an asset of the accused and its value at Rs.3,50,57475.
(g). The learned public prosecutor has also argued that as per Ex.P127 the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 by pledging gold, therefore said gold has to be considered as asset of the accused. Admittedly, at the time of search in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has found 759.50 grams of golden ornaments, they were weighed and their price was assessed by the goldsmith. The raid was conducted on 16.03.2012 107 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 and found 759.50 grams of golden ornaments. As per the contents of Ex.P127, 451.4 grams of golden ornaments were pledged to Muthoot finance to borrow loan on 18.02.2010 ie., before the date of raid. But a careful perusal of Ex.P127 makes it clear that husband of the accused had repaid entire loan amount on 29.10.2011 i.e., before the date of raid. When he has unpledged his golden ornaments by repaying entire loan, naturally he brought back golden ornaments which were pledged to his house and after he brought back the pledged ornaments, raid conducted. Therefore, question considering the pledged gold as an asset of the accused does not arise. I have taken 375.75 of golden ornaments as an asset of the accused and its value at Rs.3,50,57475. (XLII). ASA: Silver articles found in the house of the accused:
(a). The Investigating Officer has reported in the final report that at the time of search in the house of the accused he found 3.198 kilo grams of silver 108 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 articles of value Rs.1,59,90000, same is considered as an asset of the accused. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer and Panch witnesses have assessed one gram of silver at Rs.5000 and total value of the silver articles at Rs.1,59,90000. The accused has not disputed the case of the prosecution that on the date of raid the accused was in possession of 3.198 Kgs of silver articles. Further, the accused has not disputed fixing of price of one gram of silver at Rs.5000.
(b). It is not the contention of the accused that silver articles were purchased before the check period or after the check period or that they were purchased when she was not a public servant. Her only contention is that silver articles, which were found in her house were gifted to her when she was a Corporator and when she attended marriages. Even in her chief examination, DW6 and DW7 have deposed that silver articles were gifted to accused when she was a Corporator. The learned counsel for 109 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the accused has argued that prosecution has not disputed that the accused was a Corporator and it is common that any Corporator will be gifted by articles during occasions, therefore the silver article should not be considered as an asset of the accused.
(c). Accused has also stated in her schedule, which is submitted to the Investigating Officer that silver articles were gifted articles. The accused has not explained when and who have gifted the silver articles, she has not examined any person to prove that they are gifted articles. Mere statement in the schedule or oral evidence is not sufficient, the accused should have probabalise that somebody have gifted the silver articles when she was a Corporator. In this regard the learned public prosecutor has prays this court to apply the principles laid down in case of State of Karnataka v/s J. Jayalalitha and others. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applied the principles of the decision to the case on 110 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 hand in respect of considering 'gift' in Prevention of Corruption Cases. In the present case, the accused has not given any details of gifts, what are the gift items and when they were given. The burden is on the accused person to establish the same as it is within her personal knowledge. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that accused has claimed in her schedule 14A which is submitted to the investigating officer that silver articles were received by way of gift and this fact is admitted by PW9, she has also informed the investigating officer regarding the gift during the mahazar. Mere statement in the schedule and information to the investigation is not sufficient to accept her claim that the silver items were gift items, she has to probabalize it to the satisfaction of the court.
(d). Apart from that she has not specifically stated when she has received the gift items. It is not the case of the accused that silver articles were received when she was not the public servant or 111 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 before the check period. If the gifts were received by the accused when she was a public servant, she should have informed the government through her annual statement of assets and liabilities, but a perusal of statements of assets and liabilities (Ex.P
75), makes it clear that she has not disclosed acceptance of silver gift items. Therefore, I decline to accept the contention of the accused that the silver articles found in the house of the accused are gifted articles. As aforesaid, the accused has not disputed value of the silver articles. Therefore, I accept the case of the prosecution that value of the silver articles found in the house of the accused is Rs.1,59,90000 and they have been considered as an assets of the accused.
(XLIII). AHA: Household articles found in the house of the accused:
(a). As per the Final Report, during search in the house of the accused the Investigating Officer and Panch witnesses have found household articles, electric and electronic articles, clothes, furniture etc., 112 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 worth about Rs.10,33,91300, therefore the household articles have been considered as assets of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that regarding value of the household articles, receipts pertaining to the articles may be consider and the articles which have no receipts could be assessed by the Court. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that some of the articles were received by the accused by way of gift during religious functions, felicitations, and other functions as she was a Corporator, value of the articles were over valued and inflated by the investigating officer.
He further argued that accused is the best person to say about price of the household articles, as per the say of the accused, after deducting the items which were received as gift, exact value of the household articles is Rs.4,11,80000 and same may be considered as the value of the household articles.
(b). No doubt, in her schedule statement submitted to the investigating officer, the accused 113 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has stated that the household articles were gifted to her during festival and felicitation. But nothing is on record to show that some of the household articles are gifted articles. But primarily the burden was on the prosecution to prove that during search household articles worth about Rs.10,33,91300 were found in the house of the accused. If the prosecution has proved its contention, then only the burden will be shifted to the accused to contradict the same. In order to find out whether the prosecution has proved its contention, I have gone through the mahazar conducted in the house of the accused, which is marked as Ex.P49. A perusal of this document shows that about 228 items of household articles, electric items and electronic items, 19 items of golden articles and 13 types of silver articles are mentioned. It is to be noted that the accused has not disputed existence of the household articles in her house, which are mentioned in the mahazar. The prosecution has got 114 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 examined PW2, who conducted the mahazar and also PW3 who is the independent mahazar witness. But none of these witnesses have deposed about household articles mentioned in Ex.P49 and they have also failed to mention names of at least some of the household articles. PW2, who has conducted search in the house of the accused has not even deposed about household articles and their value. Evidence of PW3, who is an independent mahazar witness is also silent about household articles. Apart from that none of these witnesses have deposed how the value of household articles was assessed. In his crossexamination, PW2 has stated that he had not brought an expert to assess value of the household articles, electric and electronic items. PW9 has deposed about value of household articles only on the basis of Ex.P49, ie., the price mentioned in the mahazar. But PW2 and PW3, who found the household articles in the house of the accused have not stated anything about household articles and 115 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 their value. Even if this Court consider the fact that the accused has not disputed the existence of household articles mentioned in Ex.P49, the prosecution has not proved value of household articles at least their approximate value. When the accused is disputing the value of house hold articles, the primary duty is on the prosecution to substantiate it to the satisfaction of the Court. As stated above, neither PW2 nor PW3 deposed how, who and on what basis value of the household articles was fixed. Therefore, having no other option and also on consideration of the fact that the accused is the proper person to say about value of the household articles which are in her house, I have accepted say of the accused and hold that value of the household articles is Rs.4,11,80000. Accordingly, I have accepted case of the prosecution that the household articles found in the house of accused as assets of the accused, but value of those articles is taken at Rs.4,11,80000. 116 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (XLIV). ALIC1: LIC Policy No.615420571:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.615420571, which was taken in the name of the accused as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has obtained LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC office dated 19.04.2012. The accused has not disputed that she has taken this LIC policy and paid premium of Rs.80,00000. As per Ex.P80, this policy commenced on 30.03.2007 and its maturity date is 30.03.2027, but this policy has been terminated by the accused on 19.03.2011. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. The mode of payment of premium was Rs.20,00000 per annum. Since the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have not considered this LIC policy and the premium paid on this policy as an asset of the accused. 117 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (XLV). ALIC2: LIC Policy No.61540884:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.61540884, which was taken in the name of son of the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has obtained LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC dated 19.04.2012 as Ex.P80. [The document pertaining to this policy is at page No.1083 of file No.3(2)]. The accused has not disputed that she has taken this LIC policy in the name of her son and also payment of premium of Rs.40,00000. As per the letter of LIC dated 19.04.2012, this policy has commenced on 30.03.2007 and its maturity date is 30.03.2027. This document also reveals that this policy has been terminated by the accused on 19.03.2011. The mode of payment of premium was Rs.10,00000 per annum. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a 118 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Since the accused was not a public servant during the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have not considered this LIC policy as an asset of the accused. (XLVI). ALIC3: LIC Policy No.615420723:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.615420723, which was taken in the name of the son of the accused by name Sri. Sharath Kumar as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has obtained LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC dated 19.04.2012 as Ex.P80 at page No.1084 of file No.3(2). The accused has admitted that she has taken this LIC policy in the name of her son and also payment of premium of Rs.40,00000. As per the letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on 30.03.2007 and its maturity date is 30.03.2027. This document also reveals that this policy has been terminated by the accused on 19.03.2011. The mode 119 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of payment of premium was Rs.10,00000 per annum. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Since the accused was not a public servant during the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have not considered this LIC policy as an asset of the accused. (XLVII). ALIC4: LIC Policy No.10171647:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.10171647, which was taken in the name of the husband of the accused by name H. Ravi Kumar as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC as per Ex.P74 at page No.1085 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.2,19,220 00 up to 17.12.2011. As per the letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on 02.03.2006 and its maturity date was 02.03.2019. The mode of payment 120 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of premium was yearly payment. The payment of total premium made up to 17.12.2011 is Rs.2,19,22000. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.2,19,22000 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid premium for six years. If we do so, the premium per annum comes to Rs.36,53700. After excluding the period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two years has to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the premium amount paid by the accused for two years is Rs.73,07400 and same is considered as an asset of the accused under ALIC4. (XLVIII). ALIC5: LIC Policy No.10167414:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium amount paid on LIC policy No.10167414, which was taken in the name of the husband of the 121 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused by name H. Ravi Kumar as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC as per Ex.P74, which is at page No.1085 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.2,17,53000 up to 17.12.2011. As per the letter of LIC office, this policy has commenced on 18.02.2006 and its maturity date was 18.02.2019. The mode of payment of premium was yearly payment. The payment of total premium made up to 17.12.2011 is Rs.2,17,53000. As discussed earlier the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.2,17,53000 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid premium for six years. If we do so the premium per annum comes to Rs.36,25500. After excluding the 122 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two years has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium paid by the accused for two years is Rs.72,51000 and same is considered as an asset of the accused under the asset code ALIC5. (XLIX). ALIC6: LIC Policy No.363585992:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the accused has taken LIC policy No.363585992 in her name and paid premium of Rs.1,60,64400, hence same is considered as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected details of LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC as per Ex.P85 at page No.1086 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.1,60,64400. As per the letter of LIC office, this policy has commenced on 18.03.2006 and its maturity date is 18.03.2026. The mode of payment of premium was yearly payment. 123 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 The total premium amount paid for six years is Rs.1,60,64400. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.1,60,64400 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid premium for six years. If we do so, the premium amount per annum comes to Rs.26,77400. After excluding the period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two years has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium paid by the accused for two years is Rs.53,54800, and same is considered as an asset of the accused under the head ALIC6. (L). ALIC7: LIC Policy No.363586361:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.363586361, which was taken in the name of son of the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar as an asset of the 124 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC as per Ex.P85, which is at page No.1093 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.1,09,96200. As per the letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on 15.03.2006 and its maturity date was 15.03.2025. The mode of payment of premium was yearly payment. The total premium paid for 6 years is Rs.1,09,96200. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. The total premium amount of Rs.1,09,96200 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid premium for six years. If we do so, the premium per annum comes to Rs.18,22700. After excluding the period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two years has to 125 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 be taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium paid by the accused for two years is Rs.36,65400 and same is considered as an asset of the accused under the head ALIC7.
(LI). ALIC8: LIC Policy No.363586360:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.363586360, which was taken in the name of husband of the accused by name H. Ravi Kumar as an asset of the accused. PW 2 has deposed that he has collected LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC as per Ex.P85 at page No.1104 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.1,66,60800. As per the letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on 18.03.2006 and its maturity date is 18.03.2027. The mode of payment of premium was yearly payment. The total premium paid for 6 years is Rs.1,66,608
00. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a 126 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.1,66,60800 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid premium for six years. If we do so the premium per annum comes to Rs.27,70800. After excluding the period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two years has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium paid by the accused for two years is Rs.55,41600, and same is considered as an asset of the accused under the head ALIC8.
(LII). ALIC9: LIC Policy No.363586020:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered premium paid on LIC policy No.363586020, which was taken in the name of the accused as an asset of the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter 127 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 given by LIC as per Ex.P85 which is at page No.1110 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.1,09,96200. As per the letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on 18.03.2006 and its maturity date was 18.03.2025. The mode of payment of premium was yearly payment. The total premium amount paid for 6 years is Rs.1,09,96200. As discussed earlier the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. The total premium amount of Rs.1,09,962 00 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid premium for six years. If we do so the premium per annum comes to Rs.18,32700. After excluding the period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two years has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium paid by the accused for two years is 128 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.36,65400, and same is considered as an asset of the accused under the head ALIC9.
(LIII). ADE 1 to ADE 5: Deposited amount towards electricity connections:
(a). As per the final report, the investigating officer has consider an amount of Rs.201000 deposited to BESCOM to take electricity connections to house No.3 of Nagarabhavi, an amount of Rs.12,80000 deposited to BESCOM to take electricity connections to house No.3 of Nagarabhavi, an amount of Rs.34,44000 deposited to BESCOM to take electricity connections to house No.47 of Nagarabhavi under various RR numbers, an amount of Rs.1,15,07000 deposited to BESCOM to take electricity connections to house No.8 of Nagarabhavi under various RR numbers, an amount of Rs.1,710 00 deposited to BESCOM to take electricity connections to house No.78 of Nagarabhavi under various RR numbers, as assets of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked certified 129 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 copies of documents and letters issued by BESCOM as Ex.P99. On the other hand, the accused has not disputed electricity connection taken and she has also admitted the amount deposited to BESCOM. As per the final report and the documents collected by the prosecution, the total amount deposited by the accused to take electricity connections under various RR numbers is Rs.1,66,03000. Therefore, this amount is considered as an asset of the accused. (LIV). ADT1: An amount of Rs.3,75000 deposited to take telephone connection:
(a). The investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.3,75000, which was deposited to BSNL to take telephone connection to the house of the accused as an asset of accused. The accused has admitted that she had taken telephone connection and deposited an amount of Rs.3,75000. In view of the admission of the accused, an amount of Rs.3,75000 is considered as an asset of the accused.
130 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(LV). AWC1 and AWC2: Deposited amount of Rs.1,14,37000 and Rs.2,34000 to BWSSB to take water connection to the houses of accused:
(a). The investigating officer has considered deposited amount of Rs.1,14,37000 and Rs.2,340 00 to BWSSB to take water connection to the houses of accused as an assets of the accused. The accused has not disputed that she has taken water connection from BWSSB by depositing an amount of Rs.1,14,37000 and Rs.2,34000. In this regard PW 9 has also got marked the document as Ex.P105 and Ex.P137. By considering contents of these two documents and in view of the admission of the accused, an amount of Rs.1,16,71000 is considered as an asset of the accused. (LVI). AC1 and AC2: Membership fee of Rs.3,81600 in Gormeth Club and Rs.10,65500 in Satellite Club:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered the membership fee and admission fee paid to get membership in Gormeth Club and Satellite Club as 131 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 assets of the accused. As per the final report, at the time of search in the house of accused, documents regarding Gormeth Club were found and those documents state that husband of the accused has taken membership in Gormeth Club, in this regard a letter was written to Gormeth Club seeking details of membership of husband of the accused but no details were received, hence by considering the receipt traced out in the house of the accused during search, an amount of Rs.3,86000 is considered as an asset of the accused under AC1.
(b). The investigating officer further contended that in her schedule the accused has stated that her husband has taken membership in Satellite Club, in this regard details were collected from the Club, on the basis of those documents an amount of Rs.10,65500 is considered as an asset of the accused under AC2.
(c). The accused has not disputed the contention of the prosecution that her husband has taken 132 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 membership in the above mentioned clubs by paying above mentioned amount. But, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that these expenses are covered under per capita monthly expenditure, in that event if the amount of membership is considered under the head of asset, it amounts to duplication, therefore these amount shall not be considered as an asset of the accused. The documents which are marked as Ex.P119 and Ex.P 120 proved that husband of the accused has taken membership in Goldfinch Hotels Pvt Ltd., by paying Rs.3,86000 and membership in Satellite Club by paying Rs.10,65500. But a perusal of Ex.P129 makes it clear that the Deputy Director of Statistics, Karnataka Lokayukta, has included the club fees in invisible/ nonvariable expenditure of the family. If it is so, if the deposited amount and other expenses made towards membership of the clubs are considered as assets of the accused it amounts to duplication. Since Deputy Director of Statistics, 133 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Karnataka Lokayukta has already considered the membership of the clubs under the head invisible / nonvariable expenditure, I decline to consider these amount as an expenditure of the accused. (LVII). AGC1: Rs.80000 paid towards deposit to take gas connection under consumer No.620503:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has deposited an amount of Rs.80000 to take gas connection. As per Ex.P123 the accused has deposited an amount of Rs.80000 to take gas connection under consumer No.620503. The accused has not disputed the contention of the prosecution and contents of Ex.P123. Therefore, without further discussion I have considered an amount of Rs.80000 as an asset of the accused.
(LVIII). AGC2: Rs.1,90000 paid towards deposit to take gas connection under consumer No.611571:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has deposited an amount of Rs.1,90000 to take gas connection to take gas connection under consumer 134 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 No.611571. This fact has been proved by the document which is marked as Ex.P124. The accused has not disputed the contention of the prosecution and also the contents of Ex.P124.
Therefore, without further discussion, I have accepted the amount of Rs.1,90000 as an asset of the accused.
(LIX). ACM1: Deposit amount of Rs.2,40000 to take mobile connection bearing No.9880427055:
(a). The prosecution has contended that the accused has deposited Rs.2,40000 to take mobile connection, therefore the investigating officer has considered it as an asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed that she has deposited an amount of Rs.2,40000 to take mobile connection. A perusal of Ex.P63 has also makes it clear that the accused has made local deposit an amount of Rs.40000 on 07.12.2004 and Rs.2,00000 on 11.01.2005 to take post paid mobile connection. In view of admission of 135 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the accused and contents of Ex.P63, I have accepted Rs.2,40000 as an asset of the accused.
25. Thus, after considering documentary and oral evidence and also submissions of arguments of both sides, the assets and their value as per investigating officer, according to the accused and also as per the findings of the Court are as follows: Assets and their Assets and their Assets and their Sl. Property Description value as per value as per value according to No. Code No. of Assets investigating findings of the the accused.
Officer Court
Value of the
site and
Construction
Rs.3,60,00000 +
1 A11 cost on Site Rs.3,60,00000 + Rs.18,60,00000
Rs.15,00,00000
No.63 & 64 Rs.22,33,93000
of (2 & 3) of
Nagarabhavi
Value of the
3 acres of
land in
Sy.No.16,
present
2 A12 Rs.2,40,00000 Rs.2,40,00000 Rs.2,40,00000
No.16/p7 of
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of Site
No.2/83/2 of
3 A13 Rs.3,30,00000 Rs.3,30,00000 Rs.3,30,00000
Nagarabhavi
Village
Value of the
site and
Construction
4 A14 Rs.1,32,00000 + Rs.1,32,00000 +
cost on Site Rs.12,82,00000
Rs.22,80,4900 Rs.11,50,00000
No.47 of
Malagala
Value of Site
No.2 & 3 of
5 A15 Nagarabhavi Rs.8,21,00000 Rs.8,21,00000 Rs.8,21,00000
Village,
Mudalapalya
6 A16 Value of 2 Rs.2,82,50000 Rs.2,82,50000 Rs.2,82,50000
136 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
acre 33
guntas at
Sy.No.16,
present
No.16/p7 of
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of 3
acre at
Sy.No.16,
present
7 A17 No.16/p7 of Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of 3
acre at
Sy.No.16,
present
8 A18 No.16/p7 of Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000.
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of Site
No.1, 4th 'B'
Main Road,
9 A19 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.1,00,00000
Byraveshwar
a Nagar,
Nagarabhavi
Value of site
and
Construction Rs.30,00,00000+ Rs.30,00,00000+
10 A110 Rs.33,00,00000
cost on Site Rs.6,99,60500 Rs.3,00,00000
No.78 of
Nagarabhavi
Value of 1
acre of land
in
Sy.No.50/p3,
11 A111 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Kannamanga
la Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of 1
acre of land
in
Sy.No.50/p5,
12 A112 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Kannamanga
la Village,
Doddaballap
ura
13 A113 Value of 1 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
acre of land
in
Sy.No.50/p4,
Kannamanga
la Village,
137 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Doddaballap
ura
Purchase
price of
14 A114 Sy.No.67, Rs.10,00,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Doddaballap
ura
Purchase
price of
15 A115 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.464/1
of Kollegala
Purchase
price of
16 A116 Sy.No.78/A1 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
B1 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
17 A117 Sy.No.78/A1 Rs.62,50000 Rs.00 Rs.00
B1 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
18 A118 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.116/B
of Kollegala
Purchase
price of
19 A119 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.88 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
20 A120 Rs.62,50000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.116 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
21 A121 Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.228/1
of Kollegala
Purchase
price of
22 A122 Rs.25,00,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.50/p2
of Kollegala
Value of site
No.14, Ward
23 A123 No.38, Rs.4,72,00000 Rs.4,72,00000 Rs.4,72,00000
Nagarabhavi
Main Road
Construction
cost on Site
24 A124 Rs.15,27,36400 Rs.9,00,00000 Rs.9,00,00000
No.8 of
Nagarabhavi
Value of
property
bearing
Assessment
25 A125 Rs.1,98,00000 Rs.1,98,00000 Rs.1,98,00000
No.47, Katha
No.2875 of
Nagarabhavi
Village
26 A126 Purchase Rs.3,36,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
138 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
price of Site
No.48 of
Malagala
Value of
Sy.No.169 of
Kannamanga
27 A127 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
la Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of
property
bearing
House List
28 A128 Rs.00 Rs.00 Rs.00
No.5, Katha
No.1200 of
Mallathalli
Village
Value of Site
No.7,
29 A129 Rs.00 Rs.00 Rs.00
Nagarabhavi
Village
Value of
Sy.No.64/1,
64/2 & 64/3
of
30 A130 Rs.7,20,00000 Rs.7,20,00000 Rs.7,20,00000
Ranganathap
ura,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of
Sy.No.10,
46/3 & 46/4
31 A131 of Rs.1,90,00000 Rs.1,90,00000 Rs.1,90,00000
Chikkadevara
halli Village,
Kanakapura
Value of Site
No.8,
32 A132 Rs.00 Rs.00 Rs.00
Nagarabhavi
Village
Balance
amount in
A/c.
33 ABA1 No.42420100 Rs.57800 Rs.57800 Rs.57800
90711 of
Syndicate
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
34 ABA2 Rs.19,50300 Rs.19,50300 Rs.19,50300
No.15901520
429 of ICICI
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
35 ABA3 Rs.4,52600 Rs.4,52600 Rs.4,52600
No.56340201
0000577 of
Union Bank
36 ABA4 Balance Rs.12,72300 Rs.12,72300 Rs.12,72300
139 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
amount in
A/c.
No.014995 of
Janatha Co
operative
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
37 ABA5 Rs.2,01500 Rs.2,01500 Rs.2,01500
No.31941401
001774 of
Canara Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
38 ABA6 No.04282010 Rs.2,44600 Rs.2,44600 Rs.2,44600
104266 of
Syndicate
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c. No.635
39 ABA7 of Rs.8,21800 Rs.8,21800 Rs.8,21800
Rajajinagar
Cooperative
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
40 ABA8 Rs.38,14,65300 Rs.14,65300 Rs.14,65300
No.84011010
27550 of
Canara Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
41 ABA9 Rs.4,35000 Rs.4,35000 Rs.4,35000
No.31665883
104 of State
Bank of India
Balance
amount in
A/c. No.3812
42 ABA10 of Cauvery Rs.2,90200 Rs.2,90200 Rs.2,90200
Kalpataru
Gramina
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
43 ABA11 No.64074953 Rs.1,38700 Rs.1,38700 Rs.1,38700
326 of State
Bank of
Mysore
Payment
made to
Souharda
44 AB1 Rs.5,52500 Rs.00 Rs.00
Credit Co
operative
Ltd.,
45 AB2 Payment Rs.5,52500 Rs.00 Rs.00
made to
140 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Souharda
Credit Co
operative
Ltd.,
Share
Certificate
No003275 of
46 AB3 Rs.3,00000 Rs.3,00000 Rs.3,00000
Janatha Seva
Cooperative
Bank
Shares in
GGSE
47 AB4 Rs.8,00000 Rs.8,00000 Rs.8,00000
Financial
Ltd.,
Expenses
towards
48 AV1 Honda Deo Rs.42,12800 Rs.42,12800 Rs.00
No.KA41
HM5319
Gold articles
found in the
49 AJ Rs.17,45,70000 Rs.3,50,34200 Rs.3,50,574000
house of the
accused
Silver articles
found in the
50 ASA Rs.1,59,90000 Rs.00 Rs.1,59,90000
house of the
accused
Household
articles
51 AHA found in the Rs.10,33,91300 Rs.4,11,80000 Rs.4,11,80000
house of the
accused
52 ALIC1 LIC premium Rs.80,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
53 ALIC2 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
54 ALIC3 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
55 ALIC4 LIC premium Rs.2,19,22000 Rs.73,07200 Rs.73,07400
56 ALIC5 LIC premium Rs.2,17,53000 Rs.72,51000 Rs.72,51000
57 ALIC6 LIC premium Rs.1,60,64400 Rs.53,54800 Rs.53,54800
58 ALIC7 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.36,65400 Rs.36,65400
59 ALIC8 LIC premium Rs.1,66,60800 Rs.55,77600 Rs.55,41600
60 ALIC9 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.36,65400 Rs.36,65400
BESCOM
deposit
towards
61 ADE1 Rs.2,01000 Rs.2,01000 Rs.2,01000
House No.3,
Byraveshwar
a Nagar
BESCOM
deposit
towards
62 ADE2 Rs.12,80000 Rs.12,80000 Rs.12,80000
House No.3,
Byraveshwar
a Nagar
63 ADE3 BESCOM Rs.34,44000 Rs.34,44000 Rs.34,44000
deposit
towards
House No.47,
141 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Malagala
BESCOM
deposit
towards
64 ADE4 Rs.1,15,07000 Rs.1,15,07000 Rs.1,15,07000
House No.8,
Nagarabhavi
Main Road
BESCOM
deposit
65 ADE5 towards Rs.1,71000 Rs.1,71000 Rs.1,71000
House No.78,
Nagarabhavi
Telephone
deposit
towards
66 ADT1 Rs.3,75000 Rs.3,75000 Rs.3,75000
Phone
No.080
23217778
BWSSB
deposit
67 AWC1 towards Rs.1,14,37000 Rs.1,14,37000 Rs.1,14,37000
House No.47
of Malagala
BWSSB
deposit
towards
68 AWC2 House No.3 Rs.2,34000 Rs.2,34000 Rs.2,34000
of
Byraveshwar
a Nagar
Membership
for Bangalore
69 AC1 Rs.3,86000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Gurmith
Club
Membership
Rs.00
70 AC2 for Sati Light Rs.10,65500 Rs.00
Club
Payment
71 AGC1 made Rs.80000 Rs.80000 Rs.80000
towards Gas
Payment
Rs.1,90000
72 AGC2 made Rs.1,90000 Rs.1,90000
towards Gas
Deposit
Rs.2,40000
73 ACM1 towards Rs.2,40000 Rs.2,40000
mobile
Total Rs.2,72,89,92000 Rs.1,34,03,87500 Rs.1,35,21,52100
B. EXPENDITURE
26. The Investigating Officer has considered 87 heads of expenditures, which are as follows: 142 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Code No. of Value of the Value of the Sl. Description of the the expenditure as per expenditure as per No. expenditure expenditure IO accused Registration and stamp duty towards 1 EASR1 Rs.32,30000 Rs.32,30000 Site No.63 & 64 of (2 &
3) of Nagarbhavi Registration and stamp duty towards 3 acres of land in 2 EASR2 Sy.No.16, present Rs.23,24100 Rs.23,24100 No.16/p7 of Menasi Village, Doddabhallapura Registration and stamp duty towards 3 EASR3 Rs.31,91500 Rs.31,91500 Site No.2/83/2 of Nagarbhavi Village Registration and 4 EASR4 stamp duty towards Rs.13,49000 Rs.13,49000 Site No.47 of Malagala Registration and stamp duty towards 5 EASR5 Site No.2 & 3 of Rs.82,12000 Rs.82,12000 Nagarbhavi Village, Mudalapalya Registration and stamp duty towards 2 acre 33 guntas at 6 EASR6 Sy.No.16, present Rs.28,77500 Rs.28,77500 No.16/p4 of Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards 3 acre at Sy.No.16, 7 EASR7 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 present No.16/p4 of Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards 3 acre at Sy.No.16, present 8 EASR8 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 No.16/p5 of Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards Site No.1, 9 EASR9 4th 'B' Main Road, Rs.41,53000 Rs.41,53000 Byraveshwara Nagar, Nagarabhavi Registration and stamp duty towards 10 EASR10 Rs.2,99,07000 Rs.2,99,07000 Site No.78 of Nagarabhavi 143 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Registration and stamp duty towards 1 acre of land in 11 EASR11 Rs.14,58500 Rs.14,58500 Sy.No.50/p3, Kannamangala Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards1 acre of land in 12 EASR12 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Sy.No.50/p5, Kannamangala Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards 1 acre of land in 13 EASR13 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Sy.No.50/p4, Kannamangala Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards 14 EASR14 Rs.29,47100 Rs.00 Sy.No.67, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards 15 EASR15 Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.464/1 of Kollegala Registration and stamp duty towards 16 EASR16 Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Kollegala Registration and stamp duty towards 17 EASR17 Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.502/A of Kollegala Registration and stamp duty towards 18 EASR18 Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.116/B of kollegala Registration and 19 EASR19 stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.88 of Kollegala Registration and 20 EASR20 stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.116 of Kollegala Registration and stamp duty towards 21 EASR21 Rs.55000 Rs.00 Sy.No.228/1 of Kollegala Registration and stamp duty towards 22 EASR22 Rs.3,32,83500 Rs.00 Sy.No.50/p2 of Kannamangala 23 EASR23 Registration and Rs.45,36500 Rs.45,36500 144 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 stamp duty towards Site No.14, Ward No.38, Nagarabhavi Main Road Registration and stamp duty towards 24 EASR24 Rs.9,53000 Rs.00 Site No.8 of Nagarabhavi Registration and stamp duty towards 25 EASR25 Assessment No.47, Rs.20,12000 Rs.20,12000 Katha No.2875 of Nagarabhavi Village Registration and stamp duty towards 26 EASR26 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Sy.No.169 of Kannamangala Cost incurred towards registration and stamp 27 EASR27 duties to gift deed Rs.1,89000 Rs.00 executed by father of the accused Cost incurred towards registration and stamp duties to gift deed 28 EASR28 Rs.1,96000 Rs.00 executed by grandmother of the husband Registration and stamp duty towards 29 EASR29 Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 and Rs.73,66000 Rs.73,66000 64/3 of Ranganathapura Registration and stamp duty towards 30 EASR30 Sy.No.10.46/3 and Rs.29,45000 Rs.29,45000 46/4 of Ranganathapura Registration and 31 EASR31 stamp duty towards Rs.32,02000 Rs.00 site No.48 of Malagala Cost incurred towards registration and stamp duties to gift deed 32 EASR32 Rs.1,65000 Rs.00 executed by grandmother of the husband Property tax paid 33 EAT1 towards Site No.78 of Rs.60,05100 Rs.60,05100 Nagarabhavi Property tax paid 34 EAT2 towards Assessment Rs.14,14300 Rs.12,30000 No.47 of Nagarabhavi 145 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Property tax paid 35 EAT3 towards No.7, Rs.36,74900 Rs.36,74900 Nanjarasappa Layout Property tax paid 36 EAT4 towards No.63 & 64 of Rs.96,08600 Rs.81,08600 Nagarabhavi Property tax paid 37 EAT5 towards No.1233 of Rs.4,74600 Rs.00 Yashwanthapura Hobli Property tax paid 38 EAT6 towards Site No.47 of Rs.1,02,72300 Rs.1,02,72300 Yashwanthapura Hobli Property tax paid towards House List 39 EAT7 Rs.2,63400 Rs.2,63400 No.5 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar BWSSB Charges paid 40 EWC1 towards No.3, Rs.31,76000 Rs.11,37200 Byraweshwara Nagar KPTCL charges for 41 EEC1 No.3 Byraweshwara Rs.10,64000 Rs.00 Nagar KPTCL charges paid 42 EEC2 towards No.3, Rs.83,95200 Rs.44,24100 Byraweshwara Nagar Plan sanction charges 43 EAO1 paid towards No.3, Rs.4,34300 Rs.4,34300 Byraweshwara Nagar Maintenance and fuel EMF1 Rs.11,39000 Rs.11,39000 44 charges of vehicle EMR1 Rs.50000 Rs.50000 No.KA41S5319 Insurance paid 45 EMI1 towards vehicle No.KA Rs.87200 Rs.87200 41S5319 Payment made towards mobile charge 46 ECM1 Rs.1,86,65400 Rs.1,16,28900 of mobile No.9880427055 Payment made 47 ECM2 towards mobile charge Rs.40,36700 Rs.12,49900 of airtel mobile Payment made 48 ECT1 towards landline Rs.1,45,59700 Rs.1,16,84900 No.23217778 49 ERB1 Loan Repayment Rs.46,91,08800 Rs.34,53,18100 50 ERB2 Loan Repayment Rs.2,80,22000 Rs.2,44,22000 51 ERB3 Loan Repayment Rs.6,56,09300 Rs.2,44,07100 52 ERB4 Loan Repayment Rs.4,56,44400 Rs.00 53 ERB5 Loan Repayment Rs,8,96,46900 Rs,6,76,73000 54 ERB6 Loan Repayment Rs.10,47,20000 Rs.4,95,00000 55 ERB7 Loan Repayment Rs.10,13,57300 Rs.7,78,29300 146 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 56 ERB8 Loan Repayment Rs.5,99,13200 Rs.3,63,85200 57 ERB9 Loan Repayment Rs.6,14,92700 Rs.6,14,92700 Payment of Income Tax 58 EIT1 Rs.17,53500 Rs.17,53500 by accused Payment of Income tax 59 EIT2 Rs.1,05,33900 Rs.77,90000 by Ravi Kumar Domestic Per Capita monthly 60 Rs.8,47,53500 Rs.6,15,53900 Expenditure expenditure Cost incurred for 61 EP1 Rs.46,50000 Rs.12,76700 Labrador dog Cost incurred for pug 62 EP2 Rs.31,55000 Rs.6,51700 dog Payment made 63 EGC1 towards cooking gas Rs.39,75900 Rs.23,92100 No.620503 Payment made 64 EGC2 towards cooking gas Rs.52,71500 Rs.39,88300 No.611571 Payment incurred 65 EP1 & 2 Rs.3,50000 Rs.3,50000 towards passport Educational expenses 66 EE1 Rs.96,92100 Rs.64,46000 of Sharath Kumar Educational expenses 67 EE2 Rs.4,99,31000 Rs.4,69,90000 of Bharath Kumar Payment made 68 ERC1 Rs.1,50000 Rs.00 towards satellite club Rent paid towards 69 ERS1 running Byraveshwara Rs.84,00000 Rs.84,00000 Fabrication works Payment made 70 EO1 towards Insurance Rs.4,45900 Rs.4,45900 policy House expenditure 71 EO2 Rs.17,13,59400 Rs.00 shown in returns Medical Expenditure of 72 EMISC1 accused at Fortis Rs.12,40100 Rs.00 Hospital Value of the purchase 73 EMISC2 bill found in the house Rs.10,86000 Rs.8,50000 in respect of Fridge Value of the purchase 74 EMISC3 bill found in the house Rs.29,90000 Rs.10,00000 in respect of Treadmill Value of the purchase bill found in the house 75 EMISC4 Rs.14,95000 Rs.00 in respect of Mineral Water Purifier Value of the purchase bill found in the house 76 EMISC5 Rs.3,70000 Rs.3,70000 in respect of Kent Grand Water level 147 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 controller Value of the purchase bill found in the house 77 EMISC6 Rs.12,99000 Rs.6,00000 in respect of Kenstar washing machine Value of the purchase bill found in the house 78 EMISC7 Rs.10,99000 Rs.10,99000 in respect of Tessat Watch Value of the purchase bill found in the house 79 EMISC8 Rs.4,30000 Rs.4,30000 in respect of Nokia Mobile Value of the purchase bill found in the house 80 EMISC9 Rs.5,00000 Rs.5,00000 in respect of Bajaj Chethak Value of the purchase bill found in the house 81 EMISC10 Rs.35,00000 Rs.35,00000 in respect of Solar system Value of the purchase 82 EMISC11 bill found in the house Rs.13,00000 Rs.13,00000 in respect of mobile Value of the purchase bill found in the house 83 EMISC12 Rs.14,50000 Rs.14,50000 in respect of Samsung Mobile Value of the purchase bill found in the house 84 EMISC13 Rs.24,22300 Rs.5,00000 in respect of Sony DVD Music System Value of the purchase bill found in the house 85 EMISC14 Rs.19,00000 Rs.19,00000 in respect of Solar Water Heater Expenses incurred 86 EMISC15 Rs.1,42500 Rs.1,42500 towards Travelin Hotel Payment made EMISC16 87 towards congress party Rs.2,00000 Rs.2,00000 & 17 fund Total Rs.1,61,00,35100 Rs.98,83,30400
27. Out of the above mentioned 87 heads of expenditure, the accused has disputed only 47 heads of 148 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 expenditure and remaining heads of expenditure have been admitted by the accused.
28. As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, if this Court finds that the accused was not a public servant for a period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the assets said to have been earned by the accused during this period cannot be taken note of. As discussed above, this Court has given a finding that the accused was not a public servant for a period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court cannot go beyond the provision of the Act, therefore this Court can interpret the Judgment of the High Court in consonance with the provisions of the PC Act. He further argued that since in Prevention of Corruption cases are to ascertain disproportionate asset, Court has to consider assets, expenditure and income of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that if this Court has not consider expenditure of the accused, it would be against 149 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and it would amounts to contempt of Court. After perusal of the order in Crl.R.P.No.551/2019, I came to know that the Hon'ble High Court has not directed not to consider expenditure and income of the accused, but has directed not to consider the assets of the accused during the period in which the accused was not a public servant i.e., from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, this Court has not considered the assets earned during the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but the expenditure of the accused made during the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 has to be considered. Accordingly, I proceed to discuss the evidence and arguments of both sides on expenditure one by one. (I). EASR1: Payment of Rs.32,30000 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site Nos.63 and 64:
(a). On the basis of documents collected from SubRegistrar, Peenya, Bengaluru, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.32,30000 150 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site Nos.63 and 64 of Nagarabhavi, as expenses of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.32,30000 by her husband for Registration of these sites and not objected to consider this amount as her expenditure. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a document as Ex.P111. In view of admissions of the accused and considering the contents of Ex.P111, I have considered Rs.32,300 00 as an expenditure of the accused. (II). EASR2: Payment of Rs.23,24100 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property in Sy.No.16/p7:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.23,24100, which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.16/p7, as expenses of 151 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.23,24100 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. The prosecution has also got marked a letter of SubRegistrar and copy of sale deed as Ex.P64. In view of admissions of the accused and perusal of Ex.P64, I have considered Rs.23,24100 as an expenditure of the accused. (III). EASR3: Payment of Rs.31,91500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.2/83/2:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar of Peenya, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.31,91500, which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.2/83/2 as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a letter of subregistrar and copy of sale deed as Ex.P42 through PW2 and PW9 has identified it. The 152 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused has not disputed payment of Rs.31,91500 by her husband for Registration of these sites and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.31,91500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(IV). EASR4: Payment of Rs.13,49000 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property in Sy.No.3:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar of Peenya, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.13,49000 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.3, as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a letter of subregistrar and copy of sale deed which are in Ex.P42 and PW9 has identified these documents. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.13,49000 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to 153 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 consider this amount towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.13,49000 as an expenditure of the accused. (V). EASR5: Payment of Rs.82,12000 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property in site Nos.2 and 3:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.82,12000 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of land in site Nos.2 and 3, as an expenses of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.82,12000 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter of subregistrar and copy of sale deed as Ex.P 136 through PW9. The accused has not disputed contents of this document. In view of admissions of the accused and contents of documents, I have 154 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 considered Rs.82,12000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(VI). EASR6: Payment of Rs.28,77500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property in Sy.No.16/p4:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.28,77500, which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 2 acres 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.16/p4, as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a letter of subregistrar, copy of sale deed and encumbrance certificate etc., as Ex.P65 through PW2 and PW9 has identified this document. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.28,77500 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.28,77500 as an expenditure of the accused. 155 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (VII). EASR7: Payment of Rs.30,43500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property in Sy.No.16/p4:
(a). The investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.30,43500 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 3 acres of land Sy.No.16/p4, as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the investigating officer has collected letter of Sub Registrar, copy of sale deed and encumbrance certificate which are at Ex.P66. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.30,43500 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. The accused has also not disputed contents of Ex.P66. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.30,43500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(VIII). EASR8: Payment of Rs.30,43500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other 156 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property in Sy.No.16/p5:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.30,43500, which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 3 acres of land Sy.No.16/p5, as an expenses of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.30,43500 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. The documents pertaining to this property has been got marked by the prosecution as Ex.P67. In view of admissions of the accused and contents of Ex.P67, I have considered Rs.30,43500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(IX). EASR9: Payment of Rs.41,53000 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.1:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has 157 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 considered an amount of Rs.41,53000, which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.1, as an expenses of the accused. In order to substantiate its contention the prosecution has got marked the documents as Ex.P39. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.41,53000 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.41,53000 as an expenditure of the accused. (X). EASR10: Payment of Rs.2,99,07000 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.78:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.2,99,07000 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.78, as an expenses of the accused. The accused has not 158 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 disputed payment of Rs.2,99,07000 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked the documents as Ex.P40. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.2,99,07000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XI). EASR11: Payment of Rs.14,58500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p3:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.14,58500, which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of the land, as an expenses of the accused. The prosecution has also got marked the documents as Ex.P68. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.14,58500 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider 159 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 this amount towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.14,58500 as an expenditure of the accused. (XII). EASR12: Payment of Rs.14,61500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p5:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.14,61500 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of this land, as an expenses of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.14,61500 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked the documents as Ex.P69. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.14,61500 as an expenditure of the accused.
160 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XIII). EASR13: Payment of Rs.14,61500 towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p4:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the investigating officer has considered an amount of Rs.14,61500 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of this land, as an expenses of the accused. In order to substantiate its contention, the prosecution has got marked the letter and copy of sale deed as Ex.P
70. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.14,61500 by her husband for Registration of the land and not objected to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I have considered Rs.14,61500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XIV). EASR14: Payment of Rs.29,47100 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other 161 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 miscellaneous expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.67:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 15.10.2007 husband of the accused has purchased 3 acre 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 for consideration of Rs.10,00,00000 and he has paid Rs.20,73600 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.2,40000 towards Registration Fee and Rs.50500 towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence this amount is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property on 05.10.2007 and as per the contents of Ex.P71, he had paid Rs.20,73600 towards Stamp duty, Rs.2,40000 towards Registration fee and Rs.50500 towards Miscellaneous expenses. It is further admitted the fact that the accused has got executed a consent deed on 26.10.2007 by Smt. Venkatamma and others, in respect of this property and paid stamp duty of Rs.85000, Registration fee of Rs.10000 and other miscellaneous charges of Rs.24000. In his evidence, PW9 has deposed that 162 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 as the accused had paid Rs.29,47100 for Registration of 3 acres 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67, he has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that at the time of purchase of this property accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010 in which the accused was not a public servant. Therefore, I have considered Rs.29,47100 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XV). EASR15: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.464/1:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 09.09.2008 husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.464/1 for consideration of Rs.1,00,00000 and 163 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 he has paid Rs.15000 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.200 00 towards Registration Fee and Rs.15000 towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property on 09.09.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.20000 towards Stamp duty, Rs.20000 towards Registration fee and Rs.15000 towards scanning fee. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 4 cents of land in Sy.No.464/1, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 164 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XVI) EASR16: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other miscellaneous expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.78/A1 B1:
(a). As per the Final Report husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.78/A1 B1 on 10.07.2008 for Rs.25,00000 and he has paid Rs.15000 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.20000 towards Registration Fee and Rs.15000 towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 11.07.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.15000 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.20000 towards Registration Fee and Rs.15000 towards Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 219.4 metres of land in Sy.No.78/A1 B1, he has considered same as an expenditure of the 165 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XVII). EASR17: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.502/A:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.502/A on 28.08.2008 for Rs.62,50000 and he has paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per 166 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 2.59 acres of land in Sy.No.502/A, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XVIII). EASR18: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.116/B:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.116/B on 167 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 09.09.2008 for Rs.25,00000 and he has paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 09.09.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 0.60 x 0.75 cents of land in Sy.No.116/B, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 168 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XIX). EASR19: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.88:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.88 on 28.08.2008 for Rs.37,50000 and he has paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 1.50 acres of land in Sy.No.88, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of 169 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XX). EASR20: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.116:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.116 on 28.08.2008 for Rs.62,50000 and he has paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000 170 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 1.50 acres of land in Sy.No.116, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXI). EASR21: Payment of Rs.55000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.228/1:
(a). As per the Final Report husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.228/1 on 171 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 28.08.2008 for Rs.40,00000 and he has paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 1.80 acres of land in Sy.No.228/1, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have 172 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXII). EASR22: Payment of Rs.3,32,83500 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.169:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 05.01.2009 husband of the accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.169 for Rs.25,00,00000 and he has paid Rs.3,32,83500 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the husband of the accused had purchased this property on 05.01.2009 and as per the contents of Ex.P35 he had paid Rs.3,32,83500 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.3,32,835 00 for Registration of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.169, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the 173 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused is that during purchase of this property the accused was not a public servant, hence this expenditure should not be considered. As discussed above, the Hon'ble High Court has directed not to consider assets of the accused but not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.3,32,83500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXIII). EASR23: Payment of Rs.45,36500 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of site No.8:
(a). The investigating officer has considered Rs.45,36500 paid towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of site No.14. Admittedly, the accused has purchased this site on 15.12.2003 for Rs.4,72,00000 and the accused has also not disputed payment of Rs.45,365 00 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of the site. As per the 174 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 sale deed which is in Ex.P41, the accused has purchased this property on 15.12.2003. Therefore, I have considered an amount of Rs.45,36500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXIV). EASR24 - Payment of Rs.9,53000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of site No.8:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 28.01.2002 Smt. Siddamma, who is the grand mother of husband of the accused had gifted this property in favour of husband of the accused and the husband of the accused had paid Rs.9,53000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, grand mother of husband of the accused had gifted this property under a gift deed, which is marked as Ex.P76. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that as grand mother has gifted to her grand son due to love and affection, the registration fee and other charges were 175 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 borne by herself, and the accused has not paid any amount for registration of gift deed. The learned public prosecutor has argued that there is no document to show who has paid registration fee and other miscellaneous expenses, as the property has been registered in the name of husband of the accused, this expenses should be considered. In his chief examination, DW6 has deposed that site No.8 was gifted by his grandmother. But he has not deposed whether his grandmother has paid the registration fee or he has paid it. In his cross examination PW9 has also stated that Smt. Siddamma has gifted this property in favour of husband of the accused and no documents were traced out to show that husband of the accused had paid registration fee and stamp duty. Generally, when the property was gifted out of love and affection to the nearest and dearest person or relative, donor would borne the expenses of registration and other charges. In his crossexamination, PW9 has also 176 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 admitted that, he has not enquired either husband of the accused or his grandmother to know about the person who paid stamp duty or registration fee. The investigation officer has not collected any material to show that this amount was actually paid by husband of the accused and not by his grandmother. Except the gift deed, which shows payment of Rs.9,53000 towards registration and stamp duty, nothing is on record to prove that the husband of the accused has borne this amount. In the absence of evidence on record, I decline to consider Rs.9,53000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXV). EASR25: Payment of Rs.20,12000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of site bearing Asst.No.47/Khata No.2875:
(a). The investigating officer has considered Rs.20,12000, which was paid towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of this site. Admittedly, the accused has purchased this site on 04.02.2004 for Rs.1,98,000 177 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 00 and the accused has also not disputed payment of Rs.20,12000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of the site. As per the sale deed which is at Ex.P118, the accused has purchased this property on 04.02.2004.
Therefore, I have considered an amount of Rs.20,12000 as an expenditure of the accused. (XXVI). EASR26: Payment of Rs.14,61500 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of land in old Sy.No.50/p1 and New Sy.No.169:
(a). The investigating officer has considered Rs.14,61500, which was paid towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of this site. Admittedly, the accused has purchased this site on 15.07.2006 for Rs.1,50,000 00 and the accused has also not disputed payment of Rs.14,61500 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of the site. 178 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Therefore, I have considered an amount of Rs.14,61500 as an expenditure of the accused. (XXVII). EASR27: Payment of Rs.1,89000 for Registration of gift deed of the house bearing Assessment No.38/2 and Khata No.1200:
(a). As per the Final Report, father of the accused by name G. Narayana Swamy has gifted this property in favour of the accused on 02.03.2007 and the accused has paid Rs.1,89000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, father of the accused had gifted this property under a gift deed, which is marked as Ex.P
104. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that as father of the accused has gifted this property to the accused due to love and affection, the registration fee and other charges were borne by himself and the accused has not paid any amount for registration of gift deed. In his cross examination PW 9 has also admitted that father of the accused G. 179 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Narayana Swamy has given this property under the Gift Deed. PW9 has further admitted that no documents are available to show who has paid the Registration fee and stamp duty. He further admitted that in that regard he has not enquired either the accused or his father. Generally, when the property was gifted to the nearest relative out to love and affection, the donor will borne the expenses of registration as same was gifted out of love and affection. Except the gift deed there is no any other document to show that registration and stamp duty was paid by the accused. Apart from that the gift deed was registered on 02.03.2007, when the accused was not a public servant. Therefore, I decline to consider Rs.1,89000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXVIII). EASR28: Payment of Rs.1,96000 for Registration of the site bearing Khata No.47 and site No.7:
(a). As per the Final Report, grandmother of husband of the accused by name Smt. Siddamma 180 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 had gifted this property in favour of husband of the accused on 30.10.2011 and husband of the accused had paid Rs.1,96000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, grand mother of the husband of the accused had gifted this property under a gift deed which is marked as Ex.P106. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that as grandmother of the husband of the accused has gifted to the husband of the accused due to love and affection, the registration fee and other charges were borne by herself, and the husband of the accused has not paid any amount for registration of gift deed. In his cross examination PW9 has also admitted that grand mother of husband of the accused by name Smt. Siddamma has given this property under a Gift Deed. He further admitted that no documents are available to show who has paid the Registration fee and stamp duty. He further admitted that in this regard he has 181 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 not enquired either the husband of the accused or his grand mother. Generally, when the property was gifted to the nearest relative, due to love and affection, the donor will borne the expenses of registration as same was gifted out of love and affection. There is no document to show that registration fee and stamp duty was paid by husband of the accused. In the absence of evidence on record, I decline to consider Rs.1,96000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXIX). EASR29: Payment of Rs.73,66000 for Stamp duty, Registration fee and Miscellaneous expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 and 64/3
(a). The investigating officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused on the basis of the documents which are marked as Ex.P
107. Contention of the prosecution is that husband of the accused has purchased the lands in these survey numbers and paid registration and other miscellaneous charges of Rs.73,66000. The accused 182 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has not denied payment of Registration fee, stamp duty and other miscellaneous charges of Rs.73,660
00. In view of the contents of Ex.P115 and admission of the accused, I have considered Rs.73,66000 as expenses of the accused. (XXX). EASR30: Payment of Rs.29,45000 for Stamp duty, Registration fee and Miscellaneous expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.10, 46/3 and 46/4:
(a). The investigating officer has consider this amount as an expenditure of the accused on the basis of the documents which are marked as Ex.P
115. Contention of the prosecution is that husband of the accused has purchased the lands in these survey numbers and paid registration charges and other charges of Rs.29,45000. The accused has not denied payment of Registration fee, stamp duty and other miscellaneous charges of Rs.29,45000. In view of the contents of Ex.P115 and admission of the accused, I have considered Rs.29,45000 as expenses of the accused.
183 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XXXI). EASR31: Payment of Rs.32,02000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of Site No.48 in Sy.No.3:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 05.05.2007 husband of the accused has purchased the Site No.48 in Sy.No.3 for consideration of Rs.3,36,00000 and he has paid Rs.32,02000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased this property on 05.05.2007 and as per the contents of Ex.P97 he had paid Rs.32,02000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.32,02000 for Registration of site, he has considered same as an expenditure of the accused. Since, husband of the accused had purchased this property he had to pay registration fee and stamp duty, but argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that on 05.05.2007 the 184 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused was not a public servant, hence this amount should not be considered as an expenditure. Admittedly, this amount was paid during the check period. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed this Court not to consider assets of the accused if it is found that she was not a public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed not to consider the expenditure during this period. Therefore, by rejecting the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused, I have considered Rs.32,02000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXII). EASR32: Payment of Rs.1,65000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for Registration of site No.8, Assessment No.47:
(a). As per the Final Report, Smt. Siddamma who is the grandmother of husband of the accused had gifted this property in favour of husband of the accused on 29.05.2010 and husband of the accused had paid Rs.1,65000 towards Stamp Duty, 185 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, grand mother of the husband of the accused had gifted this property under a gift deed which is marked as Ex.P130. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that as grandmother has gifted to her grand son due to love and affection, the registration fee and other charges were borne by herself, and the accused has not paid any amount for registration of gift deed. In his cross examination PW9 has also stated that Smt. Siddamma has gifted this property in favour of husband of the accused and no documents were traced out to show that husband of the accused had paid registration fee and stamp duty. Generally, when the property was gifted to the nearest and dearest person or a relative out of love and affection, the registration and other expenses would be borne by the donor. Further, PW 9 has also admitted that, he has not enquired either husband of the accused or his grand mother to know 186 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 about the person who paid stamp duty or registration fee. There is on evidence on record to prove that husband of the accused had paid Registration fee and other charges for registration of the gift deed. In the absence of evidence on record, I decline to consider Rs.1,65000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXIII). EAT1: Payment of revenue of Rs.60,05100 in respect of House No.78, Nagarabhavi:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from Revenue Officer, BBMP. Basaveswaranagara, the investigating officer has considered Rs.60,05100 as an expenditure of accused. The accused has admitted payment of Rs.60,05100 towards revenue for the House No.78 which is in 2nd stage, 8th Block, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution has got marked revenue receipts as Ex.P86. In view of he admission by the 187 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused, I have considered Rs.60,05100 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXIV). EAT2: Payment of tax of Rs.14,14300 in respect of site bearing Assessment No.47, Khata No.2875:
(a). In the final report, the Investigating Officer has reported that during the search in the house of accused, he has traced out tax paid receipts, in this regard he has sought details from revenue officials, but he has not received any documents. Prosecution has contended that as per the revenue receipts, which are seized from the house of the accused, she had paid Rs.12,30000 towards revenue. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that accused had paid revenue in respect of site in Assessment No.47 and Khata No.2875 is Rs.14,14300. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the amount covered under the receipt is Rs.12,30000, but Investigating Officer has wrongly taken it as Rs.14,14300, hence 188 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.1,84300 is liable to be deducted from Rs.14,143
00.
(b). It is to be noted that in the Final Report though the Investigating Officer has contended that husband of the accused had paid revenue of Rs.12,30000, while calculating he has considered Rs.14,14300 towards expenditure. The prosecution, accused and PW9 have contended that as per Ex.P 48, accused had paid the revenue in respect of the above mentioned site. But, Ex.P48 is the property file submitted by the investigating officer along with the mahazar, but not revenue receipt. After perusal of entire file, I came to know that the prosecution has not got marked revenue receipt of either Rs.12,300 00 or Rs.14,14300. At page No.1 to 15 of file No.7, the Investigating Officer has kept xerox copy of the revenue receipt, which says that on 24.06.2004 husband of the accused had paid Rs.13,30000 on 24.06.2004 and on 17.12.2009 he had paid Rs.843 00 towards revenue of the property. These receipts 189 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 are xerox documents and not got marked by the prosecution. But, the accused herself has admitted that her husband had paid revenue of Rs.12,30000 towards site bearing Assessment No.47 during the check period. Therefore, I have considered Rs.12,30000 as an expenditure of the accused. (XXXV). EAT3: Payment of Rs.36,74900 towards revenue tax of the house No.7, Nanjarasappa layout, Bengaluru:
(a). On the basis of revenue receipts traced out in the house of the accused, the investigating officer has considered Rs.36,74900 as an expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed that house No.7 belonged to her husband and payment of revenue of Rs.36,74900. Hence, Rs.36,74900 is considered as an expenses of the accused. (XXXVI). EAT4: Payment of Rs.96,08600 towards Revenue for site Nos.63 and 64 of Assessment No.83/1:
(a). On the basis of details obtained from BBMP, Basaveswaranagara, the investigating officer has 190 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 considered Rs.96,08600 as an expenditure of the accused. It is the contention of the prosecution that husband of the accused has paid the revenue of Rs,96,086 for these sites. A perusal of Ex.P5 makes it clear that husband of the accused Sri. H. Ravikumar has purchased site Nos.63 and 64 for Rs.3,60,00000. But, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that an amount of Rs.15,00000 was paid on 18.11.2008, therefore Rs.15,00000 has to be deducted from Rs.96,08600 as the accused was not a public servant in the year 2008 and consider only Rs.81,08600 as an expenditure of the accused. A perusal of Ex.P92 makes it clear that the accused had paid an amount of Rs.96,08600 towards revenue of this property from 07.04.2003 to 03.06.2011 i.e., within the check period. As discussed above, this court has given a finding that from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 accused was not a public servant. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider the assets, but not 191 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 directed not to consider the expenses of this period. Therefore, by rejecting the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused, I have considered Rs.96,08600 as an expenditure of the accused. (XXXVII). EAT5: Payment of Rs.4,74600 towards tax on property No.74/ Assessment No.83:
(a). At the time of search in the house of the accused, Investigating Officer has traced out Sale Deed, Revenue receipts etc., pertaining to the property No.74, as per said receipts, revenue of Rs.4,74600 was paid to BBMP. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that husband of the accused has purchased this property on 05.04.2006, before the sale transaction one Shantha Umapathi had paid property tax, therefore this amount cannot be considered as expenditure of the accused. A perusal of the Sale Deed, which is marked at Ex.P134, states that husband of the accused had purchased this property on 05.04.2006. Copy of the revenue receipt annexed to the Sale Deed (file No.4, 192 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 page 1415), which was seized during the search shows that revenue of Rs.4,74600 was paid on 07.01.2006 i.e., within the check period. But, this copy of the receipt clearly states that the revenue was paid by one Shantha Umapathi i.e., seller of the property, but not husband of the accused. Therefore, I decline to consider this amount as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXVIII). EAT6: Payment of Rs.1,02,72300 towards tax on site No.47:
(a). On the basis of documents collected from Revenue officer, Laggere subdivision, BBMP, the investigating officer has considered Rs.1,02,72300 which was paid towards tax on site No.47 as an expenditure of the accused. Ex.P7, the sale deed states that this property belonged to the husband of the accused. On the other hand, the accused has not disputed payment of Rs.1,02,72300 towards tax for this property. In view of the admission of the 193 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused, I have considered Rs.1,02,72300 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXIX). EAT7: Payment of Rs.2,63400 towards tax on House No.5, Mallathalli, Bengaluru.
(a). On the basis of revenue receipts traced out in the house of the accused, the investigating officer has considered Rs.2,63400 as an expenditure of the accused. As per Ex.P104, this property was gifted by father of the accused in favour of the accused and it is in the name of the accused. On the other hand, the accused has not disputed payment of Rs.2,63400 towards tax on the house. In view of the admission of the accused, I have considered Rs.2,63400 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XL). EWC1: Payment of water Cess of Rs.31,760 00 in respect of the House No.3, Bhyraveswara Nagara, Bengaluru:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenses of the accused as husband of the accused has paid this amount to BWSSB. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.31,76000 194 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 towards water cess in respect of the house No.3. In this regard the prosecution has got marked Ex.P122, which shows the payment of water cess by the husband of the accused. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that Ex.P122 says that the payment period starts from April 2005 to April 2012, since the accused was not a public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the amount paid during this period has to be excluded.
(b). A perusal of Ex.P122 makes it clear that husband of the accused has paid monthly water bill from April 2005 to April 2012. Since, the check period in this case is from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2009 has directed not to consider the asset said to be earned between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not the expenditures of the accused. Further, though Ex.P122 containing details of water cess paid from January 2006 to June 2012, the investigating officer has considered the water cess 195 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 paid during the check period only. Hence, I have considered the amount paid by the husband of the accused towards water cess. i.e., Rs.31,76000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XLI). EEC1: Payment electricity bill of Rs.10,64000 for house No.3:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused on the basis of the documents collected from BESCOM, Bengaluru. As per the case of the prosecution from 04.05.2005 to 18.12.2011 husband of the accused has paid Rs.10,64000 towards electricity charges. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that this amount was paid from 04.03.2005 to 18.12.2011, the accused was not a public servant from 24.01.2006 to 22.04.2010, report does not indicate the date on which payment were made, in this regard the Investigating Officer has not examined any witnesses, therefore this amount has to be deducted from the expenses of the accused. In his chief examination, PW9 has deposed that an amount 196 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of Rs.10,64000 was deposited to take electricity connection. A perusal of the documents in Ex.P81 makes it clear that an amount of Rs.10,64000 was deposited to take electricity connection. Ex.P81 is a public document and this document has been got marked by the prosecution through the investigating officer (PW2). This document, which is in page No.1120 of file No.3(2) is very clear that this amount was paid under a receipt dated 03.03.2005 ie., during the check period. Therefore, I have considered an amount of Rs.10,64000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XLII). EEC2: Payment electricity charges of Rs. 83,95200 for house No.3:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused on the basis of Ex.P81, which says that from 04.05.2005 to 24.11.2011 husband of the accused has paid an amount of Rs.83,95200 towards electricity charges. The accused has admitted payment of electricity charges of Rs.83,95200, but he has contended that 197 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the period of payment starts from May 2005 to December 2011, since the accused was not a public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, an amount of Rs.39,71100 has to be deducted from the amount taken by the Investigating Officer. In his chief examination PW9 has admitted that from 26.12.2006 to 06.03.2010 the accused has paid Rs.39,71100 towards electricity charges and he was not a public servant from 26.12.2006 to 06.03.2010. A perusal of the documents in Ex.P81 (page No.1119 to 1122) makes it clear that the accused had paid total electricity charges of Rs.83,95200 from 04.05.2005 to 18.12.2011. But, the check period is from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011 and as per Ex.P81 (page No.1122) the accused had paid an amount of Rs.1,61800 on 18.12.2011, therefore, Rs.1,61800 has to be deducted from Rs.83,95200, if we do so it comes to Rs.82,33400. Since the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not directed not to consider the expenditure from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have 198 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 considered Rs.82,33400 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XLIII). EAO1: Payment of fee of Rs.4,34300 towards approval of building sketch:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Rajarajeshwari Nagara Municipality, the investigating officer has considered this amount as expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.4,34300 for approval of sketch /plan in respect of property bearing No.3, Bhyraveswara Nagar. In view of admission of the accused regarding payment of Rs.4,34300 during the check period, I have accepted Rs.4,34300 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XLIV). EMF1 & EMR1: Payment of Rs.11,39000 towards fuel expenses and Rs.50000 towards maintenance of the vehicle:
(a). The investigating officer has considered Rs.11,39000 for fuel expenses and Rs.50000 towards maintenance of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41S:5319, which was in the name of son of the accused by name Bharathkumar. In this 199 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 regard the prosecution has got marked the document as Ex.P82. The accused has not disputed case of the prosecution that she has spent this amount for fuel and maintenance of the said vehicle. Therefore, I have considered Rs.11,89000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XLV). EMI1: Payment of Rs.87200 towards insurance of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41 S:5319:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from RTO, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, the investigating officer has considered this amount said to be spent to take take insurance policy to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41S:5319. The accused has admitted payment of Rs.87200 towards insurance of the vehicle. Therefore, I have considered Rs.87200 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XLVI). AV1: Expenses of Rs.42,12800 made towards Insurance, Tax and maintenance of a two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41HM:5319:
(a). The investigating officer has considered this amount of Rs.42,12800 under the head of Assets, 200 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 but as this is the expenses made towards insurance, tax and maintenance of the vehicle, this must be considered under the head of expenditure.
Accordingly, I have considered it under the head Expenditure. The accused has admitted this expenses towards the said vehicle. But, under expenditure Code No.EMF1 and EMR1, the investigating officer has considered Rs.50000 towards maintenance of the vehicle and under expenditure Code EMI1, the investigating officer has considered Rs.87200 towards insurance of the vehicle. The investigating officer has not described the period for which he has considered the maintenance expenses and insurance. Therefore, after deducting Rs.50000, which is considered under expenditure Code No.EMF1 and Rs.87200, which is considered under expenditure Code EMI1, I have considered Rs.40,75600 as an expenditure of the accused.
201 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XLVII). ECM1: Payment of Rs.1,86,65410 for having service of Airtel mobile No.9880427055:
(a). On the basis of the documents seized from the house of the accused at the time of raid and also on the basis of the documents obtained from M/s. Bharathi Airtel Ltd., the Investigating Officer has considered Rs.1,86,65410 which was paid for the service of Airtel mobile as an expenditure of the accused.
(b). The learned counsel for the accused has argued that from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 the accused was not a public servant, hence an amount of Rs.70,36500, which was paid by the accused during this period has to be excluded. In his chief examination PW9 has got marked Ex.P63 to prove that the accused had paid Rs.1,84,59700 towards mobile bearing No.9880427055. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.1,86,65410 from 28.01.2005 to 20.10.2011. No doubt, at para No229 of his cross examination, PW9 has admitted that 202 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 from 17.01.2007 to 27.08.2009 the accused has paid Rs.70,36500 for mobile calls when she was not a public servant. But, as aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but directed not to consider the assets of the accused in this period. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused has spent an amount of Rs.1,86,65400 for a mobile bearing No.9880427055.
(XLVIII). ECM2: Payment of Rs.40,36700 towards Airtel mobile bill through the SB A/c. No.563402010000577 of Union Bank of India :
(a). On the basis of the documents pertaining to the bank account of husband of the accused by name H. Ravikumar in Union Bank of India, the Investigating Officer has considered Rs.40,36700 under the head expenditure holding that husband of the accused paid this amount for the service of Airtel 203 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 mobile company through a cheque. The accused has admitted payment of Rs.40,36700 through a cheque for the service of Airtel mobile. The contention of the accused is that as the accused was not a public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the payment of Rs.27,86800 made in this period be excluded. But, as aforesaid the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused has spent an amount of Rs.40,36700 for the service of Airtel mobile.
(XLIX). ECT1: Payment of Rs.1,45,59700 for the service of BSNL phone No.23217778:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure on the basis of the documents obtained from BSNL office. According to the investigating officer, the accused has deposited an amount of Rs.3,75000 for landline phone and 204 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 paid total amount of Rs.1,45,59700 from 07.03.2012 towards monthly bill. As per Ex.P72, from 07.03.2012 the accused has paid phone bill of Rs.1,45,59700 and she has also deposited Rs.3,750 00 on 28.02.2002. But the Investigating Officer has not considered the deposited amount and he has considered only monthly payment of landline bill. The accused has not disputed payment of this amount towards landline phone, but he has contended that as the accused was not a public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the payment of Rs.28,74800 made in this period be excluded. But, as aforesaid the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused has spent an amount of Rs.1,49,34700 for the service of landline phone.
205 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(L). ERB1: Payment of loan of Rs.46,91,08894 in respect of account No.0424/721/266 of Syndicate Bank:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that on the basis of the documents obtained from Syndicate Bank, he came to know that on 25.01.2006 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.30,00,00000 and from that day till 01.12.2011 he has repaid an amount of Rs.46,91,08894 towards principal and interest, hence this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention regarding loan and repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P43 through PW2. PW9 has also given his evidence about loan on the basis of Ex.P43. The accused has not disputed that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.30,00,00000 and repaid the same with interest which amounts to Rs.46,91,08894. The accused has contended that as she was not a public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the payment of 206 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.12,37,90700 made in that period be excluded. But, as aforesaid the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused has paid an amount of Rs.46,91,08800 towards repayment of loan and interest.
(LI). ERB2: Repayment of loan of Rs.2,80,22000 in respect of account No.49 of the Rajajinagar Co operative Bank:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that on the basis of the documents obtained from Rajajinagar Cooperative Bank, he came to know that on 03.04.2010 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.9,70,00000 and from 08.05.2010 to 10.03.2012 he has repaid an amount of Rs.2,80,220 00 towards principal and interest, hence this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention regarding loan and 207 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P57 through PW2 and PW9 has also identified this document. The accused has not disputed that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.9,70,00000 on 03.04.2010 and repaid the same with interest which amounts to Rs.2,80,22000 from 08.05.2010 to 10.03.2012. The accused has contended that the check period ends on 17.12.2011, but the Investigating Officer has calculated the amount paid till 10.03.2012, the total amount paid till 17.12.2011 was Rs.36,00000, hence this amount has to be excluded from Rs.2,80,22000. A perusal of Ex.P57, makes it clear that from 08.05.2010 to 10.03.2012, payment of Rs.2,80,22000 was made towards principal and interest. But, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused though the check period ends on 17.12.2011, the investigating officer has taken the payment made till 01.03.2012. After careful perusal of Ex.P57, I came to know that from 26.12.2011 to 01.03.2012, the accused had paid 208 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.27,61900. But, till 30.11.2011 the accused had paid an amount of Rs.2,52,60100. Therefore, after exclusion of the amount paid after the check period, it comes to Rs.2,52,60100 and same is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LII). ERB3: Payment of loan of Rs.6,56,09300 in respect of account No.61035711 of LIC Housing Finance:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that on the basis of the documents obtained from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., he came to know that on 02.09.2005 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.9,60,00000 and from that day till 02.03.2012 he has repaid an amount of Rs.6,55,439 00 towards principal and interest, hence this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention regarding loan and repayment of loan the prosecution has got marked Ex.P90 and got examined PW2 and PW9. The accused has not disputed that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.9,60,00000 and repaid the 209 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 same with interest which amounts to Rs.6,56,093
00. The accused has contended that as he was not a public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the payment of Rs.4,12,02200 made in this period be excluded. A perusal of the Final Report shows that the Investigating Officer has considered payment of loan and interest till 02.03.2012, but the check period ends on 17.12.2011, therefore the amount paid after 17.12.2011 i.e., payment made on 02.12.2011 to 02.03.2012 has to be excluded. As per Ex.P90 (Page No.1594) from 02.12.2011 to 02.03.2012 husband of the accused had paid Rs.35,82800 and this amount has to be excluded from Rs.6,56,09300, if we do so the repayment of loan and interest paid by the accused comes to Rs.6,20,26500. But the learned counsel for the accused has further argued that as the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, an amount of Rs.4,12,02200 has to be excluded. But, as aforesaid the Hon'ble High Court of 210 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Karnataka has not directed not to consider expenditure of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.6,20,26500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LIII). ERB4: Repayment of loan of Rs.4,56,444 00 in respect of Gold loan in Muthoot Finance:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that on the basis of the documents collected from Muthoot Finance, he came to know that on 27.11.2008 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.3,45,00000 by pledging 396.80 grams of golden ornaments and from 27.02.2008 to 18.02.2010 he has repaid an amount of Rs.4,56,444 00 towards principal and interest of the loan amount, hence same is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention regarding loan and repayment of loan, prosecution has got examined PW2 and PW9 and also got marked Ex.P
91. A perusal of Ex.P91 makes it clear that husband 211 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of the accused has made payment of Rs.4,56,44400 to Muthoot Finance Ltd., The accused has also not denied the contention of the prosecution that her husband has made payment of Rs.4,56,44400 to Muthoot Finance Ltd towards repayment of loan. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that as the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, entire amount of Rs.4,56,44400 has to be excluded from the expenditure of the accused. But as aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider Assets of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to consider the expenditure of the accused. Therefore, I have considered Rs.4,56,44400 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LIV). ERB5: Repayment of loan and interest of Rs.8,96,46900 in respect of account No.IPL/49/02 of Janatha Cooperative Bank Ltd.,:
(a). According to the prosecution, the documents collected from Janatha Cooperative Bank Ltd., prove 212 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 that on 21062002 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.7,00,00000, from that day till 19122005 he had repaid an amount of Rs.8,96,46900 towards principal and interest, hence this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention of loan and repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P103. The accused has not denied the case of the prosecution that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.7,00,00000. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accused had repaid the loan amount of Rs.6,76,73000, but the Investigating Officer has taken the wrong calculation holding he paid Rs.8,96,46900, hence difference amount of Rs.2,19,73900 needs to be excluded. Bearing in mind the contention of prosecution and arguments of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through Ex.P103 and after calculation, I came to know that from 07.08.2002 to 19.12.2005 husband of the accused repaid loan amount and interest of 213 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.6,76,73000 (page No.1671 and 1672 of Ex.P103) and there is no evidence that he paid Rs.8,96,46900 to Janatha Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hence, I have considered an amount of Rs.6,76,73000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LV). ERB6: Repayment of loan and interest of Rs.10,47,20000 in respect of account No.APML/521 and new account No.13209000566 of Kalpatharu Grameena Bank:
(a). Case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the documents collected from Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, the investigating officer came to know that on 03.01.2009 the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.15,00,00000 and from 29.07.2009 to 17.12.2011 she has repaid an amount of Rs.10,47,20000 towards principal and interest, hence this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention regarding loan and repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P109 and got examined PW2 and PW9 who collected the 214 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 documents and who filed the final report respectively. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the repayment loan and interest between 29.07.2009 to 17.12.2011 was Rs.9,31,200 00 but not Rs.10,47,20000. He further argued that as the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, amount of Rs.4,36,200 00, which was paid during that period has to be excluded from the expenditure of the accused and Rs.4,95,00000 be considered as an expenditure of the accused. As aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider Assets of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to consider the expenditure of the accused. After careful perusal the document and the calculation made as per the statement of account, which is marked at Ex.P109 (page No.1633 to 1645), I came to know that Rs.9,89,20000 payment has been made by the accused towards the loan and the interest and not 215 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.10,47,20000 as contended by the prosecution. Therefore, I have considered Rs.9,89,20000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LVI). ERB7: Repayment of loan and interest of Rs.10,13,57300 in respect of account No.13209012551 of Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the documents obtained from Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank state that, on 11.09.2003 husband of the accused had taken loan of Rs.5,75,00000 and from 11.09.2003 to 14.03.2012 he has repaid an amount of Rs.10,13,57300 towards principal and interest, hence the investigating officer has rightly considered Rs.10,13,57300 as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention the prosecution has got marked Ex.P109 (page No.1601 to 1618) and got examined PW2 and PW9. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 and hence an amount of Rs.2,35,28000 which was paid 216 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 during that period has to be excluded from the expenditure of the accused. As aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider Assets of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to consider the expenditure of the accused. Regarding repayment of loan and payment of interest, I have gone through the documents produced by the prosecution. As per the statement of account, loan account was closed on 14.03.2012 and the Investigating Officer has considered payment made even after the closure of the check period i.e., after 17.12.2011. Therefore the amount paid after the check period has to be excluded. After calculation, I came to know that after the check period husband of the accused made payment of Rs.72,60000 till 14.03.2012, but the Investigating Officer has included this amount in the expenses of the accused. Therefore, by considering these aspects and after deducting Rs.72,60000, I 217 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 have taken Rs.9,40,97300 towards expenditure of the accused.
(LVII). ERB8: Repayment of loan and interest of Rs.5,99,13200 in respect of account No.13209012562 of Kalpatharu Grameena Bank:
(a). The contents of the final report state that, as per the documents obtained from Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, on 07.02.2005 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000 and from 07.02.2005 to 24.09.2011 he has repaid an amount of Rs.5,99,13200 towards principal and interest, hence the investigating officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. In order to prove its contention regarding loan and repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P109 (page No.1619 to 1628). The accused has admitted repayment of loan and interest of Rs.5,99,13200, but she has contended that as she was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, an amount of Rs.2,35,28000, which was paid during that period has to be excluded from 218 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the expenditure. As aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider Assets of the accused earned during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to consider the expenditure of the accused. Therefore, by considering admission of the accused and contents of documents, I have considered an amount of Rs.5,99,13200 as an expenditure of the accused. (LVIII). ERB:9: Repayment of gold loan of Rs.6,14,92700 to Muthoot Finance:
(a). The investigating officer has considered payment of loan and interest of Rs.6,14,92700 as an expenditure of the accused. Contention of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2010, husband of the accused had borrowed gold loan of Rs.5,50,00000 and on 29.10.2011 he has repaid Rs.6,14,92700 towards principal and interest. The accused has not disputed repayment of loan and interest of Rs.6,14,92700 towards gold loan borrowed from Muthoot finance. Apart from that Ex.P127 also 219 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 states that on 29.10.2011 i.e., within check period husband of the accused has made payment of Rs.6,14,92700. Therefore, I have considered Rs.6,14,92700 as an expenditure of the accused. (LIX). EIT1: Payment of Income Tax of Rs.17,53500:
(a). On the basis of copies of ITRs collected from the Department of Income Tax, the investigating officer has considered Rs.17,53500 as expenditure of the accused. Case of the prosecution is that the accused has paid total amount of Rs.17,53500 towards income tax for assessment year 200203 to 201112. The accused has admitted payment of income tax of Rs.17,53500 for the assessment years 200203 to 201112 by her husband. Therefore, an amount of Rs.17,53500 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LX). EIT2: payment of Income Tax of Rs.1,05,33900:
(a). On the basis of income tax returns filed by husband of the accused during the Assessment 220 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 years 200203 to 201011, the investigating officer has reported in the final report that husband of the accused has paid Income Tax of Rs.1,05,33900. But, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the Investigating Officer has committed mistake in calculating the Taxes paid by husband of the accused, hence, the Court has to consider the expenditure of the accused at Rs.77,90000 towards Income Tax. The prosecution has got marked the Income Tax Returns as per Ex.P140. A perusal of these documents which are marked at Ex.P140, makes it clear that in the Assessment year 200203 husband of the accused has paid Income Tax of Rs.4,98300, in the Assessment year 200304 he paid Income Tax of Rs.10,37600, in the Assessment year 200405 he paid Income Tax of Rs.18,76100, in the Assessment year 200506 he paid Income Tax of Rs.37,89000, in the Assessment year 200607 he paid Income Tax of Rs.3,27900, in the Assessment year 200708 he paid Income Tax of Rs.4,94000, in 221 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the Assessment year 201011 he paid Income Tax of Rs.2,61000 under PAN No.AFVPR2145D. The Income Tax Returns of the Assessment year 200809 and 200910 state that husband of the accused has not paid any Income Tax. Thus, the total Income Tax paid in the Assessment year 200203 to 201011 was Rs.82,83900, therefore, this amount is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXI). Domestic Expenditure:
(a). The Investigating Officer has taken domestic expenditure of the accused and her family members during the check period at Rs.8,47,53500. The Investigating Officer has considered this domestic expenditure on the basis of report of the Joint Director, Statistics, Karnataka Lokayukta. The learned public prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has got marked report of the Joint Director as per Ex.P129, which has not been disputed by the accused, after considering the status of the accused, the Joint Director has assessed 222 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 domestic expenditure of the accused at Rs.8,47,535 00, hence same may be considered as an expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the prosecution has not got examined the Joint Director of Statistics who has given Report as per Ex.P129. Except marking of Ex.P129 through PW9, he has not deposed anything about the contents of Ex.P
129. Regarding consideration of domestic expenses, the learned counsel for the accused has relied o a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 464 (Sajjan Singh v/s State of Punjab. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on facts has held that:
'The total receipts by the appellant from his known sources of income thus appears to be about Rs. 1,03,000/. If nothing out of this had to be spent for maintaining himself and his family during all these years from 1922 to 1952 there might have been ground for saying that the assets in the appellant's possession, through himself or through his son (Rs. 1,20,000/) were not disproportionate to his known sources of income. One cannot however live on nothing; and however frugally the appellant may have lived it appears to us clear that at least Rs. 100/ per month must have 223 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 been his average expenses throughout these yearstaking the years of high prices and low prices together. These expenses therefore cut a big slice of over Rs. 36,000/ from what he received. The assets of Rs. 1,20,000/ have therefore to be compared with a net income of Rs. 67,000/. They are clearly disproportionate indeed highly disproportionate. Mr. Lall stressed the fact that the legislature had not chosen to indicate what proportion would be considered disproportionate and he argued on that basis that the Court should take a liberal view of the excess of the assets over the receipts from the known sources of income. There is some force in this argument. But taking the most liberal view, we do not think it is possible for any reasonable man to say that assets to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000/ is anything but disproportionate to a net income of Rs. 1,03,000/ out of which at least Rs. 36,000/ must have been spent in living expenses'.
(b). In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the accused has not disputed the contents of Ex.P
129. There is no suggestion to PW9 about the contents of EX.P129. Further, even in her evidence the accused has not deposed anything about her Domestic Expenses. The learned counsel for the accused has suggested PW9 that in Ex.P129 it was mentioned that during 200709 accused has spent 224 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.1,95,91100 and in that period accused was not a public servant. PW9 has admitted this suggestion and except this suggestion the learned counsel has not suggested that the contents of Ex.P129 are wrong or values are inflated. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the contents of Ex.P129.
(c). Admittedly, the Joint Director of Statistics of Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, has submitted the report as per Ex.P129. A perusal of this document shows that he has mentioned the domestic expenditure of the accused and his family members from 25.11.1996 to 16.03.2012. According to him, the domestic expenditure of the accused and his family members from the period 25.11.1996 to 16.03.2012 was Rs.8,47,53500. The learned counsel for the accused has taken same defence that the accused was not a public servant during 200709 and hence, the expenditure made during the years 2007 to 2009 i.e., Rs.1,95,91100 should be excluded from Rs.8,47,53500. At the cost of repetition, again I 225 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 would like to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider the assets of the accused in that period, but not expenditure and income. Therefore, the amount spent for domestic purposes during the years 2007 to 2009 has to be taken into consideration.
(d). It is to be noted that, the check period is from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011, but the Joint Director has calculated the domestic expenditure up to 16.03.2012. Therefore, the expenditure said to be made after 17.12.2011 has to be excluded. In Ex.P 129 it is specifically mentioned that the expenditure for the period from 01.01.2012 to 16.03.2012 was Rs.20,04800. Therefore, by excluding the expenditure considered for the period which is after the check period, I have considered the domestic expenditure from 25.11.1996 to December 2011 and hold that domestic expenditure of the accused and her family members is Rs.8,27,48700. 226 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (LXII). EP1: Expenditure of Rs.46,50000 made for maintenance of Labrador dog:
(a). On the basis of the Report given by PW7, the Investigating Officer has taken this amount towards expenditure made for purchase of a Labrador dog and its maintenance. The prosecution has also got examined retired Dean of Animal Husbandry Medical College as PW7, who got marked his Report as per Ex.P77. As per the contents of Ex.P77, cost of Labrador dog was Rs.6,00000 to Rs.8,00000, its feeding cost was Rs.36,50000 at Rs.5000 per day, cost of vaccination was Rs.1,60000 and other medical expenses was Rs.50000. In his chief examination, PW7 has deposed that he has assessed cost of the dog and cost of maintenance approximately at Rs.44,60000. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that dog has been purchased, hence cost of the dog of Rs.8,00000 needs to be excluded. He further argued that age of the dog as on the last 227 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 day of the check period i.e., 17.12.2011 was 3 years, prior to 22.04.2010 accused was not a public servant, on this ground also cost of the dog has to be excluded. He further argued that as age of the dog is considered as 3 years, maintenance cost of 2 years has to be excluded as the accused was not a public servant, therefore an amount of Rs.33,73300 has to be excluded from Rs.46,50000.
(b). In his cross examination, PW7 has admitted that the Investigating Officer has not submitted a certificate to show that said dog was a Labrador. It is to be noted that the accused has not disputed breed of the dog. If the dog was not of Labrador breed, it is for the accused to say what was the breed of his dog. In the entire arguments and cross examination of PW7, the accused has not stated the breed of his dog. PW7 has admitted that, without seeing the dog he could not assess the cost of maintenance. But, PW7 has stated that on the basis of the letter of the Investigating Officer he has assessed the cost of 228 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 maintenance. The accused has not contended that feeding cost of the dog was not Rs.5000 per day and further cost of vaccination and other medical expenses have also not been disputed by the accused. If the accused has disputed feeding cost, cost of vaccination and medical expenses, which is mentioned in Ex.P77, she should have given evidence contrary to the contents of Ex.P77 or at least she should have stated so in her evidence. Though the accused has contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that accused has purchased the dog, in view of admission that she was having two dogs, she had to say how said Labrador dog came to her possession. But except some suggestions to PW 7, nothing is on record to disbelieve evidence of PW7 and contents of Ex.P77. Hence, by considering cost of the dog at the lowest price, which is mentioned in Ex.P77 i.e., Rs.6,00000, I hold that accused has spent Rs.44,60000 towards cost and maintenance of Labrador dog. Accordingly, I hold that the accused 229 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 had spent an amount of Rs.44,60000 towards cost and maintenance of Labrador dog.
(LXIII). EP2: Expenditure of Rs.31,55000 made for maintenance of Pug dog:
(a). On the basis of the Report given by PW7, the Investigating Officer has taken this amount towards expenditure said to be made for purchase of a Pug dog and its maintenance. The prosecution has also got examined retired Dean of Animal Husbandry Medical College as PW7, who got marked his Report as per Ex.P77. As per the contents of Ex.P77, cost of a Pug dog was Rs.8,00000 to Rs.12,00000, feeding cost was Rs,18,25000 at Rs.5000 per day, cost of vaccination was Rs.80000 and other medical expenses was Rs.50000. In his chief examination, PW7 has deposed that he has assessed cost of the dog and cost of maintenance approximately at Rs.31,55000. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that dog has been purchased, hence cost of the dog of 230 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.12,00000 needs to be excluded. He further argued that age of the dog as on the last day of the check period i.e., 17.12.2011 was 3 years, prior to 22.04.2010 accused was not a public servant, on this ground also cost of the dog at the rate of Rs.12,000 00 has to be excluded. He further argued that as age of the dog is considered as 3 years, maintenance cost of 2 years has to be excluded as the accused was not a public servant, therefore an amount of Rs.25,033 00 has to be excluded from Rs.31,55000.
(b). In his cross examination, PW7 has admitted that the Investigating Officer has not submitted a certificate to show that said dog was a Pug dog. If the dog was not Pug dog, it is for the accused to say what was the breed of her dog. In the entire arguments of learned counsel for the accused and cross examination of PW7, the accused has not mentioned the breed of her dog. PW7 has admitted that, without seeing the dog he could not assess the cost of maintenance. But, PW7 has stated that on the basis 231 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of a letter of the Investigating Officer he has assessed the cost of maintenance. The accused has not contended that the feeding cost of the dog was not Rs.5000 per day and further cost of Vaccination and other medical expenses have also not been disputed by the accused. If the accused has disputed feeding cost, vaccination and medical expenses which is mentioned in Ex.P77, she should have given evidence contrary to the contents of Ex.P77 or at least she should have stated so in her evidence. Though the accused has contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that accused has purchased the dog, the accused had to say how said pug dog came to her possession. But except some suggestions, nothing is on record to disbelieve evidence of PW7 and contents of Ex.P77. Hence, by considering cost of the dog at the lowest price, which is mentioned in Ex.P77 i.e., Rs.8,00000, I hold that accused has spent Rs.27,55000 towards cost of the dog and its maintenance. Accordingly, I hold that the 232 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused has spent an amount of Rs.27,55000 for purchase and maintenance of a pug dog. (LXIV). EGC1: Payment of Rs.39,75972 for purchase of gas under consumer No.620503 during the check period:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from M/s. Krishan Gas Agency, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, the Investigating Officer has considered an amount of Rs.39,75972 as an expenditure of the accused. Arguments of the prosecution is that to take gas connection accused has deposited an amount of Rs.80000 under the consumer No.620503, she has purchased cooking gas from 200203 to 201112 and total amount paid for this purpose was Rs.39,759
72. He further argued that expenditure of this amount has been shown by the document itself, therefore this amount has to be considered as an expenditure of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that, accused was not a public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, as per the Report accused had spent Rs.3,68200 233 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 during 200708, Rs.4,17600 in 200809 and Rs.4,98000 during 200910, therefore an amount of Rs.12,83800 has to be excluded. In order to prove its contention the prosecution has got marked the Report given by M/s. Krishan Gas Agency as per Ex.P123 through PW9. In this regard the accused has not given any evidence. As discussed above, for the purpose of calculating expenditure, this Court has also considered the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. The accused has not disputed about taking of gas connection, depositing an amount of Rs.800 to take gas connection and also payment of the amount as mentioned in Ex.P123. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused spent a sum of Rs.39,75900 to take gas connection and to purchase cooking gas. (LXV). EGC2: Payment of Rs.52,71519 for purchase of gas under consumer No.611571 during the check period:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from M/s. Krishan Gas Agency, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, 234 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the Investigating Officer has considered an amount of Rs.52,71519 as an expenditure of the accused.
Arguments of the prosecution is that to take gas connection, the accused had made a deposited of Rs.1,90000 under consumer No.611571, she had purchased gas from 199697 to 201112 and total amount paid for this purpose is Rs.52,715.00. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that, accused was not a public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, as per the Report accused had spent Rs.3,68200 during the period 200708, Rs.4,17600 during the period 200809, Rs.4,98000 in 200910, therefore an amount of Rs.12,83800 has to be excluded. In order to prove its contention the prosecution has got marked the Report given by M/s. Krishan Gas Agency as per Ex.P124 through PW9. In this regard the accused has not given any evidence. As aforesaid, for the purpose of considering the expenditure this Court has considered the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Further, the accused 235 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has not disputed about the gas connection taken by her and payment of the amount as mentioned in Ex.P124. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused spent a sum of Rs.52,715.00 to take gas connection and to purchase cooking gas.
(LXVI). EP1 & 2: Payment of Passport fee of Rs.3,50000:
(a). The investigating officer has considered Rs.3,50000 as an expenditure of the accused on the basis of the documents traced out in the house of the accused. The contention of the prosecution is that the accused has paid Rs.2,50000 to get her passport bearing No.9304348 and her husband has paid Rs.1,00000 to get his passport No.8503959. In order to substantiate its contention, the prosecution has got examined PW2 and PW9 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P78. The accused has admitted payment of Rs.3,50000 to get passports. 236 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Hence, an amount of Rs.3,50000 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXVII). EE1: Educational expenses of son of the accused by name Sharath Kumar:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the Investigating Officer has obtained documents from schools and colleges pertaining to education of son of the accused by name Sri. Sharath Kumar, as per those documents the accused has spent an amount of Rs.96,92100, hence same is considered as an expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of an amount of Rs.96,92100 for education expenses of her son, but contended that, as the accused was not a public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, total amount of Rs.32,46100 paid during the years 200708, 2008 09, and 2009 has to be excluded. For the reasons given above, I have rejected contention of the accused and considered the school records which are marked at Ex.P73, Ex.P79 and Ex.P116 and hold that the 237 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused had spent a sum of Rs.96,92100 towards education expenses of her son by name Sri. Sharath Kumar.
(LXVIII). EE2 Educational expenses of son of the accused by name Bharath Kumar:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the Investigating Officer has collected documents from schools and colleges pertaining to education of son of the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar, as per those documents accused has spent an amount of Rs.4,99,31000, hence same was considered as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked the documents as per Ex.P89, Ex.P112, Ex.P113 and Ex.P125. The accused has not disputed the documents as well as the payment of an amount of Rs.4,99,31000 for education expenses of her son, but she has contended that, as the accused was not a public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the amount of Rs.5,76000 paid during 200708, an 238 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 amount of Rs.11,90000 paid on 07.06.2008 and an amount of Rs.11,75000 paid on 07.05.2009, which amounts to Rs.29,41000 has to be excluded. As stated above, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider assets of the accused earned during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 if she was not a public servant, but not directed not to consider expenses of the accused made during that period. Hence, I have considered the school records which are got marked at Ex.P89, Ex.P112, Ex.P113 and Ex.P125 and hold that the accused did spend a sum of Rs.4,99,31000 towards education expenses of her son by name Sri. Bharath Kumar.
(LXIX). ERC1: Entertainment expenses of Rs.1,50000 made by husband of the accused in Satellite Club:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered an amount Rs.1,50000 as an expenses of the accused on the basis of a letter given by the Satellite Club. The accused has not disputed that he was having 239 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 membership in Satellite Club and paid an amount of Rs.1,50000 as an entertainment fee. But, contention of the accused is that these expenses has already been considered by the Investigating Officer under visible and nonvariable expenditure, therefore if this amount is considered again, it amounts to duplication. In order to prove estimated family visible and nonvariable expenditure of the accused, the prosecution has got marked Ex.P129. As per this document, under invisible and nonvariable expenditure, the Deputy Director of Statistics has considered the expenses under the head 'entertainment' which includes 'club fees'. In that event if the entertainment fee of Rs.1,50000 is considered under this head, definitely it amounts to duplication. Hence, I have not considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. (LXX). ERS1: payment of rent for a shop taken on rent for Fabrication business:
(a). Case of the prosecution is that to do fabrication business, husband of the accused has 240 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 taken a shop on rent, which belonged to one Smt. Padmavathi and he was paying rent of Rs.1,40000 per month. The total rent paid for 5 years is Rs.84,00000, hence this amount is taken as expenditure of the accused. The prosecution has got marked copy of the rent agreement dated 06.04.2000 as Ex.P139(b). The accused has not disputed the rent agreement entered into between her husband and one Smt. Padmavathi and also payment of rent Rs.84,00000 during the check period. Therefore, without going further discussion, I have considered Rs.84,00000 as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXI). EO1: Payment of premium for health insurance:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Branch Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co., Ltd, Bengaluru, the investigating officer has considered Rs.4,45900 as an expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.4,45900 to take Health insurance during the 241 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 check period and also not objected to consider this amount as an expenditure of the accused. Therefore, I have considered Rs.4,45900 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXII). EO2: House repair expenditure of Rs.17,13,59400:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered expenses said to be made for house repair as an expenditure of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that in the Income Tax Returns, the accused herself has shown house repair expenses, therefore considering admissions of the accused, the repair expenses has to be considered as an expenditure of the accused. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the amount shown under the Income Tax Act, is based on Sec.24(A) of Income Tax Act, as per this Section whether the Assessee has incurred any expenditure towards the house repair or not, he is entitled for exemption up to 30% and he is not required to pay 242 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 any tax on it. Admittedly, the accused has sought for exemption of Income Tax on 30% of rental income in Income Tax Returns. The accused herself is examined before the Court as DW7, who deposed that she has not spent the amount at the rate of 30% towards repair of her house. Husband of the accused has also been examined as DW6, who has also deposed in the line of DW7. But, argument of the learned public prosecutor is that when the accused herself has admitted repair expenses, same has to be considered as an expenditure of the accused. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Cr.A. No.53/2017 (State Reptd., by the Public Prosecutor v/s K. Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani and another). In this decision, on the point of repair expenses the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that 'the prosecution ought to have collected evidence how the said money spent on repair'. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that apart from 243 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Income Tax Returns, the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the expenses made towards repair of rented houses. The prosecution has got marked copies of Income Tax Returns from Assessment Year 200203 to the Assessment Year 201011 as per Ex.P140. In view of rival contentions, I have gone through the Section 24 of Income Tax Act. Section 24(A) of Income Tax Act allows a standard deductions for rental income from house property. The standard deduction is a flat amount deduction from taxable income, allowing tax payers to reduce their taxable income without submitting any proof or disclosure. This Section contains provisions of the standard deductions available to the tax payers who earn income from rented house property. This Section also provides a standard deduction of 30% on the net annual value of the rented house property. The purpose of standard deduction under Section 24(A) is to provide tax relief on the property upkeep and maintenance that may 244 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 arise during the period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee need not spent 30% of rented income for house repair to claim exemption under Section 24(A) of Income Tax Act. Further, except ITRs, there is no material on record to substantiate that the accused had spent an amount of Rs.17,13,59400 for repair of rented houses. Hence, I have not considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXIII). EMISC1: Medical expenditure of Rs.12,40100:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Fortis Hospital, the Investigating Officer has considered an amount of Rs.12,40100 as an expenditure of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that, that amount was already covered under visible and nonvariable expenditures, therefore this amount cannot be considered. A perusal of Ex.P129 shows that while calculating the visible/variable list of expenditure, the Deputy Director of Statistics has considered 245 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 institutional medical expenses. A perusal of this document shows that the medical expenses considered under Ex.P129 is in respect of general medicine. But, Ex.P95 shows that the accused had taken treatment in Fortis Hospital for S.paratypha A infection. The accused has not disputed the case of the prosecution that she had taken treatment in Fortis Hospital. The accused has also not disputed the contents of Ex.P95 and total bill for this treatment was Rs.26,00100. As per the contents of Ex.P95, an amount of Rs.13,60000 was paid by Star Health Insurance Company. Therefore, excluding Rs.13,60000, remaining amount of Rs.12,40100 which was paid on 03.09.2011 is taken as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXIV). EMISC2: An amount of Rs.10,86000 paid to purchase a Refrigerator:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the search in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure 246 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of the accused. The prosecution has got marked the bill for having purchased a Refrigerator as per Ex.P 141(a). The accused has not disputed purchase of a Refrigerator for Rs.10,86000 during the check period. But, he has contended that in the mahazar the Investigating Officer has already considered value of the Refrigerator and stabilizer at Rs.8,50000, if this amount is considered once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an amount of Rs.8,50000 should be excluded from Rs.10,86000. In the background of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the mahazar which is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.4 of Ex.P49, the Investigating Officer has considered value of a fridge and a stabilizer at Rs.8,50000. This Court has already considered this amount of Rs.8,50000 under the head 'Asset' i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P 141(a) the accused had purchased a Refrigerator and a stabilizer for Rs.10,86000. Therefore, as argued by learned counsel for the accused Rs.8,50000 has to 247 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 be deducted from Rs.10,86000, which comes to Rs.2,36000. Thus, I have considered an amount of Rs.2,36000 as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXV). EMISC3: Purchase of tread mill for Rs.29,90000:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the search in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed purchase of the a treadmill for Rs.29,90000 during the check period. But, learned counsel for the accused has contended that in the mahazar the Investigating Officer has already considered value of the tread mill as Rs.10,00000, if this amount is considered once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an amount of Rs.10,00000 should be excluded from Rs.29,90000. In the background of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the mahazar which is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.12 of Ex.P49, the Investigating 248 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Officer has considered value of the tread mill as Rs.10,00000. This Court has already considered this Rs.10,00000 under the head 'Asset' i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P141(b), the accused had purchased the tread mill for Rs.29,90000. Therefore, as argued by learned counsel for the accused Rs.10,00000 has to be deducted from Rs.29,90000, which comes to Rs.19,90000. Accordingly, I have considered an amount of Rs.19,90000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXVI). EMISC4: Purchase of a water purifier for Rs.14,95000:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the search in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed purchase of the a water purifier for Rs.14,95000 during the check period. But, he has contended that in the mahazar the Investigating Officer has already considered value of the water 249 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 purifier as Rs.5,00000, if this amount is considered once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an amount of Rs.5,00000 should be excluded from Rs.14,95000. He further argued that, as the water purifier was purchased on 29.06.2007 when the accused was not a public servant, entire amount of Rs.14,95000 has to be excluded. In the background of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the mahazar which is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.7 of Ex.P49, the Investigating Officer has considered value of the water purifier as Rs.5,00000. This Court has already considered this Rs.5,00000 under the head 'Asset' i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P141(c) the accused had purchased the water purifier for Rs.14,95000. Therefore, as argued by learned counsel for the accused, Rs.5,00000 has to be deducted from Rs.14,95000, which comes to Rs.9,95000. Further, as discussed above, this court has not excluded the period between 24.11.2006 to 250 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 22.04.2010 for consideration of expenses. Therefore, I have considered an amount of Rs.9,95000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXVII). EMISC5: Purchase of Automatic Water Level Controller and cable:
(a). On the basis of an invoice traced out during search in the house of accused, the investigating officer has considered Rs.3,70000 as an expenditure of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that the accused has spent an amount of Rs.3,70000 to purchase an Automatic Water Level Controller, therefore this amount has to be considered as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P 141(d). The accused has not disputed purchase of an Automatic Water Level Controller during the check period and cable, she has also not objected to consider Rs.3,70000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.3,70000 is consider as an expenditure of the accused.
251 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(LXXVIII). EMISC6: Purchase of washing machine for Rs.12,99000:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during search in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. The bills collected from the house of the accused is pertaining to purchase of washing machine. The accused has not disputed purchase of the a washing machine for Rs.12,99000 during the check period. But, he has contended that in the mahazar the Investigating Officer has already considered value of the washing machine as Rs.6,00000, if this amount is considered once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an amount of Rs.6,00000 should be excluded from Rs.12,99000. In the background of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the mahazar which is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.8 of Ex.P49, the Investigating Officer has considered value of the washing machine as Rs.6,00000. This Court has already considered Rs.6,00000 under the 252 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 head 'Asset' i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P 141(e), the accused had purchased a washing machine for Rs.12,99000. Therefore, as argued by learned counsel for the accused Rs.6,00000 has to be deducted from Rs.12,99000, which comes to Rs.6,99000. Thus, I have considered an amount of Rs.6,99000 as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXIX). EMISC7: Purchase of a watch of Tissat Company for Rs.10,99000:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out during the house search, the investigating officer has considered Rs.10,99000 as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(f). The accused has not disputed purchase of a Watch during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.10,990 00 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.10,990 00 is consider as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXX). EMISC8: Purchase of a Nokia Mobile for Rs.4,30000:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out during search in the house of accused, the 253 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 investigating officer has considered Rs.4,30000 as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(j). The accused has not disputed purchase of a Nokia Mobile Phone during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.4,30000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.4,30000 is consider as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXI). EMISC9: Payment of Rs.500000 to purchase Bajaj Chetak vehicle:
(a). On the basis of a receipt traced out during the house search mahazar, the investigating officer has considered Rs.5,00000 as an expenditure of the accused. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.5,00000 to S.K.S Motors to purchase a Bajaj Chetak vehicle during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.5,00000 as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(h). Hence, Rs.5,00000 is consider as an expenditure of the accused. 254 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (LXXXII). EMISC10: Purchase of Solar Water heating systems for Rs.35,00000:
(a). On the basis of documents traced out during the house search mahazar, the investigating officer has considered Rs.35,00000 as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(i). The accused has not disputed purchase of a solar water heater and other related electric items and payment of Rs.35,00000 during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.35,00000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.35,00000 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXIII). EMISC11: Purchase of a simtel mobile for Rs.13,00000:
(a). On the basis of a document traced out at the time of conducting mahazar in the house of accused, the investigating officer has considered Rs.13,00000 as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(j). 255 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 The accused has not disputed purchase of simtel mobile and payment of Rs.13,00000 during the check period and also she has not objected to consider Rs.13,00000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.13,00000 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXIV). EMISC12: Purchase of a Samsung mobile for Rs.14,50000:
(a). On the basis of a Tax invoice traced out during the house search mahazar, the investigating officer has considered Rs.14,50000 as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a tax invoice as Ex.P 141(k). The accused has not disputed purchase of samsung mobile and payment of Rs.14,50000 during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.14,50000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.14,50000 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
256 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(LXXXV). EMISC13: Purchase of a DVD player for Rs.24,22300:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the search in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(l). The accused has not disputed purchase of the a DVD player for Rs.24,22300 during the check period. But, he has contended that in the mahazar the Investigating Officer has already considered value of the DVD player as Rs.5,00000, if this amount is considered once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an amount of Rs.5,00000 should be excluded from Rs.24,22300. In the background of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the mahazar, which is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.7 of Ex.P49, the Investigating Officer has considered value of the DVD player as Rs.5,00000. This Court has already considered this Rs.5,00000 257 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 under the head 'Asset' i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P141(l) the accused had purchased the DVD player for Rs.24,22300. Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, Rs.5,00000 has to be deducted from Rs.24,22300, which comes to Rs.19,22300. Thus, I have considered an amount of Rs.19,22300 as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXXVI). EMISC14: Purchase of a Solar Water heater for Rs.19,00000:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out during the house search mahazar, the investigating officer has considered Rs.19,00000 as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(m). The accused has not disputed purchase of a solar water heater and payment of Rs.19,00000 during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.19,00000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.19,00000 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
258 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(LXXXVII). EMISC15: Payment of lodging fee of Rs.1,42500:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out during the house search mahazar, the investigating officer has considered Rs.1,42500 as an expenditure of the accused stating that husband of the accused has paid this amount for staying in Travel in Hotel in Dharwad. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.1,42500 for stay of her husband in a hotel during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.1,42500 as an expenses of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a bill as Ex.P142(a). Hence, Rs.1,42500 is considered as an expenditure of the accused. (LXXXVIII). EMISC16 & 17: payment of Rs.2000 00 as party fund:
(a). On the basis of the receipts traced out during the house search mahazar, the investigating officer has considered Rs.2,00000 as an expenditure of the accused stating that the accused and her accused have paid this amount towards party fund. In this 259 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 regard the prosecution has got marked a bills as Ex.P141(n) and Ex.P141(o), which are in page Nos.102 and 103 of file No.13. In this file there are other 2 receipts at page No.104 and 105 dated 15.10.2001 of Rs.100000 each, which state payment of Rs.100000 each to a party fund, but these documents have not been considered by the investigating officer and also not got marked by the prosecution for the reasons known to it. The accused has not disputed payment of Rs.2,00000 as a party fund during the check period and also not objected to consider Rs.2,00000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.2,00000 is considered as an expenditure of the accused.
29. After perusal of documentary and oral evidence of both sides and consideration of points urged at the time of arguments, expenditure of the accused during the check period as per the investigating officer, according to the accused and as per the findings of the Court is as follows:
260 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Expenditure as Code Description of the Expenditure as Expenditure as per the findings of No. expenditure per IO per accused the Court Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.32,30000 Rs.32,30000 Rs.32,30000 1 Site No.63 & 64 of (2 & 3) of Nagarbhavi Registration and stamp duty towards 3 acres of land in EASR Sy.No.16, present Rs.23,24100 Rs.23,24100 Rs.23,24100 2 No.16/p7 of Menasi Village, Doddabhallapura Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.31,91500 Rs.31,91500 Rs.31,91500 3 Site No.2/83/2 of Nagarbhavi Village Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.13,49000 Rs.13,49000 Rs.13,49000 4 Site No.47 of Malagala Registration and stamp duty towards EASR Site No.2 & 3 of Rs.82,12000 Rs.82,12000 Rs.82,12000 5 Nagarbhavi Village, Mudalapalya Registration and stamp duty towards 2 acre 33 guntas at EASR Sy.No.16, present Rs.28,77500 Rs.28,77500 Rs.28,77500 6 No.16/p4 of Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards EASR 3 acre at Sy.No.16, Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 7 present No.16/p4 of Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards EASR 3 acre at Sy.No.16, Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 8 present No.16/p5 of Menasi Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards EASR Site No.1, 4th 'B' Rs.41,53000 Rs.41,53000 Rs.41,53000 9 Main Road, Byraveshwara Nagar, Nagarabhavi Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.2,99,07000 Rs.2,99,07000 Rs.2,99,07000 10 Site No.78 of Nagarabhavi EASR Registration and Rs.14,58500 Rs.14,58500 Rs.14,58500 11 stamp duty towards 1 acre of land in 261 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Sy.No.50/p3, Kannamangala Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards1 acre of EASR land in Sy.No.50/p5, Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 12 Kannamangala Village, Doddaballapura Registration and stamp duty towards 1 acre of land in EASR Sy.No.50/p4, Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 13 Kannamangala Village, Doddaballapura Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.29,47100 Rs.00 Rs.29,47100 14 Sy.No.67, Doddaballapura Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 15 Sy.No.464/1 of Kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 16 Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 17 Sy.No.502/A of Kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 18 Sy.No.116/B of kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 19 Sy.No.88 of Kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 20 Sy.No.116 of Kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000 21 Sy.No.228/1 of Kollegala Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.3,32,83500 Rs.00 Rs.3,32,83500 22 Sy.No.50/p2 of Kannamangala Registration and stamp duty towards EASR Site No.14, Ward Rs.45,36500 Rs.45,36500 Rs.45,36500 23 No.38, Nagarabhavi Main Road 262 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.9,53000 Rs.00 Rs.00 24 Site No.8 of Nagarabhavi Registration and stamp duty towards EASR Assessment No.47, Rs.20,12000 Rs.20,12000 Rs.20,12000 25 Katha No.2875 of Nagarabhavi Village Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 26 Sy.No.169 of Kannamangala Cost incurred towards registration EASR and stamp duties to Rs.1,89000 Rs.00 Rs.00 27 gift deed executed by father of the accused Cost incurred towards registration EASR and stamp duties to Rs.1,96000 Rs.00 Rs.00 28 gift deed executed by grandmother of the husband Registration and stamp duty towards EASR Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 Rs.73,66000 Rs.73,66000 Rs.73,66000 29 and 64/3 of Ranganathapura Registration and stamp duty towards EASR Sy.No.10.46/3 and Rs.29,45000 Rs.29,45000 Rs.29,45000 30 46/4 of Ranganathapura Registration and EASR stamp duty towards Rs.32,02000 Rs.00 Rs.32,02000 31 site No.48 of Malagala Cost incurred towards registration EASR and stamp duties to Rs.1,65000 Rs.00 Rs.00 32 gift deed executed by grandmother of the husband Property tax paid EAT1 towards Site No.78 Rs.60,05100 Rs.60,05100 Rs.60,05100 of Nagarabhavi EAT2 Property tax paid Rs.14,14300 Rs.12,30000 Rs.12,30000 towards Assessment No.47 of Nagarabhavi Property tax paid towards No.7, EAT3 Rs.36,74900 Rs.36,74900 Rs.36,74900 Nanjarasappa Layout Property tax paid towards No.63 & 64 EAT4 Rs.96,08600 Rs.81,08600 Rs.96,08600 of Nagarabhavi 263 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Property tax paid towards No.1233 of EAT5 Rs.4,74600 Rs.00 Rs.00 Yashwanthapura Hobli Property tax paid towards Site No.47 EAT6 Rs.1,02,72300 Rs.1,02,72300 Rs.1,02,72300 of Yashwanthapura Hobli Property tax paid towards House List EAT7 No.5 of Rs.2,63400 Rs.2,63400 Rs.2,63400 Rajarajeshwari Nagar BWSSB Charges EWC1 paid towards No.3, Rs.31,76000 Rs.11,37200 Rs.31,76000 Byraweshwara Nagar KPTCL charges for EEC1 No.3 Byraweshwara Rs.10,64000 Rs.00 Rs.10,64000 Nagar KPTCL charges paid EEC2 towards No.3, Rs.83,95200 Rs.44,24100 Rs.82,33400 Byraweshwara Nagar Plan sanction charges paid EAO1 Rs.4,34300 Rs.4,34300 Rs.4,34300 towards No.3, Byraweshwara Nagar Maintenance and EMF1 fuel charges of Rs.11,39000 Rs.11,39000 Rs.11,89000 EMR1 vehicle No.KA41S Rs.50000 Rs.50000 5319 Insurance paid EMI1 towards vehicle Rs.87200 Rs.87200 Rs.87200 No.KA41S5319 Maintenance of vehicle No.KA:41 AV1 HM:5319 (Not Rs.42,12800 Rs.42,12800 Rs.40,75600 considered it under the head Asset) Payment made towards mobile ECM1 Rs.1,86,65400 Rs.1,16,28900 Rs.1,86,65400 charge of mobile No.9880427055 Payment made towards mobile ECM2 Rs.40,36700 Rs.12,49900 Rs.40,36700 charge of airtel mobile ECT1 Payment made Rs.1,45,59700 Rs.1,16,84900 Rs.1,49,34700 towards landline No.23217778 ERB1 Loan Repayment Rs.46,91,08800 Rs.34,53,18100 Rs.46,91,08800 ERB2 Loan Repayment Rs.2,80,22000 Rs.2,44,22000 Rs.2,52,60100 ERB3 Loan Repayment Rs.6,56,09300 Rs.2,44,07100 Rs.6,20,26500 ERB4 Loan Repayment Rs.4,56,44400 Rs.00 Rs.4,56,44400 ERB5 Loan Repayment Rs,8,96,46900 Rs,6,76,73000 Rs.6,76,73000 ERB6 Loan Repayment Rs.10,47,20000 Rs.4,95,00000 Rs.9,89,20000 ERB7 Loan Repayment Rs.10,13,57300 Rs.7,78,29300 Rs.9,40,97300 ERB8 Loan Repayment Rs.5,99,13200 Rs.3,63,85200 Rs.5,99,13200 264 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 ERB9 Loan Repayment Rs.6,14,92700 Rs.6,14,92700 Rs.6,14,92700 Payment of Income EIT1 Rs.17,53500 Rs.17,53500 Rs.17,53500 Tax by accused Payment of Income EIT2 Rs.1,05,33900 Rs.77,90000 Rs.82,83900 tax by Ravi Kumar Domes Per Capita monthly tic expenditure Rs.8,47,53500 Rs.6,15,53900 Rs.8,27,48700 Expen diture Cost incurred for EP1 Rs.46,50000 Rs.12,76700 Rs.44,60000 Labrador dog Cost incurred for EP2 Rs.31,55000 Rs.6,51700 Rs.27,55000 pug dog Payment made EGC1 towards cooking gas Rs.39,75900 Rs.23,92100 Rs.39,75900 No.620503 Payment made EGC2 towards cooking gas Rs.52,71500 Rs.39,88300 Rs.52,71500 No.611571 EP1 & Payment incurred Rs.3,50000 Rs.3,50000 Rs.3,50000 EP2 towards passport Educational EE1 expenses of Sharath Rs.96,92100 Rs.64,46000 Rs.96,92100 Kumar Educational EE2 expenses of Bharath Rs.4,99,31000 Rs.4,69,90000 Rs.4,99,31000 Kumar Payment made ERC1 towards satellite Rs.1,50000 Rs.00 Rs.00 club Rent paid towards running ERS1 Rs.84,00000 Rs.84,00000 Rs.84,00000 Byraveshwara Fabrication works Payment made EO1 towards Insurance Rs.4,45900 Rs.4,45900 Rs.4,45900 policy House expenditure EO2 Rs.17,13,59400 Rs.00 Rs.00 shown in returns Medical Expenditure EMISC of accused at Fortis Rs.12,40100 Rs.00 Rs.12,40100 1 Hospital EMISC Value of the Rs.10,86000 Rs.8,50000 Rs.2,36000 2 purchase bill found in the house in respect of Fridge Value of the EMISC purchase bill found in the house in Rs.29,90000 Rs.10,00000 Rs.19,90000 3 respect of Treadmill Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.14,95000 Rs.00 Rs.9,95000 4 respect of Mineral Water Purifier 265 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.3,70000 Rs.3,70000 Rs.3,70000 5 respect of Kent Grand Water level controller Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.12,99000 Rs.6,00000 Rs.6,99000 6 respect of Kenstar washing machine Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.10,99000 Rs.10,99000 Rs.10,99000 7 respect of Tessat Watch Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.4,30000 Rs.4,30000 Rs.4,30000 8 respect of Nokia Mobile Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.5,00000 Rs.5,00000 Rs.500000 9 respect of Bajaj Chethak Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.35,00000 Rs.35,00000 Rs.35,00000 10 respect of Solar system Value of the EMISC purchase bill found Rs.13,00000 Rs.13,00000 Rs.13,00000 11 in the house in respect of mobile Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.14,50000 Rs.14,50000 Rs.14,50000 12 respect of Samsung Mobile Value of the purchase bill found EMISC in the house in Rs.24,22300 Rs.5,00000 Rs.19,22300 13 respect of Sony DVD Music System EMISC Value of the Rs.19,00000 Rs.19,00000 Rs.19,00000 14 purchase bill found in the house in respect of Solar Water Heater Expenses incurred EMISC towards Travelin Rs.1,42500 Rs.1,42500 Rs.142500 15 Hotel EMISC Payment made 16 & towards congress Rs.2,00000 Rs.2,00000 Rs.200000 17 party fund Total Rs.1,61,00,35100 Rs.98,83,30400 Rs.1,39,09,89200 266 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 C. INCOME OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS:
30. The Investigating officer has considered income of the accused and his family members under 39 heads. The accused has not disputed the income under the head Rental income, agriculture income, loan income, interest income, LIC policy income, income from sale of properties except sale proceeds of property No.67 and 464/1 and no dispute about gold loan which are considered by the investigating officer. As per the case of prosecution, total income of the accused and her family members during the check period is Rs.2,95,38,27567, according to the accused her income during the check period is Rs.3,46,78,27500. Income of the accused as per the investigating officer and according to the accused are as follows: Code Income according Sl. Income according No. as Description of the Income investigating No. the accused per IO officer 1 IS1 Salary of the accused Rs.4,41,18200 Rs.4,81,18200 Rental income of accused and 2 IR1 Rs.57,91,80500 Rs.57,91,80500 her husband Agricultural income from 3 IA1 Sy.No.67 of Ranganathapura Rs.6,75,53500 Rs.6,75,53500 Village 4 IBL1 Loan income from loan A/c. Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.30,00,00000 267 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 No.0424/721/266 of Syndicate Bank Loan income from loan A/c.
5 IBL2 No.061035711 of LIC Housing Rs.9,60,00000 Rs.9,60,00000 Finance Loan income from loan A/c.
6 IBL3 No.13209012562 of Kaveri Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000 Kalpatharu Grameena Bank Loan income from loan A/c.
7 IBL4 No.13209012551 of Kaveri Rs.5,75,00000 Rs.5,75,00000 Kalpatharu Grameena Bank Loan income from loan A/c.
8 IBL5 No.13209000566 of Kaveri Rs.15,00,00000 Rs.15,00,00000
Kalpatharu Grameena Bank
Gold loan from Muthoot
9 IBL6 Rs.3,45,00000 Rs.3,45,00000
Finance
Loan income from loan A/c.
10 IBL7 No.49 of Rajajinagar Co Rs.9,70,00000 Rs.9,70,00000
operative Bank
Loan income from loan A/c.
11 IBL8 No.IPL/49/02 of Janata Co Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000
operative Bank
Interest income from A/c.
12 IIBL1 No.42421010090711 of Rs.22600 Rs.22600
Syndicate Bank
Interest income from A/c.
13 IIBL2 No.159015220429 of ICICI Rs.86600 Rs.86600
Bank9
Interest income from A/c.
14 IIBL3 No.014995 of Janata Co Rs.2,61400 Rs.2,61400
operative Bank
Interest income from A/c.
15 IIBL4 No.04282010101266 of Rs.44600 Rs.44600
Syndicate Bank
Interest income from A/c.
16 IIBL5 No.8401101027550 of Canara Rs.1,26900 Rs.1,26900
Bank
Interest income from A/c.
17 IIBL6 No.31665883104 of State Bank Rs.10400 Rs.10400
of India
Interest income from A/c.
18 IIBL7 No.563402010000577 of Union Rs.1,28200 Rs.1,28200
Bank of India
Interest income from A/c.
19 IIBL8 No.3812 of Kaveri Kalpatharu Rs.24600 Rs.24600
Bank
Interest income from A/c.
20 IIBL9 No.64074953326 of State Bank Rs.13000 Rs.13000
of Mysore
Interest income from A/c.
21 IIBL10 No.635 of Rajajinagar Co Rs.53900 Rs.53900
operative Bank
22 IPL1 Loan income from Rs.00 Rs.5,00,00000
268 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Krishnamurthy
Loan income from A.S.
23 IPL2 Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000
Manjunath
24 IPL3 Loan income from Karriappa Rs.00 Rs.4,00,00000
Income from fabrication
25 IB1 Rs.8,16,26000 Rs.8,16,26000
business
Matured LIC Policy
26 IIP1 Rs.87,50000 Rs.87,50000
No.10171647
Matured LIC Policy
27 IIP2 Rs.87,50000 Rs.87,50000
No.10167414
Matured LIC Policy
28 IIP3 Rs.84,24200 Rs.84,24200
No.615420571
Matured LIC Policy
29 IIP4 Rs.41,88700 Rs.41,88700
No.61540884
Matured LIC Policy
30 IIP5 Rs.41,94200 Rs.41,94200
No.615420723
Sale proceeds from property
31 ISA1 Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000
No.55 of Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds from property
32 ISA29 Rs.5,10,00000 Rs.5,10,00000
No.55 of Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds from
ISA3 to
33 Sy.No.16/P4, P5, P6 and Rs.23,65,00000 Rs.23,65,00000
6
16/P7, of Menasi Village
Sale proceeds from property
34 ISA7 Rs.70,00,00000 Rs.70,00,00000
No.78
Sale proceeds from property
35 ISA8 Rs.16,50,00000 Rs.16,50,00000
No.58 of Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds from Sy.No.10,
36 ISA9 Rs.1,85,00000 Rs.1,85,00000
46/3 of Chikkadevarahalli
ISA10 Sale proceeds from Sy.No.67 of 37 Rs.00 Rs.30,00,00000 & 11 Ranganathapura Sale proceeds from 38 ISA12 Sy.No.464/1 and others of Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000 Ekkadahalli, 39 IO1 Gold Loan Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000 Total Rs.2,95,38,27500 Rs.3,46,78,27500
31. Out of these 39 heads of income, the accused has admitted 33 heads of income considered by the investigating officer and she has disputed 6 heads of income. Therefore, I proceed to discuss heads of income one by one:
269 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(I). IS1: Salary income of the accused (Rs.4,41,18200):
(a). On the basis of salary details collected from office of the BBMP, the Investigating Officer has considered total salary income of the accused during the check period at Rs.4,41,18200. Learned public prosecutor has argued that during the check period the total salary of the accused was Rs.4,81,18200, Rs.20,00000 was deducted from her salary towards party fund and Kannada Sahitya Parishath, hence the investigating officer has deducted Rs.20,00000 while considering her total salary and he has rightly considered salary income of the accused at Rs.4,41,18200. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that as per the Report received by the Investigating Officer, after deduction the accused in all has received salary of Rs.4,81,18200, but the Investigating Officer has committed a mistake in deducting additional sum of Rs.20,00000 on the head of 'party fund' and 'Kannada Sahitya Parishath', 270 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 therefore the salary income of the accused has to be taken as Rs.4,81,18200. After I gone through the oral evidence, I came to know that though the investigating officer has deducted Rs.20,00000 from her salary while considering her salary income, the accused/ DW7 has not deposed anything about her salary income. In order to prove salary income of the accused, the prosecution has got marked the details of salary of the accused given by the Council Secretary of BBMP as Ex.P75. Except marking of this document neither PW2 nor PW9, who are the Investigating Officers have deposed anything about salary details of the accused.
(b). Bearing in mind the rival arguments of both sides, I have gone through Ex.P75. As per this document from November1996 to February2012 accused has drawn salary of Rs.4,77,26500. In the Final Report, though the Investigating Officer has explained stating that during the check period net salary income of the accused was Rs.4,56,94500, he 271 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 has considered Rs.4,41,18200. After careful perusal of Ex.P75, I came to know that as per the contents of this document, total salary income from November 1996 to February2012 was Rs.4,77,26500. Final Report states that the Investigating Officer has deducted Rs.20,00000 from total salary of the accused by considering deduction towards 'party fund' and 'donation to Karnataka Sahitya Parishath'.
But it is to be noted that the contents of Ex.P75 clearly state that after deducting the amount towards 'party fund' and 'Kannada Sahitya Parishath', salary income of the accused comes to Rs.4,77,26500, because only after deductions salary was credited to the accused. Therefore, total salary drawn by the accused from November1996 to December2012 was Rs.4,77,26500. Admittedly, the check period starts from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011, therefore salary drawn by the accused in the month of January 2012 and February 2012 has to be excluded from her total salary. As per Ex.P75, in the month of January2012 272 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 and February2012 the accused has drawn total salary of Rs.17,00000, if this amount is deducted, then the total salary income of the accused during the check period comes to Rs.4,60,26500. Therefore, I considered Rs.4,60,26500 as salary income of the accused.
(II). IR1: Rental income of Rs.57,91,80500:
(a). The investigating officer has submitted that as per the Income Tax Returns filed during 200203 to 201112, the accused has declared her rental income and as per these per the Income Tax Returns, she got total rental income of Rs.20,47,13000. He further submitted that in the Income Tax Returns, which were filed by husband of the accused, he has declared his rental income from 200203 to 201112 and as per these Income Tax Returns, his total rental income was Rs.37,44,67500. On the basis of declaration made in the Income Tax Returns and rent agreements, the investigating officer has taken Rs.57,91,80500 as income of the accused. 273 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(b). The evidence given by DW6 (husband of the accused) on rental income is as follows: In 2003 he has purchased site No.63 and 64 in Nagarabhavi and constructed a house spending rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs. He purchased site No.47 in Malagala and constructed 12 rented houses in the year 2004 borrowing loan from LIC and out of his own business income, from the rented houses of Malagala he was getting Rs.50,00000 to Rs.60,00000 per annum. Site No.78 situated in Nagarabhavi is in the name of his wife wherein sheet roofed houses have been built by spending Rs.3,00,00000. Site No.8 of Nagarabhavi was gifted to him by his grand mother, he built houses and given them for rent. House list No.5 of Mallathalli was gifted to his wife by her father and site No.7 of Nagarabhavi was gifted to him by his grand mother.
(c). In her chief examination, DW7 (the accused) has deposed that there was an house in Malagala, every year she was declaring her rental income in 274 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Income Tax Returns. Under the head 'assets of accused', this court has accepted the case of the accused regarding purchase of sites and also execution of gift deeds in favour of the accused and her husband. Admittedly, on the basis of the declaration made by the accused and her husband in Income Tax Returns, the investigating officer has considered total rental income at Rs.57,91,80500. Though the learned public prosecutor has cross examined DW6 regarding material used for construction of the houses, he has not cross examined him on rental income except asking that who was the tenant in the year 2006 in the house constructed in site No.78 of Nagarabhavi. The learned public prosecutor has argued that DW6 was unable to name his tenant, if really he has rented out his houses definitely he would have name one of his tenant, it shows that there was no rental income to the accused or her husband. No doubt, DW6 was unable to mention name a tenant of the year 2006. 275 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 DW6 has given his evidence in the year 2022 and the learned public prosecutor has asked about the name of a person who was the tenant in the 2006. It cannot be expected from DW6 to name a tenant after lapse of more than 15 years, that too when he was a owner of number of rented houses. Though the learned public prosecutor has not crossexamined DW6 and DW7 on rental income, he has argued that though the investigating officer has considered rental income, accused has to substantiate it. In this regard the learned public prosecutor has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (6) Supreme Court Cases 263 (State of Karnataka v/s J. Jayalalitha and others). In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on discussing on evidentiary value of Income Tax Returns has held that '.....To reiterate, even if such returns and others are admissible, the probative value would depend on the nature of the information furnished, the findings recorded in the orders having a bearing on the charge 276 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 levelled. In my view of the matter, however, such returns and others would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at best be piece of evidence which have to be evaluated along with the other materials on record......'
(d). By relying on this judgment, the learned public prosecutor has argued that the income tax returns are not conclusive proof, the accused has to prove it to the satisfaction of the court. Keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have gone through the documentary evidence available on record. The documents such as sale deeds executed by the accused and her husband and also the sale deeds in which they have purchased the properties and which have been produced by the prosecution themselves state about the houses owned by the accused and her husband. As per the sale deed dated 28.05.2004 (Ex.P131), the sale deed dated 28.05.2004 (Ex.P36) and the sale deed dated 12.12.2011 (Ex.P37), the accused has residential 277 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 premises, RCC building and AC sheet roofed houses on different dates. The sale deed dated 19.05.2005 (Ex.P132) states that husband of the accused had sold 2 AC sheet roofed houses. Further, the documents which are in Ex.P110 state that BBMP has approved the building plan for construction of a building in Site No.47 of Malagala, Bengaluru. Apart from these documentary evidence, the investigating officer himself got assessed the cost construction of building constructed in Site Nos.2 and 3, Kalasa Nilaya, Bhairaveswara Nagara, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru, in Site No.7, Nanjarasappa Extension, Bengaluru, in Site No.47, Kalasa Nilaya, Malagala, Bengaluru and in Site No.78, Nagarabhavi Extension. As per the report of PW5 [Ex.P108, Ex.P108 (a) to Ex.P108(i)], in Site Nos.2 and 3 of Nagarabhavi, there are ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor which are constructed during the year 200203, Site No.7, Nanjarasappa Extension is having ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor and 3rd floor constructed in the 278 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 year 2002, the Site No.47, which is situated at Malagala is having ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor, 3rd floor and 4th floor which were constructed in the year 200506 and in Site No.78, Nagarabhavi Extension, ground floor and 1st floor are constructed in the year 200506. Further, there is no dispute from the side of the prosecution regarding execution of gift deed in favour of the accused and her husband. The contents gift deed dated 02.03.2007 state that father of the accused had gifted a site with a AC sheet roofed house to the accused (Ex.P104). The contents gift deed dated 30.11.2010 state that grandmother of husband of the accused had gifted a site with a AC sheet roofed house in favour of husband of the accused (Ex.P106). The Gift deed dated 29.05.2010 state that grand mother of husband of the accused had gifted a site with one house in favour of husband of the accused (Ex.P130). All these documents are sufficient to hold that the accused and her husband were having number of houses for rent. 279 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(e). The learned public prosecutor has argued that gift deeds cannot be accepted to be genuine unless relationship of donor with donee and the occasion is proved. At the cost of repetition, again I would like to mention here that nowhere in the crossexamination of DW6 and DW7, the learned prosecution has disputed the sale deeds and gift deeds. Further, when the prosecution has consider the properties mentioned in said sale deeds and gift deeds to calculate assets of the accused, it cannot dispute the genuineness of said sale deeds and gift deeds while considering them for income purpose. Apart from that the sale deeds and gift deeds were executed by grand mother of husband of the accused and father of the accused before the date of raid and registering the case against the accused. These sale deeds and gift deeds are enough to hold that the accused and her husband were having houses for rent. When a person is having number of houses in Bangalore, it cannot be expected from him to keep all these houses for her own use.
280 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(f). A perusal of the mahazar dated 16.03.2012 make it clear that during raid in the house of the accused, the investigating officer has seized sale deeds, gift deeds, rent agreements and other documents in the presence of panch witnesses and they were noted in the mahazar. The prosecution itself has got marked those sale deeds, gift deeds and rent agreements. The prosecution has got marked bank account statements and several rent agreements, which were seized in the house of the accused (Ex.P10). The Investigating officer has seized original and copies of rental agreements, which state that husband of the accused rented out his shops and residential premises. A perusal of these documents are enough to hold that the accused and her husband was having rental income during the check period.
(g). Further, as aforesaid, when the prosecution has consider the properties of above mentioned sale deeds and gift deeds to assess the 'assets' of the 281 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused, it cannot object to consider those sale deeds and gift deeds in order to assess rental income. Except the suggestion to DW6 that he has no rental income, nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW6 and DW7 to disbelieve the rent agreements which are seized from the house of the accused and also the contentions of the accused about rental income. Further, it is settled principles of law that the accused need not prove his contention beyond reasonable doubt and he can discharge by establishing his case by preponderance of probability.
h). The accused and her husband have declared their rental income in Income Tax Returns (Ex.P87 and Ex.P140). On the basis of these Income Tax Returns, the investigating officer has considered of Rs.57,91,80500 towards rental income of the accused and her husband. The learned public prosecutor has also argued that total rental income as per ITRs is Rs.31,47,13000, that may be considered. I have gone through the copies of ITRs 282 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 collected by the investigating officer from the department of Income Tax. The investigating officer has collected the ITRs of husband of the accused of Assessment years 200203, 200304, 200405, 2005 06, 200607, 200708, 200809, 20092010 and 201011. The investigating officer has also collected the ITRs of the accused of Assessment years, 2002
03. 200304, 200405, 200506, 200607, 200708, 200809, 20092010, 201011, 201112. The copies of ITRs submitted by the husband of accused are marked as Ex.P140 and the copies of ITRs submitted by the accused are marked as Ex.P87. After thorough calculation of declaration of rental income, I hold that husband of the accused has declared his total rental income at Rs.25,28,85000 from the Assessment year 200203 to 201011, the accused has declared her total rental income at Rs.15,03,59900 from 200304 to 201112. Therefore, I have considered rental income of accused and her family member at Rs.40,32,44900. 283 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 (III). I.A.No. 1: Agriculture income of Rs. 6,75,53500:
(a). In her schedule statement submitted to the investigating officer, the accused has stated that Sy.No. 67 of Raghunathapura village, Sy.No. 168, 169, 170, 171 and 172 of Kannamangala village, Sy.No. 10, 46/3, 46/4 of Maralavadi village and Sy.No. 16 of Menasi village are in the name of her husband and from 199899 to 201112 he got agriculture income of Rs.15,31,40000. But as per the income tax returns filed for the Assessment years from 200203 to 201112 her agriculture income was Rs. 6,75,53500, hence, the investigating officer has considered Rs. 6,75,53500 as an agriculture income of the accused. In order to substantiate its contention, the prosecution has also got marked copies of ITRs of husband of the accused as per Ex.P140, which have not been disputed by the accused. The prosecution itself has got marked the sale deed and RTC extracts as per Ex.P4, which says that husband of the accused was having 3 acres 284 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of agriculture land, in which pomegranate was growing. As per the contents of Ex.P12, husband of the accused has purchased 3 acres of agriculture land on 07.03.2005. As per the contents of Ex.P14, husband of the accused has purchased 3 acres of agriculture land on 04.03.2005. As per Ex.P15 husband of the accused has purchased 2 acres 33 guntas of agriculture land on 20.03.2006. As per Ex.P17 husband of the accused has purchased 3 acres of agriculture land on 22.03.2006. It is to be noted that the investigating officer has also consider purchase of these lands towards assets of the accused. All these documents are sufficient to say that accused was having agriculture land. Though the accused has stated in her schedule statement that her husband has got agriculture income of Rs.15,31,40000, she has not disputed before the court the agriculture income considered by the investigating officer and not objected to consider Rs.6,75,53500 towards her income. Hence, 285 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.6,75,53500 is considered as an agriculture income of the accused.
(IV). IBL1: Loan Rs. 30,00,00000 borrowed by husband of the accused from Syndicate Bank:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Manager of Syndicate Bank, Malleshwaram, the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs.30,00,00000 towards income of the accused. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Syndicate Bank, Malleshwaram during the check period. At para No.134 of his examination in chief, PW9 has got marked the documents of account statement of the accused as per Ex.P62 and he deposed that those documents are with respect to the loan of Rs.30,00,00000. But, after perusal of the documents in Ex.P62, I came to know that those documents have not say anything about the loan of Rs.30,00,00000. I have gone through the Book No.3(2) and came to know that the account statement of the Syndicate Bank which 286 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 belonged to the accused and which is marked as Ex.P43 shows the loan transaction of Rs.30,00,000 00 during the check period. Hence, Rs.30,00,000 00 is considered as loan income of the accused. (V). IBL2: Loan income of Rs. 9,60,00000 borrowed from LIC Housing Finance Limited:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Manager of LIC Housing Finance Limited, the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs. 9,60,00000 towards income of the accused. In this regard PW9 has got marked the documents as per Ex.P90, which shows that husband of the accused has borrowed the loan. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from LIC Housing Finance Limited during the check period. The documents in Ex.P90 makes it clear that the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.9,60,00000 from LIC Housing Finance Limited during the check 287 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 period. Hence, Rs.9,60,00000 is considered as income of the accused.
(VI). IBL3: Loan of Rs. 4,00,00000 borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank under Loan A/c No. 13209012562:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from Manager of Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank, the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs.4,00,00000 towards income of the accused. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank during the check period. In this regard, PW9 has got marked loan transaction documents as per Ex.P 109, which shows that the accused had borrowed the loan. Neither the prosecution nor the accused have objected to consider this amount as loan income of the accused. By considering contents of Ex.P109, Rs. 4,00,00000 is taken as income of the accused.
288 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(VII). IBL4: Loan of Rs. 5,75,00000 borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank under Loan A/c No. 13209012551:
(a). PW2 has collected the documents from Manager of Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank regarding loan, on the basis of these document the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs.5,75,00000 towards income of the accused. The prosecution has got marked the documents pertaining to this loan transaction which are at page No.1649 to 1652 of Ex.P109. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank during the check period. Neither the prosecution nor the accused have objected to consider this amount as loan income of the accused. Hence, Rs.5,75,00000 is considered as income of the accused.
(VIII). IBL5: Loan of Rs.15,00,00000 borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank under Loan A/c No. 13209000566:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Manager of Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank, the 289 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs.15,00,00000 towards income of the accused. PW9 has got marked the account statement of the accused as per Ex.P109 (the documents in Page Nos.1633 to 1645). The documents which are at page Nos.1633 to 1645 show that the accused had borrowed mortgage loan of Rs.15,00,00000. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank during the check period. Further, neither the prosecution nor the accused have objected to consider this amount as loan income of the accused. Hence, Rs.15,00,00000 is considered as income of the accused.
(IX). IBL6: Gold loan income of Rs.3,45,00000 borrowed from Muthoot Finance:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from Muthoot Finance Limited, the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs. 3,45,000 290 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 00 as an income of the accused. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Muthoot Finance during the check period. Ex.P91, which has not been disputed by either of the parties proves that husband of the accused had borrowed gold loan of Rs.3,45,00000. Hence, Rs.3,45,00000 is considered as income of the accused. (X). IBL7: Loan of Rs. 9,70,00000 borrowed from The Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank, the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs. 9,70,00000 towards income of the accused. Ex.P57, which has not been disputed by either of them proves that on 03.04.2010, husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.9,70,00000 from Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. Hence, Rs. 9,70,00000 is considered as income of the accused.
291 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XI). IBL8: Loan of Rs.7,00,00000 borrowed from Janatha CoOperative Bank Limited:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from Manager of Janatha CoOperative Bank Limited, Bengaluru, the investigating officer has considered loan income of Rs. 7,00,00000 towards income of the accused. The accused has not disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Janatha CoOperative Bank Limited during the check period. Apart from that Ex.P103 has also proves that loan amount of Rs.3,00,00000 was credited to the husband of the accused on 07.08.2002 and loan of Rs.4,00,000 was credited on 13.12.2002. Hence, Rs.7,00,00000 is considered as income of the accused. (XII). IIBL1 to 10: Total interest amount of Rs.7,72200 credited to the various accounts of the accused, her husband and her son:
(a). On the basis of the statements of account obtained from Managers of Syndicate Bank, ICICI Bank, Janatha Seva CoOperative Bank Limited, 292 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Canara Bank, State Bank of India, Union Bank of India, Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, State Bank of Mysore and Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank, the investigating officer has considered Rs. 10,42200 towards income of the accused. The accused has not disputed the credit of interest amount of Rs.10,42200 to various accounts of members of her family and to consider this amount as an income of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has also got marked the documents at Ex.P38, Ex.P43, Ex.P60, Ex.P84, Ex.P88, Ex.P 98, Ex.P133. By considering the documentary evidence and admission of the accused, I have considered Rs.7,72200 as an income of the accused.
(XIII). IPL1: Loan of Rs.5,00,00000 said to be borrowed by the husband of the accused from one Krishnamurthy:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has stated that on 20.12.2008 her husband had 293 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,00000 from one Krishnamurthy, but the Investigating Officer has not considered this amount as income of the accused, because husband of the accused has not declared this amount in his Income Tax Returns, he has not received this amount through cheque and the agreement entered into between husband of the accused and lender was not registered. The learned public prosecutor has relied on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which arose between Mr. E.D. Prasad v/s State of Karnataka through Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Mysore in Crl.A. No.996/2011. I have gone through this judgment, in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that '...When it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused is alleged to have amassed wealth disproportionate to his income, the burden lies on him to show that whatever the income earned by him, as revealed in the investigation is earned by his own income legally 294 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 earned'. I have applied the principles of this decision to the case on hand as these principles applicable to the facts of the present case. Further argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as husband of the accused has not declared loan of Rs.5,00,00000 said to be borrowed from one Krishnamurthy and as this agreement was entered into between them in order to inflate income of the accused, the Investigating Officer has rightly not considered this amount as an income of the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the agreement has been got marked by the accused as Ex.D3, the accused has declared this amount in her Schedule statement, which is submitted to the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence that he has not enquired said Krishnamurthy, therefore the loan amount of Rs.5,00,00000 is liable to be taken as loan income of the accused and her family members.
295 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(b). The accused has got examined her husband as DW6, who deposed that Sri. Krishnamurthy was known to him, for his necessities he had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,00000 from him in the year 2009, in this regard they have entered into an agreement and he had repaid said amount in the last month of 2012. In order to substantiate her contention, the accused has also got examined son of said Krishnamurthy as DW2. In his chief examination DW2 has deposed that husband of the accused known to his father, there was a loan transaction between his father and husband of the accused, husband of the accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.5,00,00000 from his father, in this regard there was an agreement and he could identify signature of his father. There is no dispute that father of DW2 by name Krishnamurthy is dead, in this regard accused has also got marked death certificate of said Krishnamurthy as Ex.D2 through DW2. In his cross examination, DW2 has stated that his father 296 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 was collecting 2% interest. Argument of the learned public prosecutor is that there is no condition in the agreement to pay 2% interest, therefore, this document cannot be believed. The Investigating Officer has not considered Ex.D3 for the reasons that loan amount was not declared in ITR, loan was not paid through cheques, ExD.3 is not registered and this document was created after raid. But only on the ground that loan was not declared in ITR and not paid the loan amount through cheques, it cannot be said that there was no loan transaction. If any irregularities in declaring ITR, the Income tax Department would take action against him. As per Ex.D3 loan transaction has taken place on 20.12.2008, FIR was registered on 17.12.2011 and raid was conducted on 16.03.2012, therefore it cannot be said that on anticipation of registration of the case against the accused and raid, this agreement was entered into between husband of the accused and one Krishnamurthy. In his cross 297 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 examination, DW2 has denied suggestion of the learned public prosecutor that there was no transaction between his father and husband of the accused. DW2 has also stated that his father has not taken surety for the hand loan given to husband of the accused. Thus, the evidence of DW2 and contents of Ex.D2 probabalised the loan transaction between husband of the accused and father of DW2 and nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW2 to discard his evidence, hence I hold that the accused has probabalised loan transaction of Rs.5,00,00000 between her husband and one Krishnamurthy.
(c). Apart from all these, the stamp paper of Ex.D3 shows that it was purchased on 11.12.2008 i.e., long before registration of the case. The reasons given by the prosecution for not considering Ex.D3 that agreement is insufficiently stamped, not registered and rate of interest is not mentioned are not acceptable to discard the contents of Ex.D3 and 298 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 evidence of DW2. Interestingly in his cross examination, the Investigating Officer/ PW9 has admitted that he has not enquired either Krishnamurthy or husband of the accused regarding loan transaction. When the accused in her Schedule Statement itself has stated that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,00000 during the check period, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record statement of the Lender and borrower. If the Investigating Officer has enquired these two persons the truth would have come out regarding the loan transaction. Now, the materials placed on record are sufficient to substantiate the loan transaction as contended by the accused. Therefore, I considered Rs.5,00,00000 as income of the accused. (XIV). IPL2: Loan of Rs.6,00,00000 said to be borrowed by the husband of the accused from one A.S. Manjunath:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has stated that on 02.01.2009 her husband had 299 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 from one A.S. Manjunath without interest, but the Investigating Officer has not considered this amount as an income of the accused, because husband of the accused has not declared this amount in his Income Tax Returns, he has not received this amount through cheque and the agreement entered into between them was not registered. Argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as husband of the accused has not declared loan of Rs.6,00,00000 said to be borrowed from one A.S. Manjunath and as this agreement was entered into between them in order to inflate income of the accused, the Investigating Officer has rightly not considered this amount as an income of the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the agreement has been got marked by the accused as Ex.D5, the accused has declared this amount in the Schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer, Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence that he has not enquired the 300 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 A.S. Manjunath, therefore the loan amount of Rs.6,00,00000 is liable to be taken as loan income of the accused and her family members.
(b). The accused has got examined her husband as DW6, who deposed that A.S. Manjunath was known to him, in the year 2009 for his necessities he had borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000, in this regard they have entered into an agreement and he had repaid the said amount in the last month of 2012. In order to substantiate her contention, the accused has also got examined son of said A.S. Manjunath as DW
4. In his chief examination, DW4 has deposed that husband of the accused was known to him, there was a loan transaction between him and husband of the accused, husband of the accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.6,00,00000 from him in the month of January 2009, in this regard there was an agreement and said agreement was with him, after he cleared the loan he has handed over the agreement to 301 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 husband of the accused. DW4 has also identified the agreement and same is marked is Ex.D5. In his cross examination DW4 has stated that there was no agreement about interest and no date was fixed for repayment of loan. Argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as per the evidence of DW4, husband of the accused had borrowed loan to purchase of immovable properties, but details of immovable properties have not been mentioned in the agreement, therefore this document cannot be believed. The Investigating Officer has not considered Ex.D5 for the reasons that loan amount was not declared in ITR, loan was not paid through cheques, Ex.D5 is not registered and this document was created after raid. But only on the ground that loan was not declared in ITR and not paid the loan amount through cheques and agreement is not registered, it cannot be said that there was no loan transaction. If the agreement is not registered, the lender could not be in a position to enforce the 302 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 agreement, but it cannot be said that there was no loan transaction. If any irregularities in declaring ITR, the Income tax Department would take action against him. As per Ex.D5 loan transaction has taken place on 02.01.2009, FIR was registered on 17.12.2011 and raid was conducted on 16.03.2012, therefore it cannot be said that on anticipation of registration of the case and raid, this agreement was entered into between husband of the accused and DW4. In his cross examination, DW4 has denied suggestion of the learned public prosecutor that there was no transaction between him and husband of the accused. In view of evidence of DW4 and contents of Ex.D5, which probabalised the loan transaction and as nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW4 to discard his evidence, I hold that the accused has probabalised loan transaction of Rs.6,00,00000 between her husband and one A.S. Manjunath.
(c). Apart from all these, the stamp paper of Ex.D.5 shows that it was purchased on 11.12.2008 303 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 i.e., long before registration of the case. The reasons given by the prosecution for not considering Ex.D5 that agreement is insufficiently stamped, not registered and rate of interest is not mentioned are not acceptable to discard the contents of Ex.D5 and evidence of DW4. Interestingly in his cross examination, the Investigating Officer/ PW9 has admitted that he has not enquired either A.S. Manjunath or husband of the accused regarding loan transaction. When the accused in her Schedule itself has stated that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 during the check period, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record statement of these persons. If the Investigating Officer has enquired these two persons the truth would have come out regarding the loan transaction. Now, the materials placed on record are sufficient to substantiate the loan transaction as contended by the accused. Therefore, I considered Rs.6,00,00000 as income of the accused.
304 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XV). IPL3: Loan of Rs.4,00,00000 said to be borrowed by the husband of the accused from one Kariappa:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has stated that on 02.01.2009 her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000 from one Kariyappa without interest, but the Investigating Officer has not considered this amount as income of the accused, because the accused had not declared this amount in his Income Tax Returns, he has not received this amount through cheque and the agreement entered into between them was not registered. Argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as husband of the accused has not declared loan of Rs.4,00,00000 said to be borrowed from one Kariyappa in his ITR and as the said agreement was executed in order to inflate income of the accused, the Investigating Officer has rightly not considered this amount as an income of the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the agreement has been got marked by the accused as 305 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Ex.D6, the accused has declared this amount in the Schedule6 submitted to the Investigating Officer, Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence that he has not enquired said Kariyappa, therefore the loan amount of Rs.4,00,00000 is liable to be taken as loan income of the accused and her family members.
(b). The accused has got examined her husband as DW6, who deposed that Kariyappa was known to him, in the year 2009 for his necessities he had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000, in this regard they have entered into an agreement and he had repaid the said amount in the last month of 2012. In order to substantiate her contention, the accused has also got examined said Kariyappa as DW5. In his chief examination DW5 has deposed that husband of the accused was his friend, on 02.01.2009 he paid loan of Rs.4,00,00000, in order to purchase an immovable property he had borrowed the amount, in 306 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 this regard he got executed an agreement on stamp paper. DW5 has also identified the agreement and same is marked is Ex.D6. In his cross examination, DW5 stated that he did no know that to lend an amount he had to obtain permission from his higher authority, he did not informed his higher authorities about his other sources of income, he has not produced statement of his bank account, he did not know which property was purchased by Ravikumar, he did not declared about lending of loan in ITR. Argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as per evidence of DW5, husband of the accused had borrowed loan to purchase an immovable property, but details of immovable property have not been mentioned in the agreement, therefore this document cannot be believed. He further argued that DW5 has not produced any amount of evidence to prove that he was having sufficient source of income to lend Rs.4,00,00000 to the husband of accused, therefore, evidence of DW5 is not believable. The Investigating 307 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Officer has not considered Ex.D6 for the reasons that loan amount was not declared in ITR, loan was not paid through cheque, Ex.D.6 is not registered and this document was created after raid. Admittedly, DW5 was a government servant. But the facts that DW5 has not declared payment of loan in his ITR, he has not taken permission from his higher authorities to lend loan, he had not paid loan amount through cheque are not grounds to reject his evidence given on sworn version. If any irregularities in declaring in ITR, the Income tax Department would take action against him and if he has lent a loan without permission of his higher authorities, his higher authorities would have conduct enquiry. As per Ex.D6 loan transaction has taken place on 02.01.2009, FIR was registered on 17.12.2011 and raid was conducted on 16.03.2012, therefore it cannot be said that on anticipation of registration of the case and raid on his home, this agreement was entered into between husband of the accused and 308 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 DW5. In his cross examination DW5 has denied suggestion of the learned public prosecutor that there was no loan transaction between him and husband of the accused. The evidence of DW5 and contents of Ex.D6 probabalised the loan transaction between the husband of the accused and DW5 and nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW5 to discard his evidence, hence I hold that the accused has probabalised loan transaction of Rs.4,00,00000 between her husband and DW5.
(c). Interestingly, in his crossexamination, PW 9/the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not enquired either Kariyappa or husband of the accused regarding loan transaction. When the accused in her Schedule itself has stated that her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000 during the check period, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to enquire the lender and the borrower, if the Investigating Officer has enquired 309 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 these two persons the truth would have come out regarding the loan transaction. Apart from all these, stamp paper used to prepare Ex.D6 shows that it was purchased on 11.12.2008 i.e., long back to the dates of registration of the case and raid. Thus, the reasons given by the prosecution for not considering Ex.D6 are not acceptable to discard the contents of Ex.D6 and evidence of DW5. Thus, the materials placed on record are sufficient to probabalize the loan transaction between Ravikumar and Kariyappa. Therefore, I considered Rs.4,00,00000 as income of the accused.
(XVI). IB1: Income from Fabrication Business:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, in her schedule statement, accused has stated that her husband was getting income of Rs.3,00,00000 per annum from Fabrication business, but from 200203 to 200708, her husband has declared total income of Rs.8,16,26000 from fabrication business, hence 310 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 the investigating officer has considered this amount as an income of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got marked copies of ITRs of husband of the accused from from Assessment year 200304 to 20102011. The accused has not disputed the amount of income considered by the investigating officer from Fabrication business. In view of ITRs from Assessment year 200304 to 2010 2011 submitted by husband of the accused and admission of the accused, I have considered Rs.8,16,26000 as business income of the accused. (XVII). IIP1 to IIP5: Maturity amount of LIC policies:
(a). The investigating officer has considered LIC policies and taken total amount of Rs.3,43,07100 from five LIC policies. As per Ex.P74 and Ex.P80, some LIC policies of the accused and his family members have matured and some of the LIC policies were terminated by surrendering the policies. The 311 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 accused has admitted receipt of total income of Rs.3,43,07100 from LIC policies. Hence, Rs.3,43,07100 is considered as income of the accused.
(XVIII). ISA1 and ISA2: Sale proceeds from property No. 55:
(a). In order to ascertain income of the accused, the investigating officer has considered sale of property bearing Municipal No.55 and site No.2/83/2 of Nagarabhavi village and taken sale consideration amount of Rs. 7,00,00000 and Rs.5,10,00000 as an income of the accused. The certified copy of the sale deed which is in Ex.P131 says that on 28.05.2004 the accused sold the property in Municipal No.55 for Rs.7,00,00000. The certified copy of the sale deed which is in Ex.P36 states that on 28.05.2004 the accused has sold the property in Municipal No.57/site No.2/83/2 of Nagarabhavi village for Rs. 5,10,00000. There is no 312 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 dispute about sale of these properties for Rs.7,00,00000 and Rs.5,10,00000. The accused has not disputed this fact and not objected to consider this amount as income of the accused. Hence, Rs.12,10,00000 is considered as a income of the accused.
(XIX). ISA3 to ISA6: Sale proceeds from Sy.No. 16/P4, 16/P5, 16/P6 and 16/P7:
(a). On the basis of Ex.P64, Ex.P65, Ex.P66 and Ex.P67, the investigating officer has taken sale proceeds of Sy.Nos.16/P4, 16/P5, 16/P6 and 16/P7 of Menasi village as income of the accused. The accused has admitted sale of these properties and also sale consideration amount. The total consideration amount of these properties is Rs.23,65,00000. In view of the documentary evidence and also admission of the accused, I have considered Rs.23,65,00000 as a income of the accused.
313 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015(XX). ISA7: Sale proceeds from property No. 78:
(a). The investigating officer has taken into consideration sale of House No.78 of Nagarabhavi village and considered sale proceeds of Rs.70,00,00000 as an income of the accused. The accused has not disputed this fact and not objected to consider this amount as income of the accused. As per the copy sale deed dated 12.12.2011 (Ex.P
37), accused has sold a site bearing BDA site No.78/khata No.58/78, which is situated in Nagarabhavi Extension for Rs.70,00,00000. Hence, Rs.70,00,00000 is considered as an income of the accused.
(XXI). ISA8: Sale proceeds of properties bearing Municipal No. 58 situated at Nagarabhavi main road:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from office of the SubRegistrar of Nagarabhavi, the investigating officer has taken into consideration sale proceeds of sites and taken an amount of 314 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.16,50,00000 as an income of the accused. The accused has not disputed this fact and not objected to consider this amount as income of the accused. Apart from that copy of the sale deed (Ex.P132) states that on 19.05.2005, husband of the accused has sold property bearing Municipal No.58 eastern portion and Municipal No.58 western portion for Rs.16,50,00000. Hence, Rs.16,50,00000 is considered as a income of the accused. (XXII). I.S.A9: Sale proceeds of properties in Sy.Nos. 10, 46/3 and 46/4:
(a). By considering the documents obtained from SubRegistrar of Kanakapura, the investigating officer has considered sale proceeds of these properties as an income of the accused. The copy of sale deed dated 17.07.2003, which is marked as Ex.P115 (page 894) states that husband of the accused has sold properties in Sy. No.10, 46/3 and 46/4 of Chikkadevarahalli village for Rs.1,85,00000. 315 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 The accused has not disputed this fact and not objected to consider this amount as income of the accused. Accordingly, Rs.1,85,00000 is considered as a income of the accused.
(XXIII). ISA10 and ISA11: Sale consideration of Rs.30,00,00000 in respect of property bearing Sy.No.67 of Raghunathapura:
(a). As per the final report, accused has stated that on 15.05.2007 her husband had purchased 3 acres 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 and on 15.03.2012 he has sold 1 acre 17 guntas of land to one C. Narayanaswamy and 2 acres of land to one T. K. Kuriyakos for Rs.1,54,00,00000, out of total consideration amount, T.K.Kuriyakos had paid Rs.25,00,00000 through a cheque on 16.12.2011 and C. Narayanaswamy had paid Rs.5,00,00000 through a cheque on 16.11.2011, but investigating officer has not considered these amounts under the head income because, cheques were presented and encashed after the cheque period ie., on 20.12.2012. 316 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 The learned public prosecutor has argued that the cheques were encashed after the cheque period that means the sale consideration amount was not with the accused or husband of the accused during the check period, therefore it cannot be considered as an income of the accused.
(b). The sale deed dated 15.03.2012, which is in Ex.P126 (page No.1794) says that husband of the accused has sold 2 acres of land in Sy.No.67 of Raghunathapura village to one Kuriakose for Rs.90,00,00000. This document has also says that out of total consideration amount, an amount of Rs.25,00,00000 was paid through a cheque bearing No.980621, dated 16.12.2011. Another sale deed dated 15.03.2012, which is in Ex.P126 (page No.1778) says that husband of the accused has sold 1 acre 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 of Raghunathapura village to one C. Narayanaswamy for Rs.64,00,00000. This document has also says 317 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 that out of total consideration amount, an amount of Rs.5,00,00000 was paid through a cheque bearing No008814, dated 16.11.2011.
(c). Arguments of the learned counsel for the accused has argued is that though the cheques were realized after the check period, as they were realized and credited the amount to the account of accused, the cheques amount has to be considered as it was paid on the date of issuance of the cheques.
(d). In this regard the learned counsel for the accused has relied on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 2 SCC 62, which arose between Director of Income Tax v/s Raunaq Education Foundation. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on decision in a case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd., and applied the principles of that decision to this decision. In case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd., the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with an issue of consideration of date of payment of cheque 318 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 amount if it was realized afterwards. In the case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"11..... When it is said that a payment by negotiable instrument is a conditional payment what is meant is that such payment is subject to a condition subsequent that if the negotiable instrument is dishonoured on presentation the creditor may consider it as waste paper and resort to his original demand:
(Stedman v. Gooch³). It is said in Benjamin on Sale, 8th Edn.,p. 788:
"The payment takes effect from the delivery of the bill, but is defeated by the happening of the condition i.e. non payment at maturity".
In Byles on Bills, 20th Edn., p. 23 the position is summarised pithily as follows 'A cheque, unless dishonoured, payment.' To the same effect are the passages to be found in Hart on Banking, 4th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 342. In Felix Hadley & Co. v. Hadley, Byrne, J expressed the same idea in the following passage in his judgment at Ch pp. 68283:
'... In this case I think what took place amounted to a conditional payment of the debt; the condition being that the cheque or bill should be duly met or honoured at the proper date. If that be the true view, then I think the position is 319 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 exactly as if an agreement had been expressly made that the bill or cheque should operate as payment unless defeated by dishonour or by not being met; and I think that agreement is implied from giving and taking the cheques and bills in question.' The following observations of Lord Maugham in Rhokana Corpn. Ltd. v. IRC are also apposite: (AC p. 399) 'Apart from the express terms of Section 33 subsection (1), a similar conclusion might be founded on the wellknown common law rules as to the effect of the sending of a cheque in payment of a debt, and in the fact that though the payment is subject to the condition subsequent that the cheque must be met on presentation, the date of payment, if the cheque is duly met, is the date when the cheque was posted.' In the case before us none of the cheques has been dishonoured on presentation and payment cannot, therefore, be said to have been defeated by the happening of the condition subsequent, namely, dishonour by nonpayment and that being so there can be no question, therefore, that the assessee did not receive payment by the receipt of the cheques.
The position, therefore, is that in one view of the matter there was, in the circumstances of this case, an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and on another view, even if the cheques were taken conditionally, the cheques not having been dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the 320 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques."
(e). I have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and applied the principles to the case on hand. By relying on this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that as the cheques were encashed it should be considered as payment on the date of issuance of the cheques. In the case on hand, admittedly, the cheque of Rs.25,00,00000 was issued by Sri. Kuriakose and Sri. Narayanaswamy in favour of husband of the accused on 16.12.2011 ie., within the check period and they have realized on 20.12.2011 ie., after the check period. After reading the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I of the humble opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is on Income Tax Act and Negotiable Instruments Act. The case on hand is about Disproportionate assets and in Disproportionate assets cases, the check period taken by the investigating officer plays an important role and the 321 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Court has to decide the Assets, Expenditure and Income of the accused and his family members during the check period. At para No.21 of his chief examination, DW1/ husband of the accused has deposed that on 16.12.2011 he had entered into an agreement with one Kuriakose for sale of 2 acres of land for Rs.90,00,00000 and on that day said Kuriakose had issued a cheque of Rs.25,00,00000. At para No.22 of his chief examination, DW6 further deposed that on 16.11.2011 he had entered into an agreement with one Narayanaswamy for sale of property for Rs.64,00,00000, on that day he had issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,00000 and paid Rs.15,00,00000 in cash. When the cheque amount is not in the hands of the accused during the check period, accused cannot prays to consider the amount of cheque which was credited to his account after the check period. Therefore, I am of the humble opinion that this judgment of Hon'ble Apex court is not helpful for the accused. Since, an amount of 322 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Rs.30,00,00000 was not in the hands of the accused or in the hands of her family members during the check period, I decline to consider this amount as an income of the accused.
(XXIV). ISA12: Sale consideration amount of Rs.6,00,00000 in respect of property No.464/1 and others:
(a). During the investigation, the investigating officer came to know that husband of the accused had entered into an agreement with one Y.S. Srinivas for sale of the properties bearing Sy. Nos.464/1, 78/A1B1, 116/B, 88, 116, 228/1 and 502 of Ikkadahalli village and received advance amount of Rs.6,00,00000, but the investigating officer has not considered this amount for the reasons that this income has not been declared in ITR and husband of the accused had entered into an agreement after the raid in order to inflate his income.
(b). The learned counsel for the accused has argued that purchaser himself has given statement 323 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 that he had entered into an agreement with husband of the accused to purchase the land and paid an amount of Rs.6,00,00000, therefore this amount has to be considered as an income of the accused. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has argued that no consideration amount was fixed on the agreement, DW1 was not able to mention measurement of the properties, he did not know whether there was any road in those properties, therefore his evidence cannot be believed.
(c). Admittedly, raid was conducted on 16.03.2012 and sale agreement was executed on 10.02.2010. In order to substantiate his case, the accused has got examined agreement holder by name Y.S. Srinivas as DW1, who deposed about the sale agreement between him and H. Ravikumar ie., husband of the accused and payment of Rs.6,00,00000 on the agreement. DW1 has also got marked the agreement as Ex.D1.
324 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(d). After careful perusal of Ex.D1, I came to know that as argued by the learned public prosecutor, no consideration amount was fixed in the agreement. The agreement speaks about sale of properties and receipt of Rs.6,00,00000, but it is silent about total consideration amount and last date for enforcement of the agreement or for execution of sale deed. Unless, the total consideration amount and date for execution of sale deed is fixed said agreement cannot be enforced. Ex.D1 is also silent about the date of payment of balance consideration amount. It is further admitted fact that agreement was executed on 10.02.2010 and DW1 has given his evidence on 29.08.2022, but till that date neither the seller nor the purchaser have came forward to enforce the agreement. In his cross examination, DW1 has stated that as there was dispute in respect of a property, he did not purchased the property. But there is no evidence on record regarding any dispute about any of the properties mentioned in the 325 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 agreement. Apart from that, as per Ex.D1, DW1 has agreed to purchase the properties bearing Sy. Nos.464/1, 78/A1B1, 116/B, 88, 116, 228/1 and 502 of Ikkadahalli village. But, in his cross examination, DW1 has stated that the survey number of the property mentioned in the agreement was 78 and except this there were no other properties in the agreement. It is to be noted that DW1 has also stated in his cross examination that measurement of the properties has not been mentioned in the agreement. But, a perusal of Ex.D 1 shows that property descriptions have been mentioned in the schedule. Thus, the evidence of DW1 shows that he did not know anything about the properties mentioned in Ex.D1, if he had executed this document with intent to purchase the properties which are mentioned in Ex.D1, definitely, he should have enquired about survey numbers of the properties, total consideration amount and period of agreement should have been mentioned. 326 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(e). In his crossexamination, DW1 has stated that after execution of agreement, original agreement was with Ravikumar and he was having xerox copy of the agreement. Generally, the purchaser who paid advance amount and agreed to pay balance consideration amount should keep the original agreement with him and in case if the agreement was canceled by both parties, the agreement would be returned to the seller after return of advance amount. Here, as per the evidence of DW1, Ravikumar has repaid Rs.3,00,00000 in the year 2012 and Rs.3,00,000 in the year 2013. But, DW1 himself has produce the agreement of sale before the court and he got marked it as Ex.D1. Thus, case of the accused that he entered into an agreement with DW1 to sell the above mentioned properties and received advance amount of Rs.6,00,00000 without fixing total consideration amount and period of agreement is improbable and it cannot be believed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the investigating 327 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 officer has rightly decline to consider said amount as an income of the accused. Hence, I have not considered Rs.6,00,00000 as an income of the accused.
(XXV). IO1: Gold loan of Rs.6,00,00000 obtained in Muthoot Finance:
(a). The investigating officer has considered loan of Rs.6,00,00000 obtained by husband of the accused as an income of the accused. As per the contents of Ex.P127 husband of the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 by pledging gold. The accused has also not disputed this fact. Hence, I have considered Rs.6,00,00000 as an income of the accused.
32. After discussion on documentary and oral evidence of both sides and consideration of points urged at the time of arguments, the income of the accused as per the investigating officer, according to the accused and as per the findings of the Court are as follows: 328 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Code Description of According to the As per finding of Value as per IO No. the Income accused the Court Salary of the IS1 Rs.4,41,18200 Rs.4,81,18200 Rs.4,60,26500 accused Rental income of IR1 accused and his Rs.57,91,80500 Rs.57,91,80500 Rs.40,32,44900 family members Agricultural income from IA1 Sy.No.67 of Rs.6,75,53500 Rs.6,75,53500 Rs.6,75,53500 Ranganathapura Village Loan income from loan A/c.
IBL1 No.0424/721/26 Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.30,00,00000
6 of Syndicate
Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
IBL2 No.061035711 of Rs.9,60,00000 Rs.9,60,00000 Rs.9,60,00000
LIC Housing
Finance
Loan income from
loan A/c.
No.13209012562
IBL3 Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000
of Kaveri
Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
No.13209012551
IBL4 Rs.5,75,00000 Rs.5,75,00000 Rs.5,75,00000
of Kaveri
Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
No.13209000566
IBL5 of Kaveri Rs.15,00,00000 Rs.15,00,00000 Rs.15,00,00000
Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank
Gold loan from
IBL6 Rs.3,45,00000 Rs.3,45,00000 Rs.3,45,00000
Muthoot Finance
Loan income from
loan A/c. No.49 of
IBL7 Rs.9,70,00000 Rs.9,70,00000 Rs.9,70,00000
Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
IBL8 No.IPL/49/02 of Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000
Janata Co
operative Bank
IIBL Interest income Rs.10,44200 Rs.10,44200 Rs.7,72200
1 to credit to various
IIBL accounts of
329 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused and her
10
family members
Loan income from
IPL1 Rs.00 Rs.5,00,00000 Rs.5,00,00000
Krishnamurthy
Loan income from
IPL2 Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000
A.S. Manjunath
Loan income from
IPL3 Rs.00 Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000
Karriappa
Income from
IB1 fabrication Rs.8,16,26000 Rs.8,16,26000 Rs.8,16,26000
business
IIP1 Matured &
to surrendered LIC Rs.87,50000 Rs.87,50000 Rs.3,43,07100
IIP5 Policies
Sale proceeds
ISA1
from property Rs.7,00,00000 +
and Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.12,10,00000
No.55 of Rs.5,10,00000
ISA2
Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds
from
ISA3
Sy.No.16/P4, P5, Rs.23,65,00000 Rs.23,65,00000 Rs.23,65,00000
to 6
P6 and 16/P7, of
Menasi Village
Sale proceeds
ISA7 from property Rs.70,00,00000 Rs.70,00,00000 Rs.70,00,00000
No.78
Sale proceeds
from property
ISA8 Rs.16,50,00000 Rs.16,50,00000 Rs.16,50,00000
No.58 of
Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds
from Sy.No.10,
ISA9 Rs.1,85,00000 Rs.1,85,00000 Rs.1,85,00000
46/3 of
Chikkadevarahalli
ISA Sale proceeds
10 & from Sy.No.67 of
Rs.00 Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.00
ISA Ranganathapura
11
Sale proceeds
ISA from Sy.No.464/1
Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.00
12 and others of
Ekkadahalli,
IO1 Gold Loan Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000
Total Rs.2,95,38,27500 Rs.3,46,78,27500 Rs.2,92,92,60200
33. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record and calculation made by this court, 330 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 this court finds that total value of assets of the accused and her family members during the check period is Rs.1,35,21,52100, total expenditure of the accused and her family members during the check period is Rs.1,39,09,89200 and total income of the accused and her family members during the check period is Rs.2,92,92,60200.
34. For the purpose of ascertaining as to what is the percentage of disproportionate assets, the accepted formula is that assets and expenditure shall be added, then lawful income has to be deducted from total value of assets and expenditure. If the value of assets and expenditure is added, it comes to Rs.2,74,31,41300 (Rs.1,35,2152100 + Rs.1,39,09,89200). If decided income of the accused is subtracted from the total value of assets and expenditure i.e., Rs.2,74,31,41300, we get disproportionate income. As aforesaid, this court finds that the income of the accused and her family members during the check period is Rs.2,92,92,60200. If income 331 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 i.e., Rs.2,92,92,60200 is subtracted from total value of assets and expenditure i.e., Rs.2,74,31,41300, it comes to Rs.18,61,18900 (Rs.2,74,31,41300 - Rs.2,92,92,60200 = Rs.18,61,18900). Thus, the calculation shows that income of the accused and her family members during the check period is more than the value of the assets and expenditure of the accused and her family members during the check period. Therefore, there is no question of earnings of Disproportionate Assets by the accused during the check period, because income of the accused and her family members during the check period is Rs.18,61,18900 excess to the total value of her assets and expenditure. Therefore, it cannot be held that the accused has possessed the properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to her known source of income in her name and in the names of her family members during the check period. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative 332 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
35. Point No.2: As discussed above, the findings and calculation arrived by this Court is as under:
Assets Rs.1,35,21,52100
Expenditure Rs.1,39,09,89200
Assets + Expenditure Rs.2,74,31,41300
Total Income Rs.2,92,95,30200
Disproportionate Assets Nil
36. Aforesaid statement reveals that there is excess income of more than Rs.18 lakhs than the total value of assets and expenditure of the accused. It is settled principles of law that initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the foundation of fact, thereafter the accused is required to rebut the presumption available in favour of the prosecution. In the case on hand, the accused has succeeded in accounting for having the properties/assets by herself and her husband to the satisfaction of the court. Having regard to the discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no escape from holding that the accused has satisfactorily explained and accounted for the value 333 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 of the assets held by her and also under various heads of expenses incurred by her. Therefore, there are no circumstances to hold that the accused has acquired assets disproportionate to her known source of income. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is set at liberty.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety executed stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 12th day of August 2025).
(Nandeesha R.P.) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH 79).334 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 M. Jayaram PW2 Anjan Kumar K. PW3 Gangarudraiah PW4 Sreedhar PW5 R. Nithin PW6 Dr. K. N. Chandrashekar PW7 H.A. Upendra PW8 Narasimhamurthy P. PW9 Mohamed Mukaram
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Copy of the complaint Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P2 Assets and Liabilities Statement of
accused along with covering letter Ex.P3 Copies of the Affidavits submitted by the accused Ex.P4 Copy of the Sale deed dated 02.07.2003 and RTCs in the name of DW6 Ex.P5 Copy of the Sale deed dated 17.01.2003 in the name of DW6 Ex.P6 Copy of the Sale deed dated 27.11.2003 in the name of DW6 Ex.P7 Copy of the Sale deed dated 23.06.2004 in the name of DW6 Ex.P8 & P.9 Copies of two Sale deeds dated 28.05.2004 335 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 in the name of accused Ex.P10 Copy of the Sale deed dated 06.07.2004 in the name of DW6 Ex.P11 Copy of the General Power of Attorney by Smt. S. Nalini Bai in the name of DW6 Ex.P12 Copy of the Sale deed dated 07.03.2005 in the name of DW6 Ex.P13 Copy of the Sale deed dated 10.03.2005 in the name of DW6 Ex.P14 Copy of the Sale deed dated 04.03.2005 in the name of DW6 Ex.P15 & P.16 Copies of the Sale deeds dated 20.03.2006 in the name of DW6 Ex.P17 & P.18 Copies of the Sale deeds dated 22.03.2006 in the name of DW6 Ex.P19 Copy of the Sale deed dated 05.04.2006 in the name of DW6 Ex.P20 Copy of the Sale deed dated 25.01.2006 in the name of accused, covering letter, letter of instruction, Tax paid receipt, Blue print approval application, property tax letter etc., Ex.P21 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 07.08.2006 in the name of DW6 Ex.P22 & P.23 Certified copies of the sale deeds dated 15.07.2006 in the name of DW6 Ex.P24 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.10.2007 in the name of DW6 Ex.P25 Certified copy of the Sale Agreement dated 11.07.2008 Ex.P26 Certified copy of the Sale Agreement dated 28.08.2008 Ex.P27 & P.28 Certified copies of the Sale Agreements dated 09.09.2008 336 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Ex.P29 to P.31 Certified copies of the Sale Agreements dated 28.08.2008 Ex.P32 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.01.2009 Ex.P33 Authorisation Order dated 17.12.2011 of Superintendent of Police Ex.P33(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P34 FIR Ex.P34(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P35 Documents received from the Sub Registrar office of Doddaballapur on 24.02.2012 Ex.P36 Documents received from the Sub Registrar office of Peenya on 27.02.2012 Ex.P37 Documents received from the Sub Registrar office of Nagarabhavi on 27.02.2012 Ex.P38 Documents received from the Union Bank of India, Chandra Layout Branch on 28.02.2012 Ex.P39 to P.41 Documents received from SubRegistrar office of Peenya on 02.03.2012 Ex.P42 Documents received from SubRegistrar office of Peenya on 03.03.2012 Ex.P43 Documents received from Syndicate Bank on 07.03.2012 Ex.P44 Documents received from ICICI Bank on 14.03.2012 Ex.P46 Report of PW2 Ex.P47 Search Warrant Ex.P47(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P47(b) Signature of accused Ex.P47(c) Signature of PW3 337 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Ex.P48 PF No. 53/12 Ex.P48(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P49 Search Warrant Ex.P49(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P49(b) Signature of PW3 Ex.P49(c) Signature of Shwethambika Ex.P49(d) Signature of accused Ex.P50 Report of Police Inspector Sanjeevarayappa Ex.P50(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P51 Search Warrant Ex.P52 House search mahazar Ex.P52(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P53 Search Warrant Ex.P54 Search Mahazar Ex.P55 Report of Police Inspector - S.T. Yogesh Ex.P55(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P56 PF No.54/12 Ex.P56(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P57 Documents received from Rajajinagar Co operative Bank on 16.03.2012 Ex.P58 Documents received from Nagarabhavi SubRegistrar's office on 17.03.2012 Ex.P59 Documents received from Janatha Seva Cooperative Bank on 19.03.2012 Ex.P60 Documents received from Canara Bank on 19.03.2012 Ex.P61 Documents received from Kollegal Sub Registrar's office on 20.03.2012 Ex.P62 Documents received from Syndicate Bank on 26.03.2012 338 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Ex.P63 Mobile bill details received from Airtel on 27.03.2012 Ex.P64 to P.71 Documents received from Doddaballapur SubRegistrar's office on 28.03.2012 Ex.P72 Documents received from BSNL office on 02.04.2012 Ex.P73 Documents received from SSGV School on 02.04.2012 Ex.P74 Documents received from Reliance on 09.04.2012 Ex.P75 Documents received from BBMP office regarding the service details of the accused on 13.04.2012 Ex.P75(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P76 to P.79 On 19.04.2012 received documents from Peenya SubRegistrar's office, Animal Husbandry Department, passport office and PES PU College Ex.P77(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P80 Documents received from LIC office on 21.04.2012 Ex.P81 Documents received from BESCOM office on 23.04.2012 Ex.P82 Documents received from RTO, Jnanabharathi on 26.04.2012 Ex.P83 Documents received from Star Health and Allied Insurance on 27.04.2012 Ex.P84 Documents received from Canara Bank on 07.05.2012 Ex.P85 Documents received from LIC office on 14.05.2012 Ex.P86 & P.87 On 21.05.2012 received documents from BBMP office and Income Tax office Ex.P88 Documents received from SBI bank on 339 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 21.06.2012 Ex.P89 Documents received from Sheshadripuram college and Global Academy of Technology on 30.06.2012 Ex.P90 Documents received from LIC office on 09.07.2012 Ex.P91 Documents received from Muthoot Finance on 23.07.2012 Ex.P92 and Documents received from BBMP office on P.93 16.08.2012 Ex.P94 Documents received from Doddaballapur SubRegistrar's office on 03.10.2012 Ex.P95 Documents received from Fortis Hospital on 04.10.2012 Ex.P96 Received letter from BESCOM office on 05.10.2012 Ex.P97 to On 08.10.2012 received documents from P.102 Nagarabhavi SubRegistrar's office, Kaveri Kalpatharu Gramina Bank, BESCOM and M.V. Solar System Ex.P103 Documents received from Janatha Seva Cooperative Bank on 09.10.2012 Ex.P104 and On 05.11.2012 received documents from P.105 Peenya SubRegistrar's Office and Bengaluru Water Supply Board Ex.P106 Documents received from Nagarabhavi SubRegistrar's office on 13.11.2012 Ex.P107 Documents received from Doddaballapur SubRegistrar's office on 15.11.2012 Ex.P108 & 109 On 13.12.2012 received documents from PWD office on Building Valuation Report and Kaveri Kalpatharu Gramina Bank Ex.P108(a) Report from page No.466 to 468 in Ex.P 108 Ex.P108(b) Signature of PW5 340 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Ex.P108(c) Report from page No.469 to 470 in Ex.P 108 Ex.P108(d) Signature of PW5 Ex.P108(e) Report from page No.471 to 474 in Ex.P 108 Ex.P108(f) Signature of PW5 Ex.P108(g) Report from page No.475 and 476 in Ex.P 108 Ex.P108(h) Signature of PW5 Ex.P108(i) Report of Assistant Executive Engineer regarding the value of the building Ex.P110 Documents received from BBMP office on 02.01.2013 Ex.P111 to On 02.02.2013 received documents from P.113 Peenya SubRegistrar's office, Kaveri School and Oxford School Ex.P114 Documents received from Kanakaloka Souharda credit Cooperative Bank on 08.02.2013 Ex.P115 Documents received from Kanakapura SubRegistrar's office on 12.02.2013 Ex.P116 Documents received from Cambridge School on 18.02.2013 Ex.P117 Documents received from SBM School on 15.03.2013 Ex.P118 Documents received from Peenya Sub Registrar's office on 08.07.2013 Ex.P119 Documents received from Goldfinch Hotel, Bengaluru on 24.07.2013 Ex.P120 Documents received from Satellite Club, Bengaluru on 09.07.2013 Ex.P121 Documents received from Assistant 341 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Revenue Officer on 18.07.2013 Ex.P122 Documents received from Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB on 06.08.2013 Ex.P123 and Documents received from M/s. Krishan P.124 Gas, Agency on 29.07.2013 Ex.P125 Details and documents received from BGS Rural High School, Bengaluru on 08.07.2013 Ex.P126 Certified copy of the Sale deed from Senior SubRegistrar, Doddaballapur on 06.04.2013 Ex.P127 Details received from Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance, Nagarabhavi regarding gold loan on 04.07.2013 Ex.P128 Order from Superintendent of Police on 03.10.2013 Ex.P128(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P129 Report received on 29.11.2013 from Statistical branch on the family expenses of accused Ex.P129(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P130 Gift deed along with other documents in the name of husband of accused received from SubRegistrar, Nagarabhavi on 05.03.2014 Ex.P130(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P131 and Certified copies of the Sale Deeds received P.132 from Senior SubRegistrar, Peenya on 21.05.2014 Ex.P131(a) Signature of PW9 and P.132(a) Ex.P133 Documents received from Rajajinagar Co operative Bank, Rajajinagar on 342 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 22.05.2014 Ex.P133(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P134 Documents received from Revenue Officer, Chandralayout, BBMP on 03.06.2015 Ex.P134(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P135 Order of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta on 06.04.2013 Ex.P136 Documents with respect to Sy.No. 83/1 at Nagarabhavi Village Ex.P137 Documents with respect to deposit for water connection Ex.P138 Documents with respect to tax payment for the property at Nanjarasappa Layout, Bengaluru Ex.P138(a) Contract included in Ex.P138 Ex.P138(b) Documents from page No.149 to 161 of Ex.P138 Ex.P139 Details regarding payment of tax with respect to site at Rajarajeshwari Ex.P139(a) Documents from page No.163 to 168 of Ex.P139 Ex.P139(b) Document at page No.29 of Ex.P139 Ex.P140 Details regarding payment of Income Tax Ex.P141 Documents pertaining to V.R. Electronics, Vijayanagar Ex.P141(a) Details regarding payment to V.R. Electronics, Vijayanagar for buying Fridge Ex.P141(b) Details regarding payment for buying Thread Mill Ex.P141(c) Details regarding payment for buying Kent Grand Water Purifier Ex.P141(d) Details regarding payment for buying Automatic Water Level Controller 343 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015 Ex.P141(e) Details regarding payment for buying Kenstar Washing Machine Ex.P141(f) Details regarding payment for buying Tissot watch Ex.P141(g) Details regarding payment for buying Nokia Mobile Phone Ex.P141(h) Details regarding payment for buying Bajaj Chetak vehicle Ex.P141(i) Details regarding payment for buying Sun Zone Solar Systems Ex.P141(j) Details regarding payment for buying Nokia Mobile Phone (E71) Ex.P141(k) Details regarding payment for buying Samsung Mobile Phone (S5830) Ex.P141(l) Details regarding payment for buying Sony DVD Music Systems Ex.P141(m) Details regarding payment for buying Solar Water Heater Ex.P141(n) Details regarding payment of Party Funds and P.141(o) Ex.P142 Details regarding payment for the stay at Travel Inn Hotel, Dharwad Ex.P142(a) Document at page No.102 of Ex.P142 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
D.W.1 Y.S. Srinivas
D.W.2 K. Ravikumar
D.W.3 Manjula
D.W.4 A.S. Manjunath
D.W.5 Kariyappa
D.W.6 H. Ravikumar
D.W.7 Shanthakumari N.
344 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Original copy of Purchase Deed Ex.D.1(a) Signature of DW1 Ex.D.1(b) Signature of DW6 Ex.D.2 Death Certificate of father of DW2 Ex.D.3 Agreement Letter Ex.D.3(a) Signature of Krishnamurthy (Father of DW2) Ex.D.3(b) Signature of DW6 Ex.D.4 Original copy of Affidavit Ex.D.4(a) Signature of DW3 Ex.D.5 Agreement Letter Ex.D.5(a) Signature of DW6 Ex.D.6 Agreement Letter Ex.D.6(a) Signature of DW5 Ex.D.6(b) Signature of DW6 (Nandeesha R.P.) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH 79).