Bangalore District Court
R.T.Nagar Police Station vs Had Committed The Offences on 25 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BANGALORE
Dated this the 25th day of February 2016.
Present: Sri Krishna Prasad Rao Kalmady,
B.A.,LL.B.,
I Addl.C.M.M.,Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.3061/2012
Date of Offence : During the year 2012
Name of complainant : R.T.Nagar Police Station
C.C.B. (F & M Squad),
Bengaluru.
Name of Accused : Manohar Naidu,
S/o late Changamma Naidu,
aged 47 years, No.16,
Ground Floor, 1st Main
Road, Gangamma Temple
Street, Behind Church
Ganga Nagar, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 032
Offences complained : U/s.37, 38, 39 of Karnataka
Money Lenders Act, 1961 &
Section 4 of Karnataka
Prohibition of Charging
Exorbitant Interest Act,
2004.
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final Order
Date of Order : 25-2-2016.
- --
2 C.C.No.3061/2012
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, C.C.B.(F & M), N.T. Pet, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that, he had committed the offences punishable under Sections 37, 28 and 29 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 4 of The Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, accused without obtaining any licence in Ganga Nagar, Behind Church, Gangamma Temple Street, 1st Main, No.16, Ground Floor within the limits of R.T.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City gave loan to C.Ws.1, 4 to 10 and as security for the said loan, illegally obtained as pledge signed blank cheques, stamp papers, on Demand Pronotes, Consideration Receipts and fixed exorbitant rate of interest above the rate fixed by the Government and to recover the loan gave threat and mental torture to C.Ws.1 and 7 and thereby committed the offences 3 C.C.No.3061/2012 under Sections 37, 38, 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.
3. Cognizance of the offences was taken and the presence of the accused was secured and subsequently he was released on bail.
4. Copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charges were framed for the said offences, which were read over and explained to accused. Accused had denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P85 and M.Os.1 and 2 and closed its side. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. On behalf of the accused Exs.D1 and D2 were got marked.
4 C.C.No.3061/2012
6. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration are:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 37, 38 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 ?
2. What Order ?
8. My findings to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- In the Negative.
Point No.2:- As per the final order:
For the following:-
REASONS
9.Point No.1:-
In order to establish its case the prosecution had in all examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P85 and M.Os.1 & 2 during the trial. On behalf of accused, Exs.D1 and D2 were got marked.5 C.C.No.3061/2012
a. P.W.1 is the complainant who had on 3-9-2011 submitted written complaint as per Ex.P3 to Assistant Commissioner of Police, C.C.B. (F & M), N.T.Pet, Bengaluru and the Assistant Commissioner of Police had directed P.W.9 to conduct enquiry and report and take action as per law. P.W.1 had deposed that he had availed loan from the accused and accused had harassed him.
In is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that:
"£Á£ÀÄ wAUÀ½UÉ ±ÉÃ.8 gÀAvÉ 30 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÉ 2,40,000/- gÀAvÉ 36 wAUÀ½UÉ §rØ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄzÉå DVgÀĪÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀĺÀdgïUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 10 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£À AiÀiÁªÀ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß 10 ®PÀë PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr E®è¢zÀÝgÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¹©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 C.C.No.3061/2012 DAzÀsæzÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÄ¥Áj PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉÆqɹ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀ §UÉÎ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁzÀ SÁ° ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ°è §gɹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
"FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ qÉÊjAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è §rØAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¥ÀÄAUÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ J¸ïn¹-38-2013 ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤r-1 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ qÉÊjAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB DUÀ¸ïÖ 18 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 19 gÀ°è §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £À£Àß PÉʧgÀºÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤r-2 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤r-2 gÀ°è MlÄÖ £Á®ÄÌ PÀqÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß MmÁÖV ¤r-2J JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ ¤¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀAvÉ ZÀÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
b. P.W.2 is one of the attesting witness to Seizure Mahazar Ex.P4 had deposed that on 10-10-2011 the C.C.B. Police in the house of accused in the presence of himself and other panchas drawn Seizure Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and seized 59 documents, cash of Rs.41,000/- and one Samsung mobile.
7 C.C.No.3061/2012
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that:
"£Á£ÀÄ PÁAmÁæåPïÖ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÀÉ. C¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-3 ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É J°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄÈ¢Þ jAiÀįï J¸ÉÖÃmï KeɤìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj jAiÀįï J¸ÉÖÃmï KeɤìUÉ £Á£ÀÄ, C¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀ£ÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C¸Á-1 ªÀÄĤ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
"¤¦-5 jAzÀ ¤¦-73 zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½UÉ D ¢£À CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ¢£À CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°ègÀĪÀ ZÉPï £ÀA§gï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁåAPï AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è".
c. P.W.3 had deposed that he had also obtained loan from the accused.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3 that:
"£Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ 25 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥sÉæAqï²¥ï ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¯ÉêÁzÉë ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è". 8 C.C.No.3061/2012
d. P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 who are alleged to have obtained loan from accused did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Sr.APP., had treated P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as hostile witnesses and after obtaining permission from the Court had cross-examined them. Nothing worth was elicited during their cross-examination.
e. P.W.9 who was working as Police Inspector, C.C.B.(F & M) had deposed that as per instructions of Assistant Commissioner of Police C.C.B. (F & M) he had conducted the raid and also completed the investigation of the case. P.W.9 had deposed about the role played by him during the investigation and after completion of investigation had submitted charge sheet before the Court.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 that:
"£Á£ÀÄ PÉøÀÄ zÁR¯ÁUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ¤¦.4 ªÀiÁr CzÀgÀ°è ¤¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦.2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦.5 jAzÀ ¤¦.69 zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¹¹©UÉ §AzÀ zÀÆj£À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ 9 C.C.No.3061/2012 dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤¦.4 gÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ £ÀA§gÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦.4PÉÌ ¦gÁå¢AiÀiÁzÁÝUÀ° DgÉÆæAiÀiÁzÁÝUÀ° ¸À» EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ¸Á-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-3 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀAZÀgÁV §gÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ZÁ¸Á-1 jAzÀ ZÁ¸Á-3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃß»vÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄÈ¢Ý J¸ÉÃÖmï ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è".
"zÀÆgÀÄ ¹ÃéPÀj¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-2 ¤¦-5 jAzÀ ¤¦-69 zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀZïð ªÁgÉAmï£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæ ¦gÁ墬ÄAzÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 8 gÀAvÉ §rØ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ C¢üPÀ §rØ PÉÆnÖzÀÝPÁÌUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-4PÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÀgÀ£ÁßV PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ C¨ÀsåAvÀgÀ«gÀ°®è".
"F PÉÉù£À°è £Á£Éà vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ £Á£Éà vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ ¸À°è¹zÉÃÝ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
"¤¦-1, ¤¦-2 ¤¦-5jAzÀ ¤¦-69 zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ CzÀgÀ°è ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".10 C.C.No.3061/2012
"¤¦-73 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¤r-2 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §rØUÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ EzÉ §rØAiÀÄ §UÉÎ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦-4£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £ÀªÀÄ乧âA¢AiÀiÁUÀ°Ã CAUÀ±ÉÆÃzÀs£É ªÀiÁr ¥ÀævÉÃåPÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ CAUÀ ±ÉÆÃzÀs£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÃÛªÉ D §UÉÎ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
f. P.W.10 who was working as Women Police Constable had deposed that she was present at the time of raid and had typed the Seizure Panchanama Ex.P4 in between 2-00 p.m. to 5-30 p.m. in the laptop and taken the print out and signed it. P.W.10 had deposed about the role played by her during the investigation.
g. P.W.11 who was working as Police Sub Inspector R.T.Nagar Police Station had deposed that on 10-10-2011 at 9-30 p.m. when he was Station House Officer, P.W.9 Sri Uday Bhaskar G.V. C.C.B. Inspector came to Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P84. He registered the case in Cr.No.339/2011 and submitted FIR to the Court and 11 C.C.No.3061/2012 superior Officer. P.W.11 had deposed that thereafter for further investigation P.W.9 took the case file from him.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The case of the prosecution suffers from fundamental infirmities.
11. P.W.9 is both the Detecting Officer as well as the Investigating officer in this case. The report of P.W.9 Ex.P84 was registered in Cr.No.339/2011 under Sections 38 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act against the accused. In fact P.W.9 himself was the first informant. After completing the investigation P.W.9 had filed the final report.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether it is fair on the part of P.W.9 who had detected the crime and treated 12 C.C.No.3061/2012 his complaint as FIR to investigate into the offences and file charge sheet against the accused. P.W.9 is not supposed to act in dual capacity both as the 1st Informant and as the Investigating Officer in the same case.
In support of this settled position of law, I would like to rely upon the ruling reported in ILR 2004 KAR 218, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, held the dictum thus:-
"Indian Penal Code-Section 147, 148, 427, 436 r/w 149 IPC-Criminal Procedure Code,
378(1)and(3)-Rule of Fairness- An impartial investigation is the essential bed rock for any successful prosecution.
-Investigating Officer cannot record his own complaint-
He cannot treat his own
complaint as FIR- To
achieve impartial and good
13 C.C.No.3061/2012
investigation an Investigating
Officer, should not act in dual
capacity- Thus, on facts, HELD-
where the Investigating Officer
is the complainant, he is
offending the principle of
impartiality as far as the
quality of the investigation is
concerned-In the instant case.
P.W.8 the Investigation Officer
is the architect of the whole
edifice which is fatal to the
prosecution cases- In view, of
the legal impediment, appeal
fails."
On perusal of the principles laid down in the said decision, it is exactly applicable to the case in hand. Hence, the prosecution has to fail on this technical ground.
13. The charge against accused is that P.W.1 had borrowed loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and accused charged 8% interest. Accused after deducting Rs.2,40,000/- and odd paid Rs.27,60,000/- to P.W.1. 14 C.C.No.3061/2012 It is alleged that according to accused P.W.1 paid 36 months principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and accused demanded balance of Rs.10,00,000/- and also threatened P.W.1. Accused charged exorbitant interest. P.W.1 had not produced a scrap of paper to show that accused had deducted Rs.2,40,000/- from Rs.30,00,000/- and charged 8% interest. P.W.1 had nowhere stated the said fact in his complaint Ex.P3. In this case there are two complaints. Earlier on 3-9-2011, P.W.1 gives complaint Ex.P3 before Assistant Commissioner of Police, C.C.B. (F & M), Bengaluru. P.W.9 lodges another complaint Ex.P84 on 10-10-2011. There is delay of more than 30 days in lodging the complaint Ex.P84. There is a gap of one month between Ex.P3 and Ex.P84. It is on the basis of report of P.W.9 the case was registered and not on the basis of complaint by P.W.1. Filing of two complaints in respect of same offence arising out of same transaction is unheard of under law. The inordinate delay in filing the 15 C.C.No.3061/2012 complaint remained unexplained and this fact casts doubt about the truth of the allegations made therein. The unexplained delay in filing the complaint is another circumstance which would improbabalise the case of the prosecution.
14. C.W.7 who is alleged to have obtained the loan from the accused had not been examined by the prosecution. C.W.3 is another attesting witness to the Seizure Panchanama was given up by Sr.A.P.P. No independent witness is examined by the prosecution. No document is produced by the prosecution to show that the accused was charging exorbitant rate of interest. There is contradiction regarding money transaction and paying interest to the accused. No search warrant from the Court or from the Higher Officer is taken by Investigating Officer before conducting Seizure Mahazar Ex.P4. No rule is followed by the Investigating Officer before conducting Ex.P4 Seizure Mahazar. In Ex.P4 Seizure Mahazar, there is no crime number. No 16 C.C.No.3061/2012 signature of complainant or accused is found in Ex.P4. Before registration of complaint, it appears that Ex.P4 Seizure Mahazar was prepared. It appears that entire investigation of this case was conducted in a casual manner.
15. No witness except P.W.1, 2 and Police officers is interested in prosecuting the case. Except P.Ws.1, 2 and Police officers no other witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. When the victims are not interested in prosecuting the accused, the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused is guilty of having committed the alleged offences. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are not reliable and trustworthy. P.W.1 is the only witness who had spoken about the alleged offence. The question that arises for consideration is whether the testimony of a solitary witness is sufficient to establish the alleged offences. 17 C.C.No.3061/2012
16. It is true that under Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. The evidence of P.W.1 has to be scrutinized carefully before accepting it. P.W.2 had admitted in the cross-examination that P.W.1, himself and C.W.3 are friends since many years. P.W.2 is therefore an interested witness. P.W.3 in the cross-examination had admitted that accused had not charged any interest to him. P.Ws.4 to 8 had not supported the case of the prosecution and had turned as hostile witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1 alone is insufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. Caution and prudence would require the Court to look for corroborative evidence before accepting the case of the prosecution.
17. It is interesting to observe that P.Ws.1 and 2 and C.W.3 are friends. P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested prosecution witnesses. No independent witness is examined by the prosecution. The fact 18 C.C.No.3061/2012 that P.Ws.1 and 2 are friends by itself may not be a ground for rejecting their evidence. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is required to be scrutinized carefully before accepting the same. It is true that simply because P.Ws.1 and 2 are the friends their evidence cannot be discarded outright.
18. There are many contradictions, variations on material particulars between the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence of P.W.1. There is no reason at all for P.W.9 to think that the accused was doing money lending business without licence and charging exorbitant rate of interest. The story of detecting the accused red- handedly with the seized articles is highly improbable. The narration of events as disclosed by the prosecution is unnatural and improbable.
19. There is no evidence to prove that the accused was carrying on money lending business without licence or permission and he is charging 19 C.C.No.3061/2012 exorbitant rate of interest. Similarly there is no evidence that accused had mentally tortured P.W.1 while recovering the alleged loan amount and also threatened him. The ingredients of Sections 37, 38 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1981 and Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Rate of Interest Act, 2004 are not established. It is rather risky to reply upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the same is not accepted. The evidence on record is insufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. On the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses and the Police Officers, it is not possible to establish the case of the prosecution. Not much discussion is necessary since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The only conclusion that would be arrived at is that prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed the alleged offences. 20 C.C.No.3061/2012 Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
20. Point No.2:-
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. I hold that, accused is not found guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 37, 38, 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.
Accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him and he is set at liberty forthwith.
The bail bond executed by the accused and his surety stands cancelled.
Interim custody of item No.1 to 61 to accused seized in the above case under P.F.No.61/2011 is made absolute.21 C.C.No.3061/2012
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of February 2016).
(Krishna Prasad Rao Kalmady) I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses on behalf of prosecution:
P.W.1, Muniswamy, P.W.2, Narayanaswamy, P.W.3, Harishbabu M., P.W.4, Muniraju M., P.W.5, R.K.T.Velu, P.W.6, K.N.Prabhakar, P.W.7, M.Mohan, P.W.8, Ashok, P.W.9, Udaya Bhaskar G.V., P.W.10, Pramila, P.W.11, T.Samandaiah;
List of documents on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 &
Ex.P2, Two cheques,
Ex.P1(a) &
Ex.P2(a), Signatures of P.W.1,
Ex.P3, Complaint,
Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P4, Seizure Panchanama,
Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P4(b), Signature of P.W.9,
Ex.P5, Cheque,
Ex.P6, Letter,
Ex.P7, Cheque,
Ex.P8, Letter to Ex.P7,
22 C.C.No.3061/2012
Ex.P10, Letter to Ex.P15,
Ex.P11, Stamp paper,
Ex.P12, Letterhead,
Ex.P13, On Demand Promissory Note,
Ex.P14, Two On Demand Promissory Notes,
Ex.P15, On Demand Promissory Note,
Ex.P16, Xerox copies of receipt and PAN card.
Ex.P17, Letter,
Ex.P17(a), UCO Bank cheque,
Ex.P18, On Demand Promissory Note,
Ex.P19, Slip,
Ex.P19(a) &
Ex.P19(b), Two Cheques,
Ex.P19(c), On Demand Promissory Note, Ex.P19(d), Consideration Receipt, Ex.P20, Bank of India cheque Ex.P21, Citi Bank cheque, Ex.P22, Stamp paper of Rs.30/-, Ex.P22(a), Cheque, Ex.P23, Cheque, Ex.P23(a), Stamp paper of Rs.20/-, Ex.P24, Corporation Bank cheque, Ex.P24(a), Stamp paper of Rs.100/-, Ex.P25, HDFC Bank cheque, Ex.P25(a), Stamp paper of Rs.200/-, Ex.P26, Dena Bank cheque, Ex.P26(a) &, Ex.P26(b), Two Stamp papers of Rs.5,000/-, Ex.P27, Empty On Demand Promissory Note, Ex.P28, On Demand Promissory Note, Ex.P28(a), On Demand Promissory Note, Ex.P29, Empty Stamp Paper, Ex.P30, Corporation Bank cheque, Ex.P31, HDFC Bank cheque, Ex.P31(a), Stamp paper of Rs.100/-, Ex.P32, Rs.20/- Stamp paper, Ex.P32(a), Signature of P.W.20, Ex.P33, Karnataka Bank cheque, Ex.P33(a), Letter Ex.P34, Canara bank Cheque, 23 C.C.No.3061/2012 Ex.P34(a), White paper, Ex.P35, Karnataka Bank 2 cheques, Ex.P35(a), Stamp paper pf Rs.50/-, Ex.P36, Axis Bank 2 cheques, Ex.P36(a), White paper, Ex.P37, Bank of Baroda cheque, Ex.P38, CITI Bank blank cheques, Ex.P39, CITI Bank cheque, Ex.P39(a), Slip, Ex.P40, CITI Bank blank cheque, Ex.P41, 2 cheques of CITI Bank, Ex.P41(a) & Ex.P41(b), 2 slips, Ex.P42, P.N.B. cheque, Ex.P43, S.B.I. cheque, Ex.P43(a), Slip, Ex.P44, United Bank of India 3 cheques & S.B.I. 1 cheque, Ex.P45, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque, Ex.P45(a), 1 slip, Ex.P46, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.P46(a), Slip, Ex.P47, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P48, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.60,000/-, Ex.P48(a), Slip, Ex.P49, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,20,000/-, Ex.P49(a), Slip, Ex.P50, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.6,000/-, Ex.P50(a), Slip, Ex.P51, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P51(a), Slip, Ex.P52, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P52(a), Slip, 24 C.C.No.3061/2012 Ex.P53, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P53(a), Slip, Ex.P54, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P54(a), Slip, Ex.P55, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P55(a), Slip, Ex.P56, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P56(a), Slip, Ex.P57, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.30,000/-, Ex.P57(a), Slip, Ex.P58, Amanath Co-operative Bank cheque of Rs.30,000/-, Ex.P58(a), Slip, Ex.P59, ICICI Bank cheque of Rs.50,000/- Ex.P59(a), Slip, Ex.P60, ICICI Bank cheque of Rs.5,000/- Ex.P60(a), Slip, Ex.P61, ICICI Bank cheque of Rs.2,500/-
Ex.P61(a), Slip, Ex.P62 & Ex.P63, 4 Cheques of Canara Bank, Ex.P64, Stamp paper of Rs.100/-, Ex.P65, White ruled paper, Ex.P66, 2 Cheques of Syndicate Bank, Ex.P67, 2 Cheques of Syndicate Bank, Ex.P68, Letter dated 29-9-2010, Ex.P69, Empty stamp paper, Ex.P70, E-stamp paper, Ex.P71, Another E-stamp paper dates 14-5-2011, Ex.P72, Another E-stamp paper dates 9-4-2011, Ex.P73, Dairy, Ex.P73(1) to Ex.P73(22), Cheques in Dairy,
Ex.P73(13)(a), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P74, Statement of P.W.5, 25 C.C.No.3061/2012 Ex.P75, Statement of P.W.6, Ex.P76, Statement of P.W.7, Ex.P77, In Ex.P73 Diary, Ex.P77(a), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P78, In Ex.P73 Diary, Ex.P78(a), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P79, In Ex.P73 Diary, Ex.P79(a), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P80, Statement of P.W.8, Ex.P81, Report of P.W.9, Ex.P81(a), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P82, Memo for investigation, Ex.P83, State Bank of Mysore account statement of accused, Ex.P84, Complaint dated 10-10-2011, Ex.P84(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P85, FIR, Ex.P85(a), Signature of P.W.1;
Material Objects Produced:- NIL M.O.1, Cash of Rs.41,000/-, M.O.2, Mobile phone;
Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL.
List of documents marked on behalf of the defence Ex.D1, Certified copy of complaint in STC 38/2012, Ex.D2, Dairy;
I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.26 C.C.No.3061/2012
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. I hold that, accused is not found guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 37, 38, 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him and he is set at liberty forthwith.
The bail bond executed by the accused and his surety stands cancelled. Interim custody of item No.1 to 61 to accused seized in the above case under P.F.No.61/2011 is made absolute.
I Addl. CMM, Bangalore.27 C.C.No.3061/2012