Bangalore District Court
Owner Of Recovered Golden Ornaments And vs Persons on 21 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 21st day of February 2015
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 18878/2012
2.Date of Offence 22-7-2011
3.Complainant Rajajinagar Police Station
4.Accused 1.Bharath S/o G.S.Bhaskar, aged 24
years, No.43, Sonnenahalli,
Maruthinagar, Anganavadi road,
Ullala Upanagar, Kengeri, Bangalore.
2.Madhu, S/o Vasukumar, aged 20
years,
No.4172/5/1, 9th cross, 2nd Stage,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore
3. Chethan s/o. Kumaraswamy
(Juvenile)
5. Offences complained U/s.380 of IPC.
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused are Acquitted
8.Date of Order 21-2-2015
REASONS
2 C.C.No.18878/2012
The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec.380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 22-
7-2011 at 9.30 a.m. within the limits of Rajajinagar Police
station, in house No.79/B, situated at 30th cross, 2nd block,
Rajajinagar, the accused persons committed theft of gold
ornaments worth Rs.3,00,000/- belonged to CW 1 and thereby
committed aforesaid offence.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offence and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
persons. After hearing on charges, this court framed the
charge for the offence punishable U/s. 380 of IPC., and
questioned the accused persons regarding the charge made
against them, they denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked 17
documents at Exs.P1 to P17. Since C.Ws.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14
to 20 did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer
of Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said
witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the A1 and 2 as
required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating
3 C.C.No.18878/2012
evidence appeared against them and submitted that they have
no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove guilt against accused persons
has examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 Ambika is the
complainant, owner of recovered golden ornaments and
circumstantial witness. P.W.2 Manjunath is the receiver of
stolen articles. P.W.3 is the spot mahazar witness. P.W.4
Rajesh, P.W.5 Vinay and P.W.6 Rakshith Singh are the seizer
mahazar witnesses. P.W.7 Ajith Kumar is another receiver of
stolen articles. P.W.8 Prakash is another independent seizer
mahazar witness. It appears inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined the
Investigating Officer who recovered stolen articles.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that on 22-7-2011
she and her family members by locking their main door of her
house went to attend the function. On the same day during
evening hours they returned to their house and found
breaking open the lock of their main door and also found theft
of gold long chain, bangles, ear rings, finger ring, necklace and
pendent. On the same day, she lodged the complaint to the
police as per Ex.P1. After lodging of the compliant the police
visited the spot and prepared the mahazar.
9. P.W.3 Guruprasad corroborates the testimony of P.W.1
in the matter of preparing of spot mahazar. His testimony
4 C.C.No.18878/2012
indicating that on 27-7-2011 the police visited near the house
of P.W.1 regarding theft of articles and prepared the mahazar
as per Ex.P4. Though P.Ws.1 and 3 were subjected to cross-
examination but nothing worth is elicited from them to
disbelieve their testimony in the matter of theft of gold
ornaments, lodging of the complaint and preparing of the spot
mahazar.
10. The testimony of P.W.1 further indicating that after
three months of theft, Malleshwaram Police called her to the
Police Station and returned her stolen ornaments. She further
stated that she does not know who has actually stolen her
golden ornaments from her house and further she does not
know about accused persons. Since P.W.1 has not supported
the case of the prosecution in the mater of identification of
accused persons, the learned Sr.APP., treated this witness as
hostile and further cross-examined her. In the cross-
examination, P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that on 12-10-
2011 the Malleshwaram Police called her to the Police Station
and showed the accused No.1 and 2 and informed her that the
accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed theft in her house. She
further denied the suggestion that she identified the accused
persons in the Police station and to this effect she gave further
statement to the police. Therefore, P.W.1 has go bye to the
case of the prosecution in the matter of identification of
accused Nos.1 and 2. In my opinion, the testimony of P.W.1
in the matter of identification of accused persons is not
directly helping the prosecution to prove guilt against the
accused persons even if she had identified the accused
5 C.C.No.18878/2012
persons in the Police station. If the prosecution established the
seizer mahazar beyond all reasonable doubt then in such
circumstances the testimony of P.W.1 in the matter of
identification of accused persons would have some help to the
prosecution to prove guilt against accused persons.
11. In a case like this, the offence has to be proved in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizer mahazar
beyond all reasonable doubt. It appears the Investigating
Officer has seized stolen articles pertaining to this case by
preparing four seizer mahazars. Ex.P7 is the seizer mahazar
pertaining to seizer of one gold long chain and another chain.
It appears the prosecution to prove Ex.P7 has examined only
one witness i.e., P.W.2 K.Manjunath who is the receiver of
stolen ornaments. Even though P.W.2 has spoken regarding
purchasing of ornaments, his further evidence indicating that
he purchased the ornaments from one Deepu who is not at all
an accused of this case. Though he admitted in the cross-
examination of learned SR.APP., regarding seizer of gold
chain, he further denied the suggestion that he purchased the
said gold chain from the accused persons and on the basis of
information given by accused persons the police have seized
the same. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.7 is not helping the
prosecution to prove seizer mahazar at Ex.P7. As stated
above, the prosecution has not examined other witnesses to
prove Ex.P7. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove
seizer of two gold stolen chains pertaining to this case by
preparing seizer mahazar at Ex.P7.
6 C.C.No.18878/2012
12. Ex.P10 is another seizer mahazar. As per Ex.P10 the
Investigating Officer has recovered one gold earring, one finger
ring and two silver lamps pertaining to this case. It appears
the prosecution to prove seizer mahazar at Ex.P10 has
examined two independent seizer mahazar witnesses i.e.,
P.W.5 Vinay and P.W.6 Rakshith. But P.Ws.5 and 6 have
totally turned hostile. Though the learned Sr.APP., treated
these two witnesses as hostile and further cross-examined
them but nothing worth is elicited from them. As stated
above, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer who
conducted the seizer. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
prove the seizer mahazar at Ex.P10.
13. Ex.P13 is another seizer mahazar of two bangles,
another gold bangle, gold chain, bracelet, two gold drops and
one necklace in all ornaments weighing about 31.4gms
pertaining to this case. It appears the prosecution to prove
Ex.P13 has examined only one witness i.e., P.W.7. The
testimony of P.W.7 indicating that in the year 2011 the police
brought one person and showed the receipts for having
pledged the gold ornaments. Accordingly, he handed over the
same along with receipts. At that time the police prepared the
mazahar and obtained his signature. But he further stated
that he couldn't identify the said ornaments and the accused
brought near his shop. Since P.W.7 has not supported the
case of the prosecution he has been treated as hostile.
Though Learned Sr.APP subjected him to cross-examination
nothing worth is elicited from him.
7 C.C.No.18878/2012
14. As stated above inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
prove seizure mahazar at Ex.P13 beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. Exs.P14 to 16 are the receipts which indicating
pledging of ornaments. As per Exs.P14 to P16 one Deepak D.
has pledged the stolen articles. But said Deepk D. is not an
accused before this court. Therefore Ex.P.14 to 16 are not
supporting the prosecution to prove the seizure mahazar.
Moreover, the prosecution has not proved the same.
16. As stated above inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. Though the prosecution to prove the
seizer mahazar has examined five witnesses none have
supported the case of the prosecution.
17. It appears the accused persons are not disputing the
ownership of P.W.1 over the recovered articles. Therefore, the
testimony of P.W.1 in the matter of lodging of the complaint,
preparing of the seizure mahazar, return of recovered articles
is only formal one and need not required detailed
consideration. But her testimony is not sufficient to connect
the accused persons for the offence alleged against them.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence on
record is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
8 C.C.No.18878/2012
Accordingly, the accused persons are entitles benefit of doubt.
Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of A1 and 2 for the offence for the offence U/s.380 of IPC.
Hence acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.PC. accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the offence under Sec.380 of IPC.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The interim pertaining to release of properties PF.No.88/11, 89/11, 90/11 and 92/11 dated 23-8-2012 is made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of February 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Ambika
P.W.2, Manjunath
P.W.3, Guruprasad
P.W.4, Rajesh
P.W.5, Vinay
P.W.6, Rakshith Singh
P.W.7, Ajithkumar
P.W.8, Prakash
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION:
9 C.C.No.18878/2012
Ex.P1, Complaint
Ex.P2 and P3 Photographs
Ex.P4 Mahazar
Ex.P5 Further statement of P.W.1
Ex.P6 Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P7 Mahazar
Ex.P8 Mahazar
Ex.P9 Statement of witness
Ex.P10 Mahazar
Ex.P11 Statement of witness
Ex.P12 Statement of witness
Ex.P13 Mahazar
Ex.P14 to Receipts
Ex.P16
Ex.P17 Statement
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
10 C.C.No.18878/2012Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separate sheet ORDER Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby Acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The property M.O.1 shall be returned to C.W.2 Stephenraj after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
11 C.C.No.18878/2012IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M. ,BANGALORE CITY.
C.C.No: 25137/2012
DEPOSITION OF : Dhilshathu Beegam
FATHER'S NAME : Sri.M.Thangappan
AGE : 37 years. PW-1
OCCUPATION : Scientific Officer
RESIDENCE : Kerala
DULY SWORN ON : 23/04/2014
EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
I am the complainant in this case. I have been working as Scientific Officer-D in the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research at Northern Region, New Delhi. Previously I was working as same designation in Southern Region, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore from September 2003 to 3rd of February-2014. I know the A1 to 3. They were my senior colleagues at Bangalore. Accused No.1 is the Scientific Officer-G and was the officer in-charge of Chemistry Laboratory at Bangalore. Accused No.2 and 3 are the Scientific Officers-F working in Bangalore. Before jointing my office at Nagarabhavi I was perusing higher studies IIT, Bombay for PhD., During my tenure in Nagarabhavi I had worked under two officer in-charge by name G.Chakrapani and Dr.K.Sathyanarayana. During my work under the previous officer in-charge referred above. I had pleasant experience and there was no discrimination by those officers. No adverse remarks against me during said period. Though there was groupsim right from the joining of the office at 12 C.C.No.18878/2012 Nagarabhavi the previous officers were efficiently controlling the groupsim. The accused No.1 took over the charge of the Nagarabhavi office in July-2010. Since, then I have been subjected to discrimination torture and harassment by all the accused persons. The accused No.1 hatched criminal conspiracy with other two accused persons to defame me and to isolate me in all official matters. I was not part of any group. The accused No.1 trying to under mine my professional competency in front of others. He has been denying me my legitimate opportunities in the office. He denied my training in an important instrument of lab called as ICPAES. He openly declared that he had not permitted me the training since I was not competent even to touch. There are all other officers of my same grade were provided such training by the accused No.1. The accused No.1 was in the habit of insulting me infront of other colleagues. He has recommended for credit of zero to me in the intermix under performance related incentive scheme (PRIS). On making complaint to accused No.1 he openly called me as stupid idiot lady infront of other colleagues. He declared that I have been making such complaints out of jealousy towards other colleagues who would score well than me in PRIS. the accused No.1 shouted at me violently for more than one hour while inside the lab on 13.03.2010. On 12.01.2011 the accused No.1 was asked Dr.Roopa Bose to take me to a psychiatrist at the earliest.
He had promised her to arrange official conveyance for that purpose. He also told her that she can take me to psychiatrist at any time even during office hours. Accused No.1 wanted to estrange Dr.Roopa Bose from me since she 13 C.C.No.18878/2012 was sharing sympathy with me. On 06.01.2011 I had lodged complaint against A1 to 3 with the higher authorities. It is under this context the accused No.1 made such request to Dr.Roopa Bose and made her to believe that I have certain mental illness. I do not have any psychological problem to consult psychiatrist. In order to defame and tarnish me the accused No.1 made such a request to Dr.Roopa Bose. Accused No.2 has been nurturing spite against me. She has been misusing her power as a Senior Officer against me and has been trying to mislead all the officers in-charge that I have certain serious behavioral problems. After the first accused took over the charge the second accused has been constantly urging me to adopt a positive body language to please the officer-in-charge. The accused No.2 re-iterated disparaging remarks on me by way of her deposition before the enquiry committee on 25.01.2011. Their observation was that I have serious behavioral problems and that I suffering inferiority complex. The enquiry committee was constituted to probe into my complaint lodged before higher authorities. Third accused has been making disparage remarks against my parentage to other colleagues in the office like Smt.B.Gomathiamma a senior colleague of me. Once she made such request to Dr.K.Sathyanarayana the former officer in-charge infront of me in a sarcastic manner that I was free to marry anybody since my parents belonged to different religion. But, my parents belonged to same religion and hail from highly reputable family. The tone in language of accused No.3 was to ridicule my parentage as if I am a pedigree in a disreputable wedlock. She has been making such remarks to 14 C.C.No.18878/2012 bring disrespect to me before others in the office. On 04.02.2011 the accused No.3 called me a totally psychiatrist lady infront of first accused inside the cabin when I was present. The imputation made by all the accused persons on me are intended to and with the knowledge that it would defame me. I have tried to find a solution to my grievances internally by filing complaints before higher authorities. Accordingly, two enquiry committees were formed to probe the allegations. The second constituted by four members fact finding committee made its finding in my favour it concluded that all the three accused united turned united against me to defame me and to isolate me in all official matters.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. 15 C.C.No.18878/2012 AGAIN THE COMPLAINANT ENTERED WITNESS BOX DULY SWORN ON : 24/04/2014 FURTHER EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
The accused No.1 in the month of July-2009 took over the charge as the officer-in-charge of Chemistry Laboratory.
Now, I see four post acknowledgments for having served my complaint dated 20.01.2011 to my higher authorities, office copy of the said complaint, another office copy of complaint dated 06.01.2011 which is annexure to Ex.P5, another copy of complaint dated 05.02.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 05.02.2011, another copy of complaint dated 14.06.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 14.05.2011, the postal cover with acknowledgment for having sent legal notice to accused No.1 and it was returned as refused, copy of the legal notice dated 27.06.2011, the letter dated 05.08.2011 addressed by the Public Information of my department to me and it is already marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Under RTI Ex.P14 was issued and along with Ex.P14, annexure 1 to 3 are supplied to me which are part of Ex.P14. Annexure-3C is the statement of accused No.2 before the Preliminary Enquiry Committee.
Now, I see the letter dated 10.05.2012 supplied by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with one enclosure 16 C.C.No.18878/2012 the report of the fact finding committee along with the statement of all the witnesses before the said enquiry committee and it is marked as Ex.P15. The postal acknowledgment for having served legal notice to accused No.3 dated 27.06.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P16. Another copy of letter dated 23.08.2012 issued by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with copy of statement of Dr.Roopa Bose given before fact finding committee on 16.09.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P17. Copy of the intimation given by me as required under rule 19(2) of Central Civil Service Conduct Rules dated 29.12.2011 along with enclosure and it is marked as Ex.P18. Postal acknowledgment for having served said intimation letter to my higher authorities and it is marked as Ex.P19.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. RN, ADVOCATE;-
Sri. RN, Advocate at request of counsel for accused of cross examination is deferred.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. 17 C.C.No.18878/2012 DULY SWORN ON : 26/05/2014 CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU, ADVOCATE;-
In 1999 I completed M.Sc., in Chemistry from Mahatma Gandhi University. In 2002, I joined IIT Bombay for Ph.D., Course. In between 1999 to 2002 I was working in research project at in two organization, one in Regional Research Lab at Trivendrum and another C.S.I.R., Lab at Karegudi. I have not stated either in my complaint or in my evidence regarding my above said experience. It is true that I have not disclosed my above said experience into my department as it was not necessary. It is false to suggest that I was terminated in the above said organization. Further it is false to suggest that i.e., the reason why I have not disclosed the same to my department. It is false to suggest that I was giving trouble to my higher authorities of said organizations and that is the reason why I have been terminated in the said organizations. Initially I joined the IIT Bombay in a research project work. I cannot remember the entry number for IIT Bombay. It is false to suggest that there is pre Ph.D., examination to take admission to Ph.D Course. I have not given any examination for Ph.D., in IIT Bombay. The witness voluntaries that I have given examination as part of course work of Ph.D., for one semester. I have a documents pertaining to said course but I have not produced the same. The topic for PhD., was not decided as I was only doing course work. It is false to suggest 18 C.C.No.18878/2012 that I have not registered to the Ph.D., course and I am deposing falsely.
At request adjourned to 3.00PM.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC
IX.A.C.M.M.
DULY SWORN ON : 26/05/2014
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU,
ADVOCATE;-
Initially was appointed as Scientific Officer Grade-C. Now, I working as Scientific Officer Grade-D. Accused No.1 to 3 are senior officers to me and they are possessing doctorate having done Ph.D., It is not true to suggest that as per the annual programme the work will be assigned every year. Witness voluntaries that the said work is discretion of the officer-in-charge. I have seen the annual programme of our department and I had glance of annual programme but not specific to chemistry laboratory. In the year 2010-2011 there was a annual programme of in our department and I do not have access to said programme. The counsel for the accused has confronted one document and asked whether the said document is annual programme for the year 2010-2011 of your department for which she is stated that she cannot make out said document as annual programme of her department. I do not know whether every year the annual programme is being issued to chemistry laboratory department. It is true that one by name Premdas, Bincy Cyriac, Thomas Dr.A.M., Bose (Ms.) Dr.Roopa, Usha Nathan, Dr.(Ms.), Ojha, (Ms.) Nishma, Shamimul Ahsan, S.A.Md., Kesavan, V.S., Ravi Kumar.S. and myself are the composition of chemistry 19 C.C.No.18878/2012 Laboratory, Southern Region for the year 2010-2011. Like this there are chemistry laboratory of other region also. It is true that six chemistry laboratories are comes under Atomic Minerals Directorate Exploration and Research. It is true that there is a Regional Director for each Region. The officer-in- charge of each Division comes under the Regional Director of each Region. The Regional Director of each Region comes under an Additional Director, operation and he will be in- charge of 2 to 3 Regions. It is true that any decision pertaining to chemistry laboratory will be taken collectively by Additional Director, Regional Director and Officer-in-charge of any lab. The witness voluntaries that the officer-in-charge of lab had discretion in decision making and he can exercise the same without consultation of higher authority. I am not sure whether the annual programme will be for the smooth functioning of the functions of the laboratory concerned which will be evolved in the month of November every year till October next year since I am not directly concerned to the said programme.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC
IX.A.C.M.M.
20 C.C.No.18878/2012
DULY SWORN ON : 06/06/2014
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU,
ADVOCATE;-
21 C.C.No.18878/2012
It is true to suggest that I am the class-I and gazetted officer. I should know the target of the department. It is false to suggest that the base for target of the department is annual program. it is true that the annual program is available in our library. Each and every officer has access to the said library. It is false to suggest that it is my duty to see the annual program to know the target. The witness was confronted the book titled as annual program and she stated that she do not know above said book. I have seen the annual program occasionally. I do not remember whether I saw the book confronted to me. It is false to suggest that I am deposing falsely to escape from the liability of admitting annual program and assignment given to my department. I do not know whether the annual program book the annual program of chemistry department is spell down. I do not know whether the chemistry lab is functioning as per the assignment given in the annual program. It is false to suggest that the officer-in- charge of particular department has no discretion either to give any assignment or to take back against to the assignment in the annual program. The witness voluntaries the officer-in- charge has got discretionary power like assignment sample analysis to the officers working under him and he is the authority to countersign the report of the analysis and to allot research program. It is true that the officer-in-charge has got supervisory power to see whether the work assigned to any one is fully carried out or there is any short fall and to report to higher authorities. I have attended the seminar and workshop dated 9.1.2010 and there is an article in my name. On 9.1.2010 accused No.1 was the officer-in-charge. It is true 22 C.C.No.18878/2012 that on 9.1.2010 an opportunity was given by the department. The witness voluntaries that was the only opportunity given to me and it was insignificant compared to other officers during in-charge ship of accused No.1. It is false to suggest that was the only opportunity given to me in the department. It is true that a paper was published in the journal called exploration and research for atomic minerals in volume No.19 March- 2009. It is true that I worked under accused No.1 for publication of paper in the journal. Witness voluntaries that the said publication was before accused No.1 taking over officer-in-charge. It is false to suggest that on 6.2.2011 I attended the seminar and workshop on recent advances in ICP-AES and ICP-MS and its analytical application. I do not remember whether I was asked to attend the said program through letter. It is false to suggest that I have attended the said program but I am deposing falsely that I have not attended the said program. It is false to suggest that I have been making false complaint to the department that I have not been given opportunity inspite of sufficient opportunities given to me. When I was working at Nagarabhavi office around 10 officers were working and it was single floor. If there is shouting it could be heard by the officers within the room. It is true that apart from officers if any other staff had access to said room they could be also heard if there was any shouting. It is false to suggest that accused No.1 has not asked anybody to take me to the mental hospital to a psychiatrist and A3 have not called me as psysic lady. I have not produced any document to show that I attended the office on 4.2.2011. About 10 to 15 complaints have been given to my higher 23 C.C.No.18878/2012 authorities against my colleagues. It is false to suggest that invariably I use to give complaint against all most all the scientific officers. I have given complaint against one Bincy Cyriac a scientific officer grade-F who is my senior. Like wise I have given complaint against one Smt.Nishma Ojha a scientific officer grade-D. It is false to suggest that I have given complaint against PW-2, V.S.Keshavan and Mr.Ahsan. I have not produced my deposition given before fact finding committee. It is false to suggest that since the said deposition is against me I have not produced the same. It is false to suggest that I made complaint against all the officers in the said deposition. It is true that I have stated before fact finding committee as Mrs.Nishma Ojha called me the roudest lady whom she is ever come across. It is false to suggest that I have stated before fact finding committee one Mr.Ahsan refused to operate the platinum safe key and raised his voice on me telling that he is not suppose to work according to my convenience. It is false to suggest that the two departmental enquiry committee have suggested my transferred to New Delhi. It is false to suggest that immediately after the report of fact finding committee I have been transferred to Nagarabhavi officer to Delhi. It is true that I challenged the my transfer order and it was dismissed before CAT as well as before High Court. I have also filed special Rev. Petition before Supreme Court it was also dismissed. The witness voluntaries that CAT as well as High Court has granted interim stay.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC
24 C.C.No.18878/2012
IX.A.C.M.M.
DULY SWORN ON : 07/06/2014
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU,
ADVOCATE:-
It is true that the committee constituted to deal with my complaints have given their opinion. The witness voluntaries the first committee did not make any break through in finding the accused as guilty. The second committee has probed all my complaints till the date of enquiry. After the enquiry I filed 2 or 3 complaints. The second committee submitted its report on 15th & 16th of September 2011, my transfer date is on September 2012. It is true that the committee has recommended as per Ex.P15. It is false to suggest that the said recommendations are against me. It is true that after the said recommendation I had filed 2 or 3 complaints. The witness voluntaries that since the recommendations was not implemented I was forced file such complaints. I have not produced order passed by the CAT regarding my transfer. It is false to suggest that I have contended before CAT that all the lady officers must be transfer from Bangalore office and it was rejected. It is true 25 C.C.No.18878/2012 that the CAT has held that the transfer passed against me is in the interest of public and also in the interest of office. The witness voluntaries that I am transferred along with other 40 officers. I have not produced the copy of said transfer order. It is false to suggest that my transfer was on the basis of recommendation of the committee. I do not know any other officers has challenged the said transfer order. I have no knowledge whether any other similar applications clubbed with my application. At request of counsel for the accused adjourned to 3.00PM.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC
DULY SWORN ON : 07/06/2014
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. PU,
ADVOCATE:-
I did not attempt to get registration to the Phd., course from Bangalore University. It is false to suggest that my senior officer-in-charge and other senior officers have assisted me in getting renewal of recognition. It is false to suggest that unless the Regional Director, Additional Director and Officer- In-charge together right to get the renewal no renewal of recognition to the Phd., Course. The witness voluntaries that only then Regional Director has written such letter to the University. I have not written any letter to said renewal. It is false to suggest that I have given enough of such opportunity. It is true that I have trained several students of Bangalore University during my tenure at Nagarabhavi. I don't remember whether I trained the Bangalore University Students after 2009.
26 C.C.No.18878/2012I have not named the names of my colleagues in front of whom A1 said to have called me as stupid idiot lady as stated in my chief examination. Out of my said colleagues I examined only PW-2. I have not made other my colleagues as witnesses in my complaint. It is false to suggest A1 never called me as stupid idior lady infront of any of my colleagues. It is false to suggest that to harass A1 I am deposing falsely. It is false to suggest that the laboratory work is a team work. It is true that there are chances of working in the laboratory as team work but such chances are very rare. On 30.3.2010 myself, A1 and 2 and PW2 were present in chemistry lab. I cannot say the place of other colleagues on that day. I do not know whether any of my colleagues informed to my higher authorities about any shouting on 30.3.2010. It is true that each and every officer shall submit the monthly report. I have not produced my monthly report in this case. It is not true to suggest that the monthly report should contain all the happenings on every day. I can produce xerox copies of my monthly report for the period from 2009 January to till December-2009. It is false to suggest that there was no shouting or any untoward incident on 30.3.2010. It is false to suggest that the Regional Director takes the report pertaining to any untoward incident on every day basis. The witness voluntaries the Regional Director takes such report only if any receipt of complaint. it is false to suggest that A1 has not asked anybody to take me to the psychiatrist with department vehicle. It is false to suggest that no such incident was taken place and I am deposing falsely. I do not know whether under the civil service rules only written instructions has to be 27 C.C.No.18878/2012 issued but not oral instructions. Accused No.1 was officer-in- charge from July-2009 to 1st week of June-2012. I do not whether any other colleagues have made any complaints against A1 during his tenure as officer-in-charge. I had knowledge that A1 would retire this year. I am not aware whether gratuity and commutation of pension will be held up if criminal case is pending against the official who retires. It is false to suggest that I told to my colleagues that I would file criminal case against A1 and stall his pension or pensionary benefits or retirement benefits. It is false to suggest that only with malasis intention I filed this case against A1. I don't know whether A1 has already retire from his service. I do not know whether because of pendency of this complaint the retirement of A1 is held up. It is true that I got issued legal notice to A1. On 27.6.2011 said legal notice was issued. Right from my joining to Nagarabhavi office A2 has been nurturing hostility against me. It is false to suggest that A2 never nurtured hostility or spite against me. It is false to suggest that A2 never stated that I have behaviour problem. It is false to suggest that I am deposing falsely against A2.
The name of my paternal grand father is C.Appavu Riutar and I do not remember the name of my maternal grand father. So, also the names of my peternal grand mother is Amina Beevi and maternal grand mother Meera Mothi Ammal. My father name is Meera Chini Thankappan and my mother Musavakkammal. My parents are from Kerala. I do not know my earlier officer-in-charge has not made any report to my higher officers about disparage statement alleged to be made 28 C.C.No.18878/2012 by A3 against my parentage. It is true that I have not made any reference either in my complaint or in my sworn statement as A3 has been making disparage remarks against my parentage to other colleagues in the office like Smt.B.Gomathiamma a senior colleague of me. I do not know above any discussion held on 4.2.2011. It is false to suggest that A3 and others were busy to conduct seminar on 4.2.2011 and A3 has not called me totally cystic lady and in order to scuttle the said program I made false allegation against A3.
I do not know who is the sanctioning authority, but officer-in-charge is one of the recommending authorities for PRIS. I do not know the names of other recommending authorities. I do not know whether the Regional Director is the sanctioning authority and the Additional Director (Operation-II) is the recommending authority for PRIS. It is false to suggest that officer-in-charge has no role to play either in sanctioning or for recommendation for PRIS. Now, I am getting PRIS. I am getting PRIS G only. No order preventing me in getting PRIS. Witness voluntaries that she was prevented to get PRIS. I do not know whether due to pendency of this criminal case A1 to 3 are denied PRIS. It is false to suggest that I am referring A1 to 3 are criminals with my colleagues. It is true that I have furnished details of this case against A1 to 3 to my higher authorities. It is false to suggest that I requested my higher authorities to stop all benefits due to pendency of this case. It is false to suggest that I had no reason to file this complaint against A1 to 3 and 29 C.C.No.18878/2012 only to cause mental torture to them I filed this complaint. It is false to suggest that A1 to 3 have not committed any offence.
FURTHER EXAMINATION: NIL (Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M. ,BANGALORE CITY.
C.C.No: 25137/2012
DEPOSITION OF : Roopa Bhose
HUSBAND'S NAME : Sri.Jaideep Bhose
AGE : 48 years. PW-2
OCCUPATION : Scientific Officer
RESIDENCE : Nagarabhavi, Bangalore
DULY SWORN ON : 26/05/2014
EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
At present I am working as a Scientific Officer in Department of Atomic Energy at Nagarabhavi, Bangalore. I 30 C.C.No.18878/2012 know the complainant and accused No.1 to 3. The witness has identified her signature in Ex.P17 and she further stated that she cannot remember the contents of said document. The said signature is marked as Ex.P17(a). I cannot remember regarding the fact finding committee constituted in our department pertaining to complainant. Further, I cannot remember any statement given before such committee.
(At this stage the counsel for the complainant sought permission to treat this witness hostile. Looking into the chief evidence. Permission is granted).
CROSS EXAMINATION BY Sri.AJS, ADVOCATE:
Accused No.1 was my in-charge officer. I cannot remember whether accused No.1 has stated before me that the complainant be taken to Psychiatrist. I cannot remember whether I have stated before fact finding committee that accused No.1 called the complainant has stupid idiot lady. It is false to suggest that having given such statement said committee, no deliberately deposing false before the Court. Further, it is false to suggest that in order to help the accused persons I am deposing falsely. I cannot remember whether there was groupisim in our department. I cannot remember whether complainant was a victim to the said groupisim. I am not aware whether any report given by the fact finding committee to our higher authorities.
Q: Pursuant to the report of fact finding committee whether accused No.1 was removed from the post of in-charge and transferred to Hyderabad?
Ans: At present the accused No.1 is working in Hyderabad. But, I don't know in respect of other matter.31 C.C.No.18878/2012
Q: Do you know whether accused No.2 has been transferred to Hyderabad after the report?
Ans: I don't know accused No.2 has transferred to Hyderabad. However, she is working in Hyderabad.
It is false to suggest that having knowledge of all the incident to help the accused, I am deposing falsely.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: Sri.PU, ADVOCATE:
I am aware that the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules is applicable to my department. I am not aware whether before giving evidence before any Court of law, I have obtain permission from my higher authorities. I have sought permission to give evidence in this case. My higher authorities have given permission orally. No written permission is given. I am not aware whether have to obtain in writing pertaining to any oral direction given by any superior officer. (Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M. 32 C.C.No.18878/2012 33 C.C.No.18878/2012 AGAIN THE COMPLAINANT ENTERED WITNESS BOX DULY SWORN ON : 24/04/2014 FURTHER EXMINATION IN CHIEF BY Sri.AJS, Advocate:
The accused No.1 in the month of July-2009 took over the charge as the officer-in-charge of Chemistry Laboratory.
Now, I see four post acknowledgments for having served my complaint dated 20.01.2011 to my higher authorities, office copy of the said complaint, another office copy of complaint dated 06.01.2011 which is annexure to Ex.P5, another copy of complaint dated 05.02.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 05.02.2011, another copy of complaint dated 14.06.2011 given to my higher authorities, original postal acknowledgment for having served the said complaint dated 14.05.2011, the postal cover with 34 C.C.No.18878/2012 acknowledgment for having sent legal notice to accused No.1 and it was returned as refused, copy of the legal notice dated 27.06.2011, the letter dated 05.08.2011 addressed by the Public Information of my department to me and it is already marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Under RTI Ex.P14 was issued and along with Ex.P14, annexure 1 to 3 are supplied to me which are part of Ex.P14. Annexure-3C is the statement of accused No.2 before the Preliminary Enquiry Committee.
Now, I see the letter dated 10.05.2012 supplied by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with one enclosure the report of the fact finding committee along with the statement of all the witnesses before the said enquiry committee and it is marked as Ex.P15. The postal acknowledgment for having served legal notice to accused No.3 dated 27.06.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P16. Another copy of letter dated 23.08.2012 issued by Public Information Officer under RTI to me along with copy of statement of Dr.Roopa Bose given before fact finding committee on 16.09.2011 and it is marked as Ex.P17. Copy of the intimation given by me as required under rule 19(2) of Central Civil Service Conduct Rules dated 29.12.2011 along with enclosure and it is marked as Ex.P18. Postal acknowledgment for having served said intimation letter to my higher authorities and it is marked as Ex.P19.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI. RN, ADVOCATE;-
Sri. RN, Advocate at request of counsel for accused of cross examination is deferred.
35 C.C.No.18878/2012(Typed to my dictation in the open court).
ROI&AC IX.A.C.M.M.