Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Police Inspector of Puttenahalli Police has filed charge sheet against accused 1 and 5 for the offences punishable U/s.420 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

CA site bearing Site No. 2, situated at M.S. Ramaiah City, J.P. Nagar 8th Phase, within territorial limits of Puttenhalli police station. Accused no. 1 to 5 have filed requisition before Bengaluru development authority (hearing after refereed as BDA). At the time of submitting application accused are mentioned the name of the unregistered trust Sree Sai Darshanam Trust. As per the resolution passed by BDA, CA site No.2 alloted to unregistered Sree Sai Darshanam Trust on 29/10/2010 as lease agreement for period of 30 years. With malafide intention, to cheat the BDA accused are mentioned the wrong name of the trust as Sree Sai Darshanam Trust at the time of obtaining lease agreement from BDA. Hence accused No.1 and 5 are charge sheeted.

8. On 22/04/2021 heard the arguments physically as submitted by learned counsel for accused No.1. On 25/05/2021heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P through on-line.

9. The following points would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proves the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time he submitted application by mentioning in the wrong name of unregistered trust as Sree Sai Darshanam Trust and within my cognizance he has committed an offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC.?

17. Further PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 deposed that initially BDA was alloted in CA Site No.1 in favour of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust situated at Raghuvana Halli, due to protest from the local people accused No.1 not accepted the said allotment of site, accordingly BDA was cancelled the allotment of CA Site No.1 situated at Raghuvana Halli. Thereafter accused No.1 in capacity as Managing trustee of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust applied for substitute allotment of site before BDA. By considering the representation of accused No.1, BDA alloted the disputed site i.e., CA Site No. 2 in favour of trust. It is specific case of the prosecution is that Sree Sai Darshanam Trust is not registered. The accused No.1 and other trustees cheated the BDA as well as Government getting the CA Site No.2 in favour of unregistered trust and its wrong name.

Condition No.8. That the lessee shall not put up any permanent structure on the land other than the above mentioned structure specifically mentioned hereunder:

A. Religious purpose.

25. The complainant never taken contention that by violating conditions of the lease agreement accused No.1 put up permanent construction on CA Site No.2 and it is misused the site other than object of the trust as stated above. It is not case of the complainant that, accused No.1 put up the permanent structure on CA Site No.2 and mis-utilizing the site. The complainant mainly taken contention that, trust is unregistered and misuse the name of the trust. The document contended in CD Ex.P.7 which is undisputed documents in this case it clearly shows Sree Sai Darshanam Trust registered on 15/12/2003 and also trust deed registered on 09/09/2011 therefore the allegation made by the complainant in respect of address of Sree Sai Darshanam Trust is unregistered trust is not acceptable and not believable allegation made against the accused.