Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. One Ivon Raj Samuel who was working in HSBC Bank, Bengaluru as HRD Officer was examined by the prosecution as PW.7 who deposed that, complainant was his colleague who introduced accused to him and both accused and complainant came to his cabin and told that the accused would get site in prime area under CM quota. Believing the said words, this witness has paid Rs.11,00,000/- to the accused on several occasions and remaining amount was paid through complainant, and entire amount was paid in cash which was confirmed by the accused. He further deposed that in the year 2006, accused furnished agreement, sale deed in a hotel at Bengaluru and as he did not get possession of site, he destroyed the documents under frustration. He further deposed that, the accused has cheated him to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/-.

65. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.S. Kannan s/o M. Sarangapani as PW.22 who stood as a witness to the mahazar conducted at place where the accused alleged to have destroyed certain documents near ITI ground, Ramamurthy Nagar. This witness had stated that, he affixed his signature to the above said mahazar as per Ex.P25(b) but failed to state the contents of the same and reasons for conducting the said mahazar. By treating the said witness as hostile, prosecution cross-examined this witness wherein nothing worthwhile was elicited. During the course of cross- examination conducted by accused, this witness stated that he had visited the place situated near the flyover at Ramamurthy Nagar alone and he had seen a person who was showing some of papers, and he can identify the said person if shown to him and he was very smart looking. He also deposed that, on earlier instance, when he appeared before the court, he had seen the said person. The evidence of this witness makes it very clear that he identified the accused as the same person who was present at the time of conducting mahazar at the above said place. This witness was again recalled and in the cross- examination he admitted that, he affixed his signature to the mahazar in the police station when it was blank. The careful perusal of evidence of this witness makes it very clear that he was taken to the place mentioned in the mahazar Ex.P25 and after conducting the spot inspection the mahazar was drawn in the police station. The evidence of this witness makes it very clear that he has identified the accused as the person in whose presence the above said mahazar was conducted.