Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Vijaya.K.Mutha on 31 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES (CCH-48) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 31st day of December 2016
PRESENT:
SRI.ASWATHA NARAYANA, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.163/2001
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka,
Represented by Inspector of
Police, Cubbon Park Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Now represented by
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai.
(By Sri.Shivananda Perla &
Smt.K.S.Hema, Public Prosecutors.)
-Vs-
ACCUSED-1 : Sri.Vijaya.K.Mutha,
S/o.Sri.Kannigela,
Aged 42years,
No.8B, Mangala Theertha,
Shreyaskarasingh,
Ahmedabad-Gujarath. ... (Split up)
ACCUSED-2: Sri.Jagannatha Shetty,
S/o.Sri.Krishna Shetty,
Aged 52 years,
No.134, 1st Floor, 41st Cross,
9th Block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru. ... (Abated since Dead.)
2 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
ACCUSED-3: Sri.D.Kediya,
S/o.Sri.D.D.Kedia,
Aged 59 years, No.258,
Rajmahal Vilas Extension,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.C.G.Gopalaswamy,
Advocate.)
ACCUSED-4: Sri.Shivashankar,
S/o.Sri.Parthasarathi,
Aged 33 years,
No.26, 4th Shop Street,
Tata Silk Farm,
Bengaluru. ... (Abated since Dead.)
ACCUSED-5: Sri.M.S.Satish,
S/o.Sri.B.Siddarama Shetty,
Aged 33 years,
No.172, 7th Cross,
7th Main Road, 2nd Block,
Jayanagara,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.C.Mahesha, Advocate.)
ACCUSED-6: Sri.Ramesh Batni,
S/o.Sri.Hari Rao,
Aged 42 years, No.118:2,
Ganesha Mandir Road,
2nd Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bengaluru. ... (Abated since Dead.)
ACCUSED-7: Sri.Girish Nash,
S/o.Sri.Kidiyappa,
Aged 36 years, No.6:1,
1st Floor, 1st Cross,
J.D.Park Extension,
Bengaluru-3. ... (Proceedings
quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka.)
3 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
ACCUSED-8: Sri.Anantha Krishna,
S/o.Sri.Rathnaiah,
Aged 35 years, No.29/2,
1st Floor, 6th Main Road,
9th Cross, N.R.Colony,
Bengaluru. ... (Proceedings
quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka.)
ACCUSED-9: Sri.Shantharaj,
S/o.Sri.K.Byrappa,
Aged 30 years,
No.1494, 4th 'C' Main Road,
11th Cross, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.C.Mahesha, Advocate.)
ACCUSED-10: Sri.K.Venkatesh Prasad @
K.V.Prasad,
S/o.Sri.K.V.Krishnamurthy,
Aged 33 years,
No.1333, 29th Main Road,
1st Phase, J.P. Nagara,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.D.S.Joshi, Advocate.)
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sections 381, 420, 467,
468, 471, 474 r/w. 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. Date of Commission of In between September
Offence: 1994 and April 1995.
3. Date of First Information
Report: 04.05.1995.
4. Date of Arrest of
the Accused-3, 5, 9 & 04.05.1995.
10:
4 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
5. Date of Commencement 01.09.2015.
of Evidence:
6. Date of Closure of
Evidence: 04.11.2015.
7. Date of Pronouncement
of Judgment: 31.12.2016.
8. Result of the Case : Accused-3, 5, 9 & 10 are
Acquitted.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA)
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
-o0o-
5 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
JUDGMENT
This case is filed by the Police Inspector, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru, alleging that, in between September 1994 and April 1995, all the Accused-1 to 10 entered into a Criminal Conspiracy to Cheat State Bank of India, Local Head Office, St.Mark's Road, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Bank') and Centre for Air Borne System, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Bengaluru (for short, 'CABS') by way of forging valuable securities like Agreement and Cheque and using those forged documents as genuine documents; in furtherance of that Criminal Conspiracy, the Accused-10 being an employee of the CABS, working as UDC, forged an Agreement purportedly entered into between the CABS and M/s.South End Technology (for short, 'SET') belonging to the Accused-4, committed theft of 2 Cheque Leaves of State Bank of India, which were in the Accounts Section of CABS, prepared a forged Cheque for Rs.93 Crores in the name of SET and handed over the same to the Accused-4; the Accused-1 to 3 tried to present that forged Cheque in the Bank and to obtain Discount facility of Rs.15 Crores and that thereby, the Accused-1 to 10 have committed the Offences punishable under Sections 381, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
2. Originally this case was filed before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.18927/96. During pendency of that case, the 6 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings against the Accused-7 and 8 by an Order dated 01.07.1997 in Criminal Petition No.580/1997 and Criminal Petition No.581/1997. Subsequently, by an Order dated 20.07.2001 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.277/2001, the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City transferred this case to this Court for disposal on the ground that the connected case in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000 filed by the CBI was pending before this Court.
3. As the Accused-2, 4 and 6 died, case against them was abated. As the Accused-1 was not traced, case against him was separated and a separate case in Spl.C.C.No.498/2002 was registered against him. After securing him and holding trial, the then Presiding Officer of this Court passed Judgment on 31.07.2012 acquitting the Accused-1. Ex.D.1 is the Copy of the said Judgment.
4. When the case was pending before the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, Copies of Charge Sheet and other documents relied upon by the Complainant were furnished to the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10. After hearing both the sides before framing Charge, on 11.06.2009, the then Presiding Officer of this Court framed Charge against the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 471 r/w. 120-B, 474 r/w. 120-B, against the Accused-3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 120-B and also against the Accused-10 for the offences punishable under Sections 467 r/w. 120-B, 465 r/w. 120-B and 468 r/w. 120-B and 7 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] 381 of the IPC. When the said Charge was read over and explained to the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10, they pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, the Complainant got examined 9 Witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 49 Documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.49 on his behalf. With that evidence, the Complainant closed his side.
6. On examination of the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, they did not admit the case of the Complainant and denied the incriminating evidence against them. They did not choose to adduce any oral evidence on their behalf. However, they got marked one document as Ex.D.1 on their behalf with the consent of the learned Public Prosecutor. With that evidence, the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 also closed their side.
7. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused Written Arguments filed on behalf of the Accused-10. Records also perused.
8. The Points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:
1. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 have committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC, as charged?
2. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-3 has committed an 8 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 120-B of the IPC, as charged?
3. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-10 has committed an offence punishable under Section 381 of the IPC, as charged?
4. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-10 has committed an offence punishable under Section 467 r/w. Section 120-B of the IPC, as charged?
5. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-10 has committed an offence punishable under Section 465 r/w. Section 120-B of the IPC, as charged?
6. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-10 has committed an offence punishable under Section 468 r/w. Section 120-B of the IPC, as charged?
7. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 r/w. Section 120-
B of the IPC, as charged?
8. Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 have committed an offence punishable under Section 474 r/w. Section 120- B of the IPC, as charged?
9. What Order?
9 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]10. Findings of this Court on the above Points are as follows:
Point-1: Negative;
Point-2: Negative;
Point-3: Negative;
Point-4: Negative;
Point-5: Negative;
Point-6: Negative;
Point-7: Negative;
Point-8: Negative;
Point-9: See final portion of this Judgment.
REASONS UNDISPUTED FACTS
11. CABS is a branch of Defence Research and Development Organization (for short, 'DRDO'), which comes under Ministry of Defence, Government of India. P.W.2-Sri.R.Sathyanarayana was earlier working as Auditor at DRDO, Bengaluru and subsequently, in the year 1988, he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer and in the year 1993, he was promoted as Accounts Officer in the same Office. P.W.3-Sri.M.Jankiraman was working as Project Manager of CABS from 1991 to 1995. P.W.4- Sri.H.R.Ramesh Kumar was working as Accountant in CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru. P.W.8-Sri.Tamil Mani was working as Scientist in CABS from 1988 to 2006 and he was supervising the administration also in that Office 10 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] during that time. The Accused-10 was working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Logistic Department of CABS during 1994-95. C.W.3-Sri.Ramchand was working as Director of CABS during that period.
12. CABS had a Public Fund Account in State Bank of India, ADE Branch, Indira Nagara, Bengaluru. P.W.5- Sri.B.N.Prasad was working as Manager of that Bank from January 1995 to June 1995.
POINTS-1 TO 8
13. As all these Points are interlinked to each other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, evidence and contentions, all these Points are taken together for determination. On considering the questions involved in this case and rival contentions of both the parties, it is just, proper and convenient to determine these Points under the following heads:
1. Missing of Cheque;
2. Recovery;
3. Forgery;
4. Conclusion.
1. Missing Of Cheque
14. P.W.4 has deposed that he was looking after pay and other allowances of Scientists and other Non-Gazetted Officials of his Office, and that in addition to it, he was 11 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] doing Cashier's job also and that Cheque Book of Public Fund Account was in his custody. He has further deposed that on 21.03.1995 at 10 a.m., he opened the Cash Chest in the Office, removed the Cheque Book, kept the same in his table draw and that he was waiting for instructions from his Accounts Officer for issue of Cheque for the purpose of daily expenses of his Office. He has further deposed that at that time, his Accounts Officer called him, then he went to the table of that Accounts Officer and that after attending the work of the Accounts Officer, he returned to his table within 5 - 10 minutes. He has further deposed that on verification in the table draw, he found that last 2 Cheque leaves of the Cheque Book were found missing and that inspite of search, he could not find the same. He has further deposed that he informed the same to P.W.2, P.W.2 also verified the Cheque Book and that he got confirmed about missing of those 2 Cheque leaves from the Cheque Book. P.W.4 has further deposed that he and P.W.2 reported the matter to P.W.8 and that as per the instructions of P.W.8, they went to State Bank of India, met the Manager and informed about missing of Cheque Leaves. He has also deposed that on enquiry in the Bank, they learnt that, by that time, those 2 Cheque Leaves were not presented for payment and that then, they gave a Letter to the Bank reporting missing of Cheque Leaves and also requesting for 'stop payment' in respect of those Cheque Leaves. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.8 fully corroborates the evidence of P.W.4. These P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8 have identified Ex.P.2 as the Certified Copy of 12 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] one of those 2 Cheque Leaves, which were lost from their Office. Original of Ex.P.2 is produced in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000, which is a connected case to this case. The evidence of P.W.5 also supports the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8 that CABS Officers gave a Letter requesting to stop payment in respect of 2 Cheques, which were lost by them. He has further deposed that as per that request, his Bank made arrangements for stopping payment in respect of those Cheques. All these witnesses have stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. From the said evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.8, it is clear that 2 Cheque Leaves of CABS were found missing on 21.03.1995 from the table draw of P.W.4 in the CABS Office, Letter of Request to stop payment on those 2 Cheques was given to State Bank of India, ADE Branch and that the said request was noted by the Bank.
15. But, the said evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.8 does not show as to who took those 2 Cheque Leaves from the table draw of P.W.4. However, P.W.2 has stated that after about one week, Cubbon Park Police Officials came to his Office along with the Accused-10 and that at that time, they showed the originals of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 to him. He has further stated that at that time, he learnt that the Accused-10 had stolen the Cheque Leaves and presented those Cheques in the Bank. But, he has not stated as to how and from whom he learnt that the Accused-10 had stolen Cheque Leaves and that he had 13 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] presented those Cheques in the Bank. The said statement of P.W.2 shows that he has no personal knowledge about stealing of Cheques by the Accused-10 and that his statement is of hearsay in nature. As there is no basis for the said statement of P.W.2, it has no value and liable to be discarded. There is no evidence either from P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8 or any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant that the Accused-10 was present or moving near about the table draw of P.W.4 or in the room, where the said table draw was situated, on 21.03.1995 or at any time prior to it. Thus, it is clear that there is no direct evidence to show that the Accused-10 committed theft of Cheque Leaves as alleged by the Complainant.
16. However, as per the evidence of P.W.2, about one week after 21.03.1995 i.e., somewhere in the last week of March 1995, Cubbon Park Police Officials showed one of those missing Cheques to P.W.2 when they had brought the Accused-10 to the Office of CABS.
2. Recovery
17. P.W.1-Sri.R.Sundar Raman was working as General Manager of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bengaluru. He has deposed that in the year 1995 on one day, 3 people met him in his Office by showing their Visiting Cards and that as per those Visiting Cards, their names were 'Sri.Vijay Mutha, Sri.Jagannath Shetty and Sri.Kedia'. He has further deposed that they gave him a 14 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] post dated Cheque for Rs.93 Crores drawn in favour of SET and that they wanted to know as to whether the Bank would give a loan facility of Rs.15 Crores. He has identified Ex.P.2 as the Copy of that Cheque. He has further deposed that he scrutinized that Cheque and that by suspecting the genuineness of that Cheque, he contacted the Branch on which the Cheque was drawn, and that he came to know from the Manager of that Branch that the Branch had received Report of loss of that Cheque and also a Report for stopping payment in respect of that Cheque. He has further deposed that he cross-checked about that Cheque with P.W.2, who denied about issue of that Cheque. But, P.W.2 has not stated about the said enquiry or cross- checking by P.W.1. P.W.1 has further deposed that by suspecting an attempt to defraud the Bank, he telephoned to the Cubbon Park Police Station, thereafter Police Officials came to the Bank and that then he handed over the Cheque and also those 3 persons to the Police Officials and that he gave a Complaint as per Ex.P.1 to the Police.
18. Though P.W.1 has stated that 3 persons approached him with the Cheque, he has not stated that those 3 persons are the Accused of this case. Though the Accused-1 and 2 were not present before the Court as they are not facing trial in this case, the Accused-3 was very much present when P.W.1 gave his evidence. But, he did not identify the Accused-3 and it is not his evidence that the Accused-3 was one among those 3 persons, who met him on that day with the Cheque.
15 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]19. In the Cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that his Office was Administrative Office and not an Office of transaction. Loan facility or Cheque Discount facility will be given in the Branches, where business transactions take place, and not in the Administrative Offices. As the Office of P.W.1 was an Administrative Office only and not an Office of transaction, a serious doubt arises in the statement of P.W.1 that 3 persons approached him for a loan facility by presenting Cheque.
20. P.W.1 has not stated as to on which date and at what time, those 3 persons met him and that at what time, he telephoned to the Cubbon Park Police Station and that at what time, he handed over the Cheque and 3 persons to the Police Officials in his Chambers. However, it is stated in Ex.P.1 that on 04.05.1995 at about 3.00 p.m., those 3 persons met him and that he lodged Complaint as per Ex.P.1 to the Police at 4.45 p.m.
21. P.W.9-Sri.Jayaprakash Gowda was working as Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station from June 1994 to July 1998. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has deposed that on 04.05.1995 at about 4.45 p.m., when he was in the Police Station, he received Ex.P.1, Letter and Cheque from P.W.1. He has stated that Ex.P.2 is the Cheque received by him from P.W.1. But, as observed above, Ex.P.2 is a Copy of Cheque only and not the original Cheque. P.W.9 has further deposed that Ex.P.4 is the Copy of Letter received by him from P.W.1. But, P.W.1 has not stated anything about Ex.P.1, much less giving of 16 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] a Letter to P.W.9. The evidence of P.W.9 indicates that he received Ex.P.1, Letter and Cheque from P.W.1 in the Police Station itself. But, it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that he had been to Police Station to handover Complaint and Cheque to P.W.9. Though P.W.1 has stated that he telephoned to Cubbon Park Police Station about the incident and that thereafter, Police Officials came to the Bank, it is not the evidence of P.W.9 that he received any such telephonic message from P.W.1. Thus, it is clear that there are material discrepancies in between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9, which create a serious doubt in their evidence.
22. P.W.9 has further deposed that he registered a case and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.9 and that he reported about the Letter and Cheque to the Court through PF- Ex.P.10.
23. P.W.9 has further deposed that on the same day around 5.00-5.15 p.m., he and his staff went to State Bank of India, St.Mark's Road Branch, Bengaluru and that at that time, the Accused-1 to 3 were in the Chambers of P.W.1 and that he took them to his custody. As per this evidence of P.W.9, the Accused-1 to 3 were in the Chambers of P.W.1 at State Bank of India, St.Mark's Road Branch, Bengaluru and that from that Branch, he took the Accused-1 to 3 to his custody. P.W.7-Sri.H.Manjunath Singh was working as Head Constable at Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. He has deposed that on 04.05.1995 at about 5.00 p.m., the Police Inspector took 17 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] him and other staff to State Bank of India, St.Mark's Road and that at that time, in the Chamber's of Bank Manager, 3 persons were sitting and that the Accused-3 was one among those 3 persons. As per this evidence of P.W.7 also, the Accused-1 to 3 were in St.Mark's Road Branch of State Bank of India. But, as observe above, P.W.1 was working in the Local Head Office of State Bank of India, Bengaluru and it was an Administrative Office only and not a Branch of the Bank or the Bank of transactions. It is not the evidence of P.W.1 that he was working at that time at State Bank of India, St.Mark's Road Branch, Bengaluru and that he handed over the Accused-1 to 3 to P.W.9 from that Branch. P.W.9 has not stated that P.W.1 handed over the Accused-1 to 3 to him at the Administrative Office, where P.W.1 was working. These material discrepancies also create a serious doubt in the case of the Complainant.
24. P.W.9 has further deposed that when he questioned, the Accused-2 informed him that other Accused were near the Bank waiting for the Accused-1 to 3 and that when he came outside the Bank along with the Accused-1 to 3, the Accused-2 identified the Accused-4 to 9, who were near the Bank, and that all those persons along with 3 Cars belonging to the Accused-4, 5 and 7 were brought to the Police Station. He has further deposed that he seized all those 3 Cars under a Mahazar-Ex.P.11 and subjected to PF-Ex.P.12. Though P.W.7 also states that the Accused-2 informed about other 6 persons, those 6 persons were standing near a Hotel and that all those 18 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] persons were brought to the Police Station, he has not stated about bringing of Cars of the Accused-4, 5 & 7 to the Police Station at that time and also seizure of those Cars under a Mahazar. Though he has stated about 6 other persons, it is not his evidence that those 6 persons are the Accused of this case. However, no evidence is placed about the role of the Accused-5 to 9 and as to why the Cars were seized in this case.
25. P.W.9 has further deposed that he questioned the Accused-1 to 9 and recorded their voluntary Statements. P.W.7 has stated that during enquiry, the Accused revealed that one more person by name- Sri.Venkatesh Prasad was involved in the crime and that he was residing in J.P.Nagara. But, P.W.9 has not stated this fact. P.W.7 and 9 have stated that on the same day, the Accused-10 was arrested.
26. P.W.9 has further deposed that on 07.05.1995, the Accused-10 took him to his house and produced Cash of Rs.60,000/-, Note Book used for practicing the signatures of the Officers of CABS and Seals of CABS. He has further deposed that he seized those properties under a Mahazar-Ex.P.13 and subjected the same to PF-Ex.P.14. But, those properties are not produced in the evidence. Though Ex.P.13 indicates that it was drawn in the presence of 2 independent witnesses-Sri.J.Bharath and Sri.Kempu, the Complainant did not produce the evidence of those witnesses. Ex.P.13 also indicates that the said recovery was made on the voluntary information given by the 19 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] Accused-10. But, it is not the evidence of P.W.9 and there is no evidence to show that such a voluntary information was recorded by P.W.9. As such and in the absence of evidence regarding voluntary information as well as the evidence of independent witnesses, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.9 about recovery of Cash, Note Book and Seals, as P.W.9 is an interested Police Officer.
27. As per the Complaint-Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 and as per the evidence of P.W.7 and 9, the Accused-1 to 3 were arrested on 04.05.1995, original Cheque i.e., original of Ex.P.2 was also recovered on 04.05.1995 and as per the evidence of P.W.7 and 9, the Accused-10 was also arrested on 04.05.1995 and recovery of Cash, Note Book and Seals was made on 07.05.1995 under Ex.P.13. But, as observed above, as per the evidence of P.W.2, Cubbon Park Police Officials showed him the original of Ex.P.2 in the presence of the Accused-10 in the last week of March 1995 itself and by that time itself, P.W.2 had learnt that the Accused-10 had stolen the Cheque Leaves and presented those Cheques in the Bank. The said evidence of P.W.2 indicates that in the last week of March 1995 itself, Cubbon Park Police Officials had arrested the Accused-10 and that by that time itself, they had recovered original of Ex.P.2 and that they had the knowledge that the said Cheque was presented to the Bank by the Accused-10. When such is the situation, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 to the effect that presenting of the same Cheque by the Accused-1 to 3 on 04.05.1995 before P.W.1, arrest of the 20 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] Accused-1 to 10 by the Police on that day and recovery of Cash, Note Book and Seals under Ex.P.13 on 07.05.1995 is not at all believable at any stretch of imagination.
3. Forgery
28. According to the Complainant, the Accused-10 created a false Procurement Agreement dated 17.09.1994 purported to be entered into between SET and CABS for supply of materials worth Rs.93 Crores from SET to CABS. According to the Complainant, Ex.P.5 is the Certified Copy of that Agreement. According to the Complainant, the Accused-10 has also created false Receipts dated 02.12.1994 and 15.02.1995 in the name of CABS purported to be executed by CABS for having received Rs.3,05,000/- and Rs.4,80,000/- respectively being the Surety amount from SET regarding supply of materials. Ex.P.17 is the said Receipt dated 02.12.1994 and Ex.P.3 is the Certified Copy of Receipt dated 15.02.1995. According to the Complainant, the Accused-10 has also created a false Cheque dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores purported to be drawn in favour of SET by CABS. Ex.P.2 is the Certified Copy of the said Cheque. According to the Complainant, the Accused-10 has also created a false Letter dated 04.04.1995 purported to be issued by CABS to SET forwarding the Cheque for Rs.93 Crores. Ex.P.4 is the Certified Copy of that Letter. Originals of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 are produced in Spl.C.C. No.111/2000. According to the Complainant, for creating all those false documents, the Accused-10 has forged the signatures of P.W.2, P.W.3 21 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] and C.W.3-Sri.K.Ramchand and thus, the Accused-10 has committed forgery. In order to substantiate the said contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9.
29. P.W.9 has deposed that on 08.05.1995, C.W.14- Sri.S.Venu came to Police Station and produced Cash of Rs.1,11,000/- by telling that the Accused-10 had given that amount to him for purchasing Site. He has further deposed that he seized the said Cash under a Mahazar- Ex.P.15 and subjected the same to PF-Ex.P.16. It is not explained by P.W.9 or any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant that as to how this Cash of Rs.1,11,000/- is related to this case. As such, the said evidence is of no assistance to the Complainant.
30. P.W.9 has further deposed that on 08.05.1995, the Accused-4 led him and his staff to his Office, produced Agreement, Cover addressed to SET and Ex.P.17-Receipt and that he seized the same and subjected them to PF. He has identified Ex.P.5 as the Copy of that Agreement. However, the Cover, which is said to have been seized, is not produced. Though this witness has stated about seizure of 3 documents from the Office of the Accused-4, he has not stated that he seized the same under any Mahazar. But, P.W.6-Sri.H.R.Krishna Shetty has deposed that in the year 1995 on one day, Cubbon Park Police Officers took him to an Office at Basavanagudi area and that at that time, those Officers seized some documents, prepared Mahazar as per Ex.P.8 and that they asked him 22 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] to put his signature. He has identified Ex.P.8(a) as his signature in Ex.P.8. This witness has not stated as to from which Office and from whom those documents were seized by the Police at that time. He has also not stated about the details of those documents. He has not even identified any of those documents. Ex.P.8 appears to be a Mahazar said to have been prepared at the time of seizure of documents from the Office of the Accused-4 on 08.05.1995 by P.W.9. But, P.W.9 has not whispered anything about Ex.P.8. Though P.W.6 has stated about preparation of Ex.P.8 by the Police, he has not whispered anything about the Accused-4. These P.W.6 and P.W.9 have not at all stated as to what were all observed by them at the time of the said seizure. Under all these circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 about the alleged seizure of documents from the Office of the Accused-4.
31. Ex.P.2(a), Ex.P.3(a), Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.5(a) are said to be the signatures of P.W.2 and Ex.P.5(c) is said to be the signature of P.W.3. Ex.P.2(b), Ex.P.2(c), Ex.P.3(b), Ex.P.4(b) and Ex.P.5(b) are said to be the Seals of Office of CABS. In his evidence, P.W.2 has specifically stated that he did not issue Cheque-Ex.P.2 and Receipt-Ex.P.3, he did not write Ex.P.4 and that he did not execute Ex.P.5. He has stated that Ex.P.2(a), Ex.P.3(a), Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.5(a) are not his signatures and that Ex.P.2(b), Ex.P.2(c), Ex.P.3(b), Ex.P.4(b) and Ex.P.5(b) are not the Seals of his Office.
23 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]32. So also, P.W.3 has stated that he did not execute Ex.P.5, Ex.P.5(c) is not his signature and that Ex.P.5(d) is not the Seal of his Office. P.W.4 has stated that his Office did not issue Cheque as per Ex.P.2 to SET at any time. P.W.8 has deposed that his Office has not purchased anything from SET at any time and that his Office had no occasion to issue Cheque to that firm at any time. He has also stated that Ex.P.2(a) is not the signature of P.W.2, Ex.P.4 is not sent from his Office and that Ex.P.5 is not executed by his Office at any time. He has also stated that items shown in Ex.P.5 were not at all required to his Office at any time.
33. P.W.9 has deposed that he collected Specimen Signatures and Handwritings of the Accused-10, P.W.2, C.W.3-Sri.K.Ramchand and P.W.3 and that he sent the same to the Handwriting Expert along with the Questioned Documents. C.W.19-Sri.C.Ashwathappa is the Handwriting Expert. The Complainant did not examine him in this case. However, his evidence has been recorded in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000, which is a connected case to this case and in that case, he has given his evidence as P.W.46. The Accused-10 is the Accused-3 in that case and he has Cross-examined that witness. Ex.P.18 is the Copy of Deposition of that witness recorded in Spl.C.C.111/2000. Both the parties submitted that they have no objection to read Ex.P.18 as the evidence in this case also. By virtue of that consent of both the parties, Ex.P.18 is considered in this case.
24 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]34. Ex.P.18 shows that C.W.19 examined the Questioned Signatures, Writings, Rubber Stamp Impressions on Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5, which are marked as Ex.P.177 to Ex.P.181 respectively in Spl.C.C.111/2000, Standard and Admitted Writings of P.W.2, P.W.3, C.W.3, original Rubber Stamps and DRDO Letter Heads and also an Envelope marked as Ex.P.181 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000. Ex.P.6 (marked as Ex.P.182 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) is the Certified Copy of Standard Writings and Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24 (marked as Ex.P.183 to Ex.P.186 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) of P.W.2, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.25 are the Certified Copies of Standard Writings (marked as Ex.P.187 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) and Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27 are the Admitted Writings (marked as Ex.P.188 & 189 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) and Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.28 are the Certified Copies of Standard Writings (marked as Ex.P.190 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) and Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 are the Admitted Writings (marked as Ex.P.191 and Ex.P.192 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) of C.W.3. Ex.P.18 further shows that after such examination, Sri.C.Ashwathappa gave his Report as per Ex.P.20. In that Report and in his evidence, he has given his Opinion that P.W.2, P.W.3 and C.W.3 did not execute Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. This evidence of C.W.19 corroborates the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8. All these witnesses have stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. On considering this evidence, it is clear that Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5, which are purported to be executed 25 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] by P.W.2, P.W.3 and C.W.3, are not executed by them and that as such, they are false documents.
35. Ex.P.18 further shows that C.W.19 also examined the Disputed Documents and Standard & Admitted Writings of the Accused-10 in Ex.P.31 to Ex.P.47 (which are marked as Ex.P.193 to Ex.P.209 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000) and given his Opinion in Ex.P.20 about that examination. Ex.P.18 shows that for his examination purpose, C.W.19 has marked the Questioned Signatures of P.W.2 in Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 as 'D-1', 'D-4', 'D-2' and 'D-3' respectively, Questioned Signatures of C.W.3 in Ex.P.5 as 'D-6' & 'D-8', Questioned Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.5 as 'D-7', Questioned Writings of the Accused-10 in Ex.P.2 as 'D-5' and also in the Envelope marked as Ex.P.181 in Spl.C.C. No.111/2000 as 'D-22' & 'D-23'. Ex.P.18 also shows that C.W.19 marked the Standard Writings and Signatures of the Accused-10 as 'SS-1' to 'SS-41' and the Admitted Signatures of the Accused-10 as 'A-10' to 'A-29'.
36. In his evidence and in Ex.P.20, it is the Opinion of C.W.19 that the person, who wrote SS-1 to SS-41 and A-10 to A-17, also wrote D-5, D-22 and D-23 and that pictorial resemblance was observed in the execution of D-1 to D-4, D-6 to D-8 with the respective executions in the Note Book marked as A-18 to A-29. On the basis of this evidence, it is the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused-10 has forged Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 and also Envelope-Ex.P.181 marked in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
26 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]This Envelope or its Copy, which said to have contained D- 22 and D-23, is not produced in this case for appreciating the evidence of C.W.19. Note Book said to have contained A-10 to A-29, referred to by C.W.19, is marked as Ex.P.209 in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000. Its Copy is produced in this case as Ex.P.47. But, Ex.P.47 contains only one Sheet and it does not appear as a Note Book. This Sheet contains A-10 only. As such, A-11 to A-29 are not available in this case to appreciate the evidence of C.W.19. In his Cross- examination, C.W.19 has stated that his Examination revealed that D-5 is not in the handwriting of the Accused- 10, he has not furnished any Opinion as to whether D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-6, D-7 & D-8 are in the handwriting of the Accused-10 or not. This answer of C.W.19 negatives his Opinion and evidence given in his Examination-in-chief that D-5 is in the handwriting of the Accused-10 and that D-1 to D-4, D-6 to D-8 pictorially resemble the Admitted Writings of the Accused-10. As such and as D-22 and D-23 are not available in this case for examination, it is not possible to infer that the Accused-10 is the author of the Questioned Writings on Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 and also on the Envelope.
37. The evidence of C.W.19 is only an Opinion evidence. In the case of Magan Bihari Lal -Vs- State of Punjab (AIR 1997 SC 1091), relied upon by the Counsel for the Accused-10, it is held that it is now well settled that Expert Opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution that the Opinion of a Handwriting Expert and 27 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on Expert Opinion without substantial corroboration as the Opinion Evidence is by its very nature, weak and infirm and that it cannot of itself basis for a conviction. In the case on hand also, there is no substantive evidence to corroborate the evidence of C.W.19 against the Accused-10. Furthermore, as observed above, the answer given by C.W.19 in his Cross- examination destroys his Opinion about the evidence against the Accused-10 and as such, it is not safe to believe the evidence of C.W.19. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused-10 has forged Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 and the Envelope.
4. Conclusion
38. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused-10 has contended that as already a case is registered in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000 and that a trial is going on in that case against the Accused-10 regarding the allegations pertaining to the same Cheque-Ex.P.2, trial of this case against the Accused-10 is hit by the principle of double jeopardy and that on this ground alone, the Accused-10 is entitled for acquittal. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Rajashekar Rao Sindya -Vs- State by CBI/SPE, Bengaluru (1998 CRL.L.J. 767), Kolla Veera Raghav Rao -Vs- Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Another (2011 AIR SCW 788) and Kuldip Yadav & Others -Vs- State of Bihar (AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1736). On 28 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] the same ground, the Accused-10 had sought quashing of proceedings of this Court by filing a Criminal Petition No.6401/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. By a Judgment dated 08.07.2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed that Petition by holding that charges framed in Spl.C.C.No.111/2000 and this case are separate and distinct and that as such, principle of double jeopardy does not attract to this case. As such a finding is given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka already, it is not open to the Accused-10 to raise the same contention once again now. Hence, it is not fit to accept the arguments of the Accused-10 that the Accused-10 is entitled for acquittal on the ground of double jeopardy.
39. From the appreciation of evidence placed by the Complainant, as observed above, it is clear that though 2 Cheques were lost from the Office of CABS on 21.03.1995, there is nothing to show that the Accused-10 committed theft of those Cheques. Though the Complainant has contended that Ex.P.2 is the original of one of those 2 Cheques, that Cheque was not recovered from the possession of the Accused-10 or from any one at the instance of the Accused-10. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 that original of Ex.P.2 was presented by the Accused-1 to 3 on 04.05.1995 and that the Accused-10 was arrested on the same day is not at all believable as according to P.W.2, he has seen the original of Ex.P.2 in the last week of March 1995 itself, when the Police Officers showed the same to him by bringing the Accused-10 to the Office of CABS. For the same reason and also in the 29 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] absence of the evidence of independent witnesses to the alleged Mahazar-Ex.P.13, it is not possible to believe the evidence of P.W.9 about recovery of Cash, Note Book and Seals from the Accused-10. As observed above, in view of the material discrepancies in between the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9, it is difficult to believe that Agreement, Envelope and Receipt were seized from the Office of the Accused-4. As observed above, there is no independent evidence to show that the Accused-10 has forged the originals of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 and the evidence of C.W.19 is not fit to be accepted to substantiate the allegation of forgery against the Accused-10. Though P.W.7 and P.W.9 have stated about arrest of the Accused-5 and 9 also on the same day, there is no evidence at all to show their role in the alleged crime. There is nothing or no circumstances to show that there was meeting of minds of the Accused-1 to 10 to commit any of the illegal acts as alleged. For all these reasons, it is not possible to believe the bare allegations of Criminal Conspiracy, Theft, Forgery, Using of Forged Documents, Cheating etc., as charged against the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10. As such, it is clear that the Complainant has failed to place acceptable evidence to prove the Charges against the Accused-3, 5, 9 & 10 and hence, Points-1 to 8 are answered in the Negative.
POINT-9
40. In view of the negative findings on Points-1 to 8, the Accused-3, 5, 9 & 10 are entitled for acquittal. As no one has come forward to claim the Cash of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,11,000/-, it is just and proper to confiscate the 30 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] said Cash to the State. As the Seals seized being worthless are fit to be destroyed and the Bonds executed in respect of seized vehicles are fit to be cancelled. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. Under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 471 r/w. 120-B, 474 r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Accused-3 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Accused- 10 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 467 r/w. 120-B, 465 r/w. 120-B and 468 r/w. 120-B and 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Accused-3, 5, 9 and 10 are set at liberty.
2. Cash of Rs.1,71,000/- be confiscated to State, Seals be destroyed as they are worthless and Bonds executed in respect of the seized vehicles be cancelled, if these properties are not required in Special C.C.No.111/2000.
(Computerized by the Judgment Writer to my dictation, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December 2016.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
31 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE DATES OF THEIR EXAMINATION:
P.W.1 : Sri.R.Sundar Raman 01.09.2015.
P.W.2 : Sri.R.Sathyanarayana 01.09.2015.
P.W.3 : Sri.M.Jankiraman 02.09.2015.
P.W.4 : Sri.H.R.Ramesh Kumar 03.09.2015.
P.W.5 : Sri.B.N.Prasad 04.09.2015. P.W.6 : Sri.H.R.Krishna Shetty 08.09.2015. P.W.7 : Sri.H.Manjunath Singh 29.09.2015. P.W.8 : Sri.K.Tamil Mani 04.11.2015. P.W.9 : Sri.Jayaprakash Gowda 04.11.2015.
2. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED WITH DATE OF EXAMINATION:
-NIL-
3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Dated 04.05.1995 from SBI to CBI.
Ex.P.1(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1.
Ex.P.1(b) : Identified Endorsement with Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.1.32 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
Ex.P.2 : Certified Copy of the Cheque Dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93,00,00,000/- in favour of M/s.South End Technologies.
Ex.P.2(a) : Denied Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.2(b) : Denied Seal of P.W.2 in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.2(c) : Denied Seal of P.W.2 in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.3 : Certified Copy of Receipt Dated
11/15th February 1995 for
Rs.4,80,000/- issued from DRDO,
CABS.
Ex.P.3(a) : Denied Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.3.
Ex.P.3(b) : Denied Seal of P.W.2 in Ex.P.3.
Ex.P.4 : Certified Copy of Letter Dated 04.04.1995 from DRDO, CABS to M/s.South End Technologies.
Ex.P.4(a) : Denied Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.4.
Ex.P.4(b) : Denied Seal of P.W.2 in Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 : Certified Copy of Agreement Dated 17.10.1994 entered between CABS and M/s.South End Technologies.
Ex.P.5(a) : Denied Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.5(b) : Denied Seal of P.W.2 in Ex.P.5. Ex.P.5(c) : Denied Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.5(d) : Denied Seal of P.W.3 in Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.6 : Certified Copy of Specimen
Signatures of P.W.2.
Ex.P.7 : Certified Copy of Specimen
Signatures of P.W.3.
Ex.P.8 : Mahazar Dated 08.05.1995.
Ex.P.8(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.6 in
Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.9 : FIR Dated 04.05.1995.
33 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
Ex.P.9(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in
Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.10 : Property Form in respect of Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.10(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.10.
Ex.P.11 : Mahazar Dated 04.05.1995.
Ex.P.11(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.11.
Ex.P.12 : Property Form in respect of Ex.P.11.
Ex.P.12(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.12.
Ex.P.13 : Mahazar Dated 07.05.1995.
Ex.P.13(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14 : Property Form in respect of Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.14.
Ex.P.15 : Mahazar Dated 08.05.1995.
Ex.P.15(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.15.
Ex.P.16 : Property Form in respect of Ex.P.15. Ex.P.16(a) : Identified Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.16.
Ex.P.17 : Receipt Dated 02.12.1994 for Rs.3,05,000/- issued from DRDO, CABS.
Ex.P.18 : Copy of Deposition of P.W.46 recorded on Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.19 : Copy of Specimen Signature of C.W.3-Sri.K.Ramachand.
Ex.P.20 : Copy of Certificate and Opinion Dated 12.07.1996 of GEQD.
34 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]Ex.P.21 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.183 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.22 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.184 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.23 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.185 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.24 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.186 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.25 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.187 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.26 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.188 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.27 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.189 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.28 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.190 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.29 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.191 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.30 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.192 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.31 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.193 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.32 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.194 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.33 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.195 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.34 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.196 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.35 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.197 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.36 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.198 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
35 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]Ex.P.37 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.199 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.38 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.200 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.39 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.201 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.40 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.202 of Spl.CC.111/2000.
Ex.P.41 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.203 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.42 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.204 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.43 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.205 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.44 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.206 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.45 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.207 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.46 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.208 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.47 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.209 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.48 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.210 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
Ex.P.49 : Certified Copy of Ex.P.211 of Spl.C.C.No.111/2000.
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of Judgment in Spl.CC.No.498/2002.36 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
-NIL-
(ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.37 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J] 38 [Spl.C.C.No.163/2001-J]